There was a debate last night out in Iowa, hosted by Fox News and The Washington Examiner. And sure enough, there was a good supply of pundits willing to weigh in on the matter this morning and to sort the winners from the losers. Most, unfortunately, didn’t bother to ask any Iowans what they thought.
Kevin Robillard of Politico’s Playbook got the list started with a sample of press excerpts and a roundup of tweets. Obama tweeted the middle class lost. Ezra Klein, in a smart post at the Washington Post said nobody won.
But the general consensus quickly settled around Rick Perry—who didn’t participate in the debate and hasn’t (officially) announced he’s running—as the night’s big winner.
Stephen F. Hayes, in a post at The Weekly Standard titled “The Winner in Ames. None of the Above,” wrote “They’re happy tonight in Austin.”
Alex Burns of Politico concurred:
Indeed, virtually all of the candidates helped confirm—in one form or another—that Romney will likely face a tougher political challenge from a late-announcing candidate like Texas Gov. Rick Perry than from any of his currently declared rivals.
The Guardian ran the headline: Rick Perry’s chances spurred by underwhelming Republican debate.
A number of others noted that Romney was a winner in that he didn’t attract the scrutiny a front-runner should, thanks to the back-and-forth bickering of Minnesotans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, whose shared home state continued to provide ample fodder for the most annoying of narratives “Minnesota Nice” turns “Minnesota Ice/Nasty/Mean.”
Tim Pawlenty was a winner to some, a loser to others. And even a winner AND a loser to Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post’s The Fix, who gave one of the fuller analysis of how the field fared.
His winners: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Tim Pawlenty, for his first hour.
Losers: Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty
Stephanie Condon at CBS’s “The Hot Sheet” also neatly sorted the field (save rogue Ron Paul, who by a metric of vocal audience approval would likely have come out on tops).
Winners were Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman.
Losers: Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum.
Now, while this is all great sport, and winners and losers is a fun game to play, but what does a win or a loss in a debate, a couple days before the Republican fundraiser known as the Ames straw poll and more than a year before the Republican National Convention, mean?
As was evident in June, the winner and loser narrative, particularly when political events are few and far between, can be persisting and persuasive. When someone is perceived as losing a debate—a perception the media largely drives—they draw a lot less cash in the days that follow.
No doubt Tim Pawlenty’s notoriously unaggressive performance in the New Hampshire debate back has haunted him and been part of his recent problems.
So these assertions of winners and losers can influence things. And it’s interesting these assertions are not made by polling members of the public, but pulled from the pundit hivemind and spin room—a point which Robert Stacy McCain makes at The American Spectator’s blog.
Interestingly, the Iowa pundits, perhaps with different stakes in mind, pronounced a very different set of winners and losers this morning. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, the losers of the national media, were the winners in Iowa.
And the assertion was based on some actual reporting.
Des Moines Register chief political writer Jennifer Jacobs writes:
A handful of prominent Iowa Republicans interviewed by the Register thought former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich helped their causes.
Pawlenty hurt himself with attacks on Bachmann, said U.S. Rep. Steve King, a western Iowa Republican. “He came out on the losing end,” King said.
Chuck Laudner, a former executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa, agreed, and added that he thought Santorum and Gingrich were the stars of the night.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said, “I think Santorum got in an awful lot of points by being aggressive.”
King is a Bachmann supporter. I don't know who the others support, but you should, before you cite them as random Iowan voices.
#1 Posted by KJ, CJR on Fri 12 Aug 2011 at 07:33 PM
Why was Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.
Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921
Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.
Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again-- how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don't exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.
Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is esse
#2 Posted by Brittanicus, CJR on Fri 12 Aug 2011 at 08:48 PM
How predictable. Foreign Policy magazine uses unproven govt propaganda to "fact-check" Ron Paul (stress mine): "Paul, who has taken the mantle of the Tea Party isolationist wing of the GOP, said that the CIA had confirmed they have no evidence that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon. Although a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its drive to produce a nuclear weapons, in March 2010, a CIA report to Congress concluded that 'Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.' In June of that year, CIA chief Leon Panetta said that the Iranians 'are developing their nuclear capability and that raises concerns,' and '[w]e think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons.'" (Where is the evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon?)
So, what is the FP verdict here? Is Paul factually wrong? They don't say. Hmm...
Then, to give credence to Rick Santorum's argument (versus Paul) for more warfare on Iran, FP says: "Yes, Iran has supplied al Qaeda in Iraq with weapons and supported militant groups such as the Mahdi Army, resulting in the deaths of many U.S. troops."
And what is FP's "proof"? A Time article which actually proves nothing of the sort. Excerpt: "The veracity of these claims is unknowable, however, since the Americans have offered no solid proof to support their allegations." (time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1653385,00.html)
FP can not show where Ron Paul is factually incorrect, so they merely imply that he is off-base. They even derisively mislabel him a "Tea Party isolationist." (How wonderfully trite!) But they never say he is wrong.
WTH? Is that a fact-check or a political ruse?
Foreign Policy magazine should be renamed Foreign Interventionist or The Wilsonian.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 13 Aug 2011 at 06:59 AM