1. I didn’t watch the whole debate. It was painful, but the fault wasn’t with the candidates. I liked both Pete’s and John’s comments.
2. The strangest thing is that nobody went after Romney much. Santorum had that monologue near the end, but that’s hardly going after Mitt’s actual record. Newt didn’t score with his half-hearted effort to out Romney as the heartless boss who brutally lays off. And Pete is right that Romney’s performance was very good and helped him. The main thing about the extended analysis of contraception, same-sex marriage and such is that it made Romney look resolutely conservative. He was funny on the contraceptive thing, reminding people, perhaps, that married Mormons, unlike Catholics, are allowed to use contraceptives, if not all the time.
3. Gingrich once again has changed his strategy. He clearly has figured out that being whiny and vengeful doesn’t work. (He did have the one meltdown on being insulted by Paul on his lack of military service—making Paul look reasonable.) So Gingrich pretty much laid off Romney too. He came off as the most resolute defender of the Catholic Church, and that probably helped Romney by allowing Mitt to endorse his tough comments. I agree Newt must be waiting to reemerge with Santorum’s implosion. That would require, I think, that he win in South Carolina.
4. Santorum did very well in fending off the shameful Paul “Betrayed” commmercial attack on him, although he should have been more forceful in holding Paul accountable for its content. He also didn’t come off as extremist on marriage and all that—thanks to Mitt and Newt. Pete’s right, he didn’t really stand out. And he needed to . . . He didn’t act like or seem to be THE alternative to Romney, and he seemed less presidential than Romney and even Gingrich. On the other hand, he seemed like a smart, competent guy, which may be all some not-Romneyers were looking for.
5. I thought Paul had too many goofy moments to have scored—for example, that stuff on race relations and on the unconstitutionality of anti-contraceptive laws. But he did get all his key points in. He may have come off to many as the alternative to Romney.
6. Huntsman also didn’t stand out, although he was okay, in both English and Mardarin. The Gingrich-Santorum-Romney stand against same-sex marriage and today’s threats to religious freedom might have helped him shine, nonetheless, as the most tolerant and cosmpolitan candidates to some New Hampshire voters.
7. Perry was spirited, although you wondered why he was there.
8. In general—it appears to have been a good day for Romney. He was plenty presidential, even with his empty rhetoric, in the debate. There doesn’t seem to be a Santorum surge in New Hampshire. Paul isn’t losing ground, and Huntsman’s progress is tiny. So Pete is right that Romney’s vote total will dwarf the others, and it’s most likely right now that Paul will be a fairly to very distant second.
9. You can wonder why none of the candidates talked about GRISWOLD v. CONN. It wouldn’t exactly help Santorum to explain why the case was wrongly decided, and that laws concerning contraception are, in fact, left to the states. He would have to add that he wasn’t actually for such laws right now, and it would have pleased the MSM not to have notced that part of the answer. Paul, I think, actually agrees with Santorum on what’s left to the states, but he’s completely clueless on constitutional law. His comments on the matter made no sense. Romney probably doesn’t know about GRISWOLD, but he did say ROE was wrongly decided. And he was right to remark that the question was ridiculously irrelevant, given that no state wants to ban contraceptives right now (but some do want to ban and a good number restrict abortion). Someone might have said, of course, to deflate the questioner: The Court itself has abandoned the idea of the right to privacy when it comes to abortion, sexual intimacy, and so forth.
