Call it the Sedate Debate.
In sharp contrast to the most recent two Republican debates-one on Fox News and one on CNN-last night's NBC match-up of the four remaining GOP candidates was a mostly sober, straight-faced affair. Sure, there were some fireworks, but there was almost none of the Tea Party grandstanding and media bashing that marked the forums leading us into South Carolina.
So on Monday, inside an auditorium on the campus of the University of South Florida, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum had their first of two remaining televised opportunities to present their individual cases to the Florida Republicans prior to Tuesdays' primary. And with less than twenty-four hours before President Obama gives his State of the Union address, these four GOP candidates struggled mightily to clarify for debate watchers what they saw as the strategic issues facing Republicans nationally.
Sure, there was a long, protracted exchange between Romney and Gingrich which produced-among other things-a sense that electability has now become the dominant theme of the conversation. During this freewheeling but generally polite exchange, during which NBC's Brian Williams notably did not intervene, each of the front-runners accused the other of distortion and outright dishonesty.
For Gingrich, the albatross seems to be his relationship-contractual or otherwise-with the failed mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For Romney, the issue is his wealth and his taxes, and whether he had in fact created jobs as a venture capitalist. Both sought to deflect the barbs or, at least, redirect the narrative, and a clearly more aggressive Romney attempted to land as many direct punches as possible. In response, a clearly more subdued Gingrich sought to wave aside questions which he saw as un-presidential.
The result for debate watchers was an extended period of jousting which left former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Texas Representative Ron Paul waiting in the wings-literally.
But despite the moral quibbling between Romney and Gingrich, for better or worse (and many Republicans would say for the better) the larger debate conversation turned oddly but refreshingly strategic. Perhaps in recognition of the potential for self-immolation, the four candidates reigned in some of their combativeness and even seemed at times conciliatory. The more subdued, genteel format established by NBC News meant that there were fewer opportunities for grandstanding by the candidates, and almost none of the visceral, partisan outbursts from the audience that have marked recent debates.
The contenders themselves seemed to sense that the theatrics of machetes and chainsaws is placing the GOP at grave risk of civil war, especially in the context of a general election nine months away-a post-convention stretch in which the Democratic Party and Barack Obama's campaign may have as much as one billion dollars to spend attacking Republicans. Some of the GOP's incoming fire in the fall will surely include television and internet advertising using the words of these very Republican candidates.
So ultimately, as Williams pointed out at the start of the debate, the issue for Republicans is now electability.
When asked directly whether he was too much of a loose cannon and too disruptive to the system to be seen as anything but a suicide mission for the GOP, Gingrich responded by comparing his current situation to the that which faced Ronald Reagan in the run-up to the election of 1980. Reagan was viewed as unelectable, but managed to overcome a thirty point deficit in the polls and win the election by a huge landslide.
"I would suggest," Gingrich went on, "that a solid conservative who believes in economic growth through lower taxes and less regulation, who believes in an American energy program, who believes in a strong national defense, and who has the courage to stand up to the Washington establishment...may make the Washington establishment uncomfortable, but may also be exactly the kind of bold, tough leader the American people want."
"They're not sending someone to Washington to manage the decay," Gingrich added, "they're sending someone to Washington to change it. And that requires someone prepared to be controversial when necessary."
When Williams asked Gingrich about his inauspicious departure from his role as House Speaker in the 1990's, Gingrich defended his past by listing a variety of his legislative accomplishments, including four consecutive balanced budgets, lower unemployment, and an increase in jobs-all in a time when he and other Republicans had to work closely with a Democratic President.
Then the tables turned and Williams directed the same question to Romney. Romney said flatly that the issue is leadership, quickly sharpening his point to include why Gingrich is unqualified, and, unelectable.
"The Speaker was given an opportunity to be the leader of this party in1994," Romney said, "and at the end of four years he had to resign in disgrace." Romney said that Gingrich arrived in Washington (read: became a part of the establishment) in the same period of the 1970s when Romney was just getting his first job; and that at the same time that Gingrich was being ousted from the Speaker's job, Romney was reorganizing an Olympics project behind schedule and over budget. Romney then said the Gingrich has been "an influence peddler" more-or-less ever since the former Speaker was ousted.
Thus began a long stretch of nasty jousting between the two front-runners. Gingrich accused Romney of being unable to tell the truth, and Romney said that the GOP faced "historic losses" as a direct result of the Speaker's misbehaviors and unpopularity in the 1990s.
When Williams pressed Romney on his own negative ads and newly aggressive approach, Romney said that his setbacks in South Carolina had taught him the need to respond to "incoming fire" and not to stand by idly when he is attacked.
When the question finally rolled over to Rick Santorum, whom Williams quoted as calling the two-man race between Romney and Gingrich "a choice between an erratic and a moderate," the former Pennsylvania senator said that his path forward is to "present a very clear contrast with the President of the United States." Santorum also touted his record of consistent conservatism and his appeal to "Reagan Democrats," citing the great difficulty he faced remaining true to his beliefs in a heavily democratic state. Santorum added that the notion of a two-candidate race was faulty from the start-the proof: his come-from-behind win in Iowa.
But for Santorum, whose eventual certification as the victor in the Iowa caucus may have come too late for his campaign to exploit for the purposes of momentum, and with third place finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina, time may be running out. Santorum must finish Florida with respectable results-some have said no less than second-place-to survive into February. If the vote count in the Sunshine State on January 31 leaves Santorum stuck in third place, the relevancy of his campaign may become lost, and his fundraising efforts may dry up completely.
Then Williams went fishing for a clear answer from Representative Ron Paul regarding the background story of a possible third party run. Paul defended the legitimacy of his candidacy by bringing the theme quickly back to electability: he has drawn in more young voter and more independent voters than any Republican in recent memory, and, in head-to-head poll match-ups between Paul and Obama, Paul fares better than many of his GOP colleagues.
So Bryan William's pressed the question again, this time more directly. "Let me come at it this way," Williams asked, "if Newt Gingrich emerges from the GOP primary process as the nominee of the party, do you go your own way?" To which Paul said "well, I've done a lot of that in my lifetime," generating laughter from the room. When Williams sharpened his question even more, Paul said simply that he had no plans to run as an independent.
Then the question turned back to Romney and the ongoing questions of his income and taxes. Romney said there would be no surprises tomorrow when he releases complete returns for 2010 and an estimate for 2011.
"I'm sure people will talk about it," Romney said, "you'll see my income, how much taxes I paid, how much I paid to charity, you'll see how complicated taxes can be. But I pay all the taxes that are legally required, and not a dollar more." Romney added that he "is proud of the fact that I pay a lot of money in taxes."
Williams then asked Gingrich if he was satisfied with Romney's disclosures, but Gingrich refused to take the bait.
"My position is not to attack him for paying the fifteen percent marginal rate," Gingrich said, "I'd like to bring everybody else down to Mitt's rate, and not try bring him up to some other rate."
Inevitably perhaps, Romney was asked about how the issue of his personal wealth seems to have taken center stage, and his need to defend his success in business. Romney offered a partial retort which he has used many times over the last few days: he expected this from the Obama people, but not from fellow Republicans.
"I will not apologize for having been successful," Romney said. "I did not inherit what my wife and I have, nor did she. What we have and what I was able to build, I built the old fashioned way-by earning it, by working hard." Romney cited examples of the businesses he helped to build-Staples, The Sports Authority, Bright Horizons Children Centers.
Santorum, who has not picked a fight with Romney on the issue of Romney's work with Bain Capital, nevertheless has strong opinions about wealth and free enterprise, questioning both Gingrich and Romney for the support-as he saw it-of the Wall Street bailouts at the start of the financial meltdown in 2008.
"My question for Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich," Santorum said, "is that if you believe in capitalism, then why did you support the bailout of Wall Street?-where you had an opportunity to allow destructive capitalism to work. To allow the failure of a system that needed to fail because, in capitalism, you pay a price. We should have allowed those financial institutions to go through the bankruptcy process...instead of allowing government to go in and prop them up."
Just as the issue of Romney's wealth and his work with Bain Capital was inevitable, so were the issues surrounding Gingrich's relationship with Freddie Mac. Gingrich, only hours before the debate, released copies of his contract with the mortgage giant.
Gingrich denied flatly that he engaged in lobbying, again stressing his preferred term-consultant. Romney, who saw his chance to bloody Gingrich, pounced quickly, citing Gingrich's fee of $300,000 (the documents may in fact show fees approaching into the millions) as a "historian" as an example of the former Speaker's true relationship with Freddie Mac. Then, the aforementioned boxing match meandered from the definition of a lobbyist to Bain's gross income to Medicare and back to which one of them-Romney versus Gingrich-was the bigger liar.
In the meantime, the conventional notion of the two top-tier candidates-Gingrich and Romney-as deeply flawed politicians leading the party into disaster in November has gained traction among the talking heads and sages. Speculation abounds that the GOP elite is seeking ways to coax a popular non-candidate into the fray-Jeb Bush of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie (who has already endorsed Romney) of New Jersey-anyone not widely seen as damaged goods.
As was the case four years ago, Mitt Romney has apparently reached his glass ceiling of support among the caucus and primary states. With the release tomorrow of his taxes, there is concern that the former Massachusetts governor will be an easy target for the Democrats. Obama's well-run machine in Chicago will no doubt portray Romney as a super wealthy, out-of-touch elitist-and someone who pays a lower percentage on his taxes than the vast majority of Americans.
And tomorrow night, the President will walk in front of a joint session of the House and Senate to give his State of the Union address. One theme rumored to be a highlight of this speech will be tax reform, and Republicans in Washington already have a keen eye ready for what Obama may be planning to propose-higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals.
Copyright 2012 Thursday Review
