Early Morning Live Blogging of the Last New Hampshire Debate

And we are on.

Gingrich gets the invitation to come out swinging and he doesn’t miss the opportunity to claim Mitt smeared him.

As been his custom, Mitt is going to take the high road here and focus on Obama as the enemy.  The rest of these Republicans are so many distractions.

Santorum also goes on the attack.  Mitt won’t stand up for conservative principles.  He’s to the left of Ted Kennedy.  There’s not a lot of room on Kennedy’s left. And then he bailed, not seeking reelection.

Mitt’s response: I’m not a career politician.

Santorum is the best candidate at looking incredulous.  Not run for reelection? What?

Gingrich: I realize you think the red light doesn’t mean anything to you because you are the front runner.  Newt has had his caffeine this morning.  He rips into Mitt as a career – albeit unsuccessful – politician.

Is Romney unelectable?  Perry says they are all insiders, except for him.

Gregory gives Romney a chance to repudiate candidate Romney from the 1990’s.  Mitt cites his record since – he’s a born again conservative.  (Or, he’s a flip flopper.)

Huntsman piles on Mitt by playing the family/military/country card. Last night Mitt ripped into Huntsman for serving Obama as China’s ambassador.  Mitt defends the charge, but Huntsman doesn’t give ground.  He has a cheering section this morning.  His daughters?

Three cuts he would make?  Means testing social security and medicare.

Santorum agrees with means testing, but not before noting that he’s attracting big crowds in New Hampshire.  Return food stamps to the state as a block grant, same for welfare.

Gingrich gets in his obligatory shot at the talking heads/pundits.

Perry remembers his three cabinet agencies!  Nicely done, Rick!

FIRST BREAK

So far a feistier and more pointed exchange than last night’s.  Everyone is on their game, and Santorum and Gingrich are clearly realizing this is their last chance to take on the Mittster.  The policy analysis was instructive – as Jack notes, these are not timid positions to take.  Means-testing of entitlements, block grants?  Sensible stuff, but politically controversial.  Seniors vote. So much so that Santorum has to elaborate on his health care plan.

Let’s talk tax cuts.  Buffet has become the poster boy for raising taxes on the wealthy.  but he doesn’t vote in New Hampshire.   No one is going to buy into Buffet’s plan.  Instead, Republicans like tax reform.  Not tax hikes.  Even if they are the same thing in many respects.  A silly question by Gregory.

Newt is on his game this morning – the obvious response to another poor question by Gregory.  I’ve made this point before, but Gingrich makes it better: the other party always wants to make you a one-term president.  That’s politics!  Dumb question.

Here’s a better question to Paul – how come you don’t get anything passed in Congress?  Answer?  Congress is out of step with the people, not me!  Expect Santorum and Gingrich to tout their record of getting things done, in contrast to Paul.

And, right on cue, Santorum takes out the cudgel.  Not only does Paul not get things done – he’s a risk as commander in chief.  Nicely phrased.  Rick obviously sees Paul as his main opponent for second place.

I confess I don’t understand the point Gregory is trying to make here regarding changing the culture of Washington.  The obvious answer is by changing the people in Washington.  I’m surprised no candidate is saying this.  Lots of touchy feely stuff here but I’m not sure how helpful it is in choosing a candidate.

Term limits always gets applause, but it’s been tried before and went nowhere.

Let’s play a morning game. Let’s sum up each candidate’s strategy in one word.  Start with Perry:  “Outsider”.  Romney:  “Businessman”.  Santorum: Conservative.  Paul: Cranky.  Ok, that’s not fair.  let’s say libertarian.  Gingrich:  Wonk.  Huntsman: Professor?  Elite?  Hmmmm… Democrat?

Hey, cool – they are running the Huntsman ad targeting Romney, the “Chameleon”.

@Jack – I like your Paul phrase better – “isolationist”.

Huntsman had a weak debate last night – he’s been much better this morning.  And it’s not due to caffeine.

Sometimes Paul’s tangents on economic policy are wonderful to hear, but totally irrelevant to the question.  This is one of them.

I have to confess that all these candidates often fall back on state’s rights and federalism when they don’t want to specify what cuts they would make in the social welfare state.  It’s too easy to say let the states handle this. A bit of a cop out.

Hiller has been a longtime Boston reporter who was covering Mitt when he was governor here back in the 1990’s, and who is noted for putting politicians on the spot.  The gay rights question is one that has bedeviled Santorum in New Hampshire in the last few days.  (Jack – I agree – not a fruitful line of inquiry, but the issue has flared up at Santorum’s rallies in NH, so I think that’s why Hiller is pushing it.)

Where’s Newt? Not getting much face time in this sequence.

the union question, and the answers, is really directed toward South Carolina more than NH.

BREAK

Summary so far?  I think Newt and Rick and Rick have to push Romney more than they have so far.   They’ve scored some points, but they need to work harder.  Paul, I think, has been less effective than in past debates – he seems crankier, more out of sorts than usual. Huntsman is doing well – one of his better performances, and much needed after last night.  And it helps that he’s running his ads during this debate – I’m surprised more candidates aren’t doing this.  (Technically, of course, they aren’t Huntsman’s ads – they are DestinyPac’s.)

Final Half Hour.  Gregory lobs an easy one to Gingrich and Gingrich knocks it down with disdain and instead goes back to a previous question.   This gives him  a chance to talk about gas prices and energy policy.  He does this format so well.  Question: will it help him in the polls, and at the ballot box?  We’ll find out in two days.

I’m surprised that the Manchester Union guy hasn’t attacked Mitt more.  Mitt: Massachusetts receives a lot of air from the rest of the country.  I think he recognizes that Newt’s energy answer was pretty good, and he better match it. Hence the natural gas aside.

Manchester Union – this is a setup question designed to allow Newt to riff on his deregulation/anti-EPA policy points.   No – don’t talk about Iowa dust regulations.  It’s New Hampshire Newt!  Still, a good answer.

Perry: Our president is a socialist.  Period.

Gregory: Doesn’t that make you a socialist, Rick Santorum, for voting for prescription drug without funding?  Santorum says it was a mistake, but it wasn’t socialism.

Paul: entitlements are not rights. This is the essence of his candidacy and he does a good job on this issue.  It really defines where he stands.

Huntsman has been playing the trust issue heavily  in this debate.  I have to think he has some polling data that suggests this is an issue that polls well for him.   This is at least the second time he’s driven this point home.

One thing to keep in mind in evaluating the impact of these debates is that they are playing out within a last minute media blitz that is blanketing New Hampshire.  I’m not clear just how influential debate performances are now, compared to earlier in the process when information levels were lower and candidates less well known.  Also, other than Jack and me, who else is up and actually watching this thing?

Jack – here’s your foreign policy question: Iran and nukes – why can’t we live with that?  Rick: a theocracy is different than a communist state.

Newt gets a chance to defend his movement to the campaign dark side.  Is this a defining moment?  Newt calls out Mitt!  Mitt responds by calling out Newt!  A great exchange!  But Mitt shouldn’t hide behind the “I can’t influence the SuperPact” dodge.  Newt comes back with free publicity for the anti-Mitt film.  Newt really needed more of these types of exchanges – one on one with Mitt.  Mitt made a mistake getting down on the same stage with Newt on this point, because it appears to validate Newt’s charge that this is a real issue, and not whining.  Point for Newt in this exchange.  But, will it matter?

Closing statements.  Last chance city.

What?  No last statements?  Booo!!

First impressions?  I thought Newt was finally able to bloody Mitt, but not fatally so.  He really needed more exchanges like the last one to elevate his campaign profile once again.  That exchange worked for him because it forced Romney to step down from his “it’s me versus Obama” frame and acknowledge that he has competitors for this nomination.  Huntsman had his best debate performance but to what purpose?  Perry was fine – he throws in his canned applause lines – but he seemed an afterthought on stage.  I don’t think this helped him much.  Paul had good moments – but more cranky ones, I thought.  His discourse on monetary policy was just nutty politically.   Santorum was solid, but I don’t think he’s going to play well in New Hampshire.

How soon will it take for Gingrich to incorporate Mitt’s “Of course they are my former staff” members running the superpac into his own superpac ad?

Two days left – is that enough time for the impact of this debate to change the dynamics of this race?  Note that neither Newt or Rick have to win here – all they need to do is to close the gap to make it look like Mitt lost support in his backyard state. Just how fluid is Mitt’s support?  I guess we will find out.  Now, on to the spin.  I’ll be on later today with a look at New Hampshire polling and related issues.

Now go eat breakfast!