Saturday New Hampshire Debate – Leave Mitt Alone, Candidates!

When we last left the Republican presidential debate stage (hard to believe, but the last debate was on December 15th), Newt Gingrich was firmly in the lead in Iowa, Rick Santorum was stuck in single digits in the polls, Rick Perry was asking for a second chance, and Michele Bachmann was still trying to regain traction.

Oh, and Mitt Romney was in the mid-20’s in the polls.

A little over three weeks later, Santorum has replaced Gingrich as the latest “flavor of the month,” Bachmann has dropped out, and Ron Paul continues his strong presence (with little respect from his opponents or the media) in the race to the eternal indigestion of the Republican elites.

Oh, and Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie for the win in Iowa with a shade less than 25% of the vote.

Such was the setting for the first post-Iowa Republican debate (at Saint Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, moderated by ABC News personalities Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous), with the stage considerably less crowded than the last time the GOP field gathered to discuss the issues of the day in the Granite State – nearly three months ago.

In all fairness, Jon Huntsman deserves some sort of introduction as well, though he wasn’t a factor in Iowa – and if he doesn’t do well in the primary next Tuesday, we may not see him again at the post New Hampshire debates.

Who won?

The ABC commentators seemed most interested in whether the candidates could dent Mitt Romney’s supposed insurmountable lead, and for the most part, they didn’t do it.

Romney was allowed pretty much full reign to bloviate on economic/jobs issues, and he spent the majority of his time attacking President Obama rather than defending his weak record.

With just a couple days remaining until the New Hampshire voters go to the polls, you can’t help but feel that a major opportunity was missed by the non-Romney candidates to try and paint him in a moderate “establishment” corner.

Angry Newt?

Certainly one of the more interesting storylines emerging from the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses involved the attitude transformation of Newt Gingrich, who had patiently waited his turn to become the “conservative” anti-Romney choice, finally emerging as the solid alternative in the pre-Iowa polls, only to plummet to earth in similar fashion to the other fallen “flavors.”

When the Iowa votes were counted, Gingrich ended up fourth – and he wasn’t happy about it.

Gingrich’s fall from the conservative perch was perhaps the most surprising of all the candidates, because there weren’t any shockingly poor debate or media performances (such as those that plagued Rick Perry) or personal character revelations (such as those that brought down Herman Cain) to mark a discernible downward path in public opinion.

Instead, Gingrich endured a barrage of negative ads from Super PACs loyal to "Mr. Establishment," Mitt Romney, and the former Speaker didn’t have the resources – or the time – to fight back in Iowa.

As a result, Gingrich left the Hawkeye State in a surly mood, vowing to go after Romney with a lot more urgency – and that started with Newt calling Mitt a “liar” the other day, as well as running some hard-hitting ads in New Hampshire and taking a much more aggressive tone towards Romney in campaign appearances.

But it didn’t work out that way. Newt was rather tame in Saturday night's forum.

Newt’s best answer on Saturday evening came when questioning the media’s one-sided handling of the gay marriage issue, which George Stephanopolous was pressing to the point of being downright ridiculous.

Gingrich retorted that the media wasn’t reporting the “other” side of the question, namely what happens to organizations like Catholic charities that are forced (and punished) by the government to comply with policies that are antithetical to their mission.

Newt argued that the media had a religion-bias, and who could really refute that point?

Newt is still extremely effective in a debate setting… but is it too late for him?

Santorum in the spotlight

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum languished in the polls for months while nearly all of his fellow Republican candidates had their turn at the top, but ended up smelling like a rose (or should we say, an Iowa corn stalk) in the end with a first-place tie with Mitt Romney.

Santorum had been largely ignored by the media (and everyone else) up until the last couple of weeks in December, leaving many wondering whether he’ll be able to withstand the increased scrutiny that comes along with being known as the “non-Romney” choice of the conservative Republican block.

As numerous commentators have pointed out, over 75% of Iowans didn’t vote for Romney. But is Santorum the natural fit for the remainder (and let’s not talk about Ron Paul’s 20+ percent here)? The increased post-Iowa examination that Santorum has received has revealed:

1. He was in the Republican leadership when in the Senate, and not only signed-on to George W. Bush’s agenda (including No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D), he was an advocate for it;
2. He was one of the worst earmarking offenders;
3. He was no stranger to the K Street lobbying circuit.
and,
4. He backed ultra-RINO Sen. Arlen Specter over a potential challenge from now-Sen. Pat Toomey in 2004. This one shows that he's a Republican team-player, not necessarily a strong attribute in this Tea Party-driven election cycle.

This is a partial list, by the way.

In other words, Santorum was a key part of the problem for Republicans in the 2000s – how can he now be the solution?

Like Newt (and most of the others), Santorum has renounced some of his past votes as “mistakes” and swears he now understands the need for fiscal austerity and adherence to the Constitution, but can he be trusted?

The jury’s still out.

Santorum spent more time going after Ron Paul on Saturday night than he did in attacking Mitt Romney, which makes you wonder where his priorities are (or were).

Santorum’s always been known as somewhat of a loose cannon, but even he’s got to figure that he’s not going to win more votes from the Ron Paul contingent. Therefore, his singular focus (like that of Newt Gingrich) should have been to assail the record of the former Massachusetts governor, who somehow has convinced about a quarter of Republican voters that he’s the best candidate to go up against Obama in November.

By and large, Santorum didn’t do it during the debate. Maybe it’s because he’s adopting a Newt Gingrich-like strategy of taking the high road, but failing to assail the establishment’s frontrunner isn’t going to help him gain percentage points -- or credibility with conservatives.

With a significant portion of this debate devoted to irrelevant issues such as contraception and gay marriage, Santorum had a real chance to go after Romney for his weak record on conservative social issues of all types – but he didn’t do it.

Santorum might have been a little gun-shy in his first debate as a top-tier contender – but that feeling had better end soon if he’s going to continue to get conservatives’ attention. Someone (other than Gingrich) needs to expose Romney.

Simply put, Santorum failed to be that person.

Ron Paul – The constant in an ever-changing world

With a strong third place finish in Iowa, Ron Paul is certainly garnering a lot more attention than he did four years ago, when some of the “major” networks sought to exclude him from the post Iowa debates (remember the controversy over Fox News denying him a spot?).

That being said, most of Paul’s questions from the ABC moderators involved quirky statements that he’s recently made or attack ads that his campaign has run against his opponents – to the point where Paul seems to be constantly on the defensive.

For example, he was asked to defend an ad in South Carolina where Rich Santorum was called “corrupt” for the former Senator’s connection to various lobbying interests.

Paul didn’t back down, taking the opportunity to label Santorum as a “big government conservative,” highlighting the differences in their backgrounds and philosophies.

It’s an emphasis on issues that the media doesn’t feel comfortable with, and will unfortunately prevent Paul from presenting himself in a very positive light. Like it or not, Paul’s foreign policy views are considered outside the mainstream of the GOP – and for that reason, he’ll continue to be treated as a mere “curiosity” by the media and the party establishment.

Paul himself reiterated that he’s ultimately trying to move his fellow party opponents off their positions – and in the end, that might be the Texas congressman’s greatest contribution to campaign 2012.

Does Huntsman fit in?

It’s a well known fact that Jon Huntsman has bet his entire political fortune on New Hampshire, so it’s only appropriate that he should come out swinging in this debate (which he did). Huntsman correctly figures that he really has nothing to lose in going after Mitt Romney for the moderate/establishment vote, and he was really the only Republican who took the opportunity to do so consistently.

Huntsman assaulted Romney’s record on job creation as well as questioning his “get tough” stance on China, asserting that such bravado may win Mitt votes back home but would have little positive effect on the Chinese themselves.

Jon Huntsman entered the race as a relative unknown – and barring a political miracle – will leave it as a relative unknown. He came in saying he wasn’t going to go after Obama’s record, arguing that a positive campaign would distinguish him from the rest.

It didn’t. It only made him look like a wimp.

And it’s a shame in one sense. As commentators have looked into Huntsman’s record, they’ve found a man who doesn’t really talk conservative but who delivers a conservative agenda – perhaps to a greater degree than several of the so-called “conservatives” in the race. And that includes Mitt Romney.

Huntsman’s wishy-washy positions on issues such as climate change would automatically earn him suspicion as a RINO – but there’s little doubt, after examining the record – that he’s more conservative than Mitt Romney.

If Huntsman had become the establishment choice instead of Romney, it might have led to slightly more acceptance among conservatives and Tea Partiers. But that didn’t happen.

One can’t help but think that Huntsman’s days are numbered… and there was nothing from this debate that changes that impression. Huntsman might make a fine Secretary of State – but he isn’t going to be president.

Perry: “I would put troops back in Iraq.”

The final question of the debate was the usual popcorn stuff served up by the media personalities about the candidates’ personal lives. “This is Saturday night – if you weren’t here, what would you be doing?”

Rick Perry was the first to respond, saying, “I’d be at the shooting range,” which drew laughter and applause from the audience.

Perry might as well be at the shooting range, because he shot himself in the foot in this debate. Case in point was his incredibly stupid answer in response to a line of questioning dealing with the unstable situation in the middle east, whereby he said: “If I were president, I would put troops back into Iraq.”

What?

Granted, President Obama has made a number of decisions that have drawn the ire of conservatives and the American public, but his decision to finally end the American large-scale military presence in Iraq wasn’t one of them.

Sure, there were the neoconservative voices who would decry any kind of pullback from Iraq, but in general, people have met the decision to finally end the war with welcome relief and begrudging acceptance that perhaps things can’t/won’t get any better, and now is as good a time as any for the troops to come home.

And now Perry says he’d put the fighting forces back in? This isn’t 2008, but Perry seems to be trying to resurrect the failed candidacy of John McCain. Put the military back into Iraq?

Was that another gaffe for Perry…? It underscores the belief that Perry just doesn’t know what he’s talking about in foreign affairs, a question that’s dogged him throughout his campaign.

Perry is clearly hanging around to see if he might get a second opportunity to be the non-Romney candidate, but this certainly isn’t the way to do it. If Rick doesn’t place well in South Carolina, it’s time to go.

10 hours…

Until the next debate.

I don’t know who drew up the schedule, but part II of this weekend’s presidential debates is set to take place at 9am EST on Sunday, also in New Hampshire.

We’ll have to wait until then to determine whether the candidates will really start going after Romney – or whether the news media will once again thwart the effort.