Romney one step closer to Pawlentyville
What did I tell you just this morning. Mitt Romney needs to take on Newt face-to-face, mano a mano, to demonstrate that Mitt is not Tim Pawlenty, someone who can dish it out through surrogates or in television interviews, but not in person.
This is a sign that Romney doesn’t want to do it, at least not one on one, Romney Declines Lincoln-Douglas Debate Against Gingrich:
With the Republican presidential primary appearing to have narrowed into a two-man contest, Human Events and Red State moved quickly to lock down a date for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
The two organizations went so far this past Monday as to firm up the Annenberg Theater at the Newseum in Washington as the venue on Dec. 19 after another debate originally scheduled that day was canceled. For its part, the Newseum was excited to host the pre-primary forum.
There was just one problem. While Gingrich was ready to take his place on the stage, the Romney campaign politely declined in a series of mostly e-mail exchanges.
As Joe Guerriero, publisher of Human Events and Red State, put it to RCP: “Newt was all over it, and the Romney camp basically said no. It wasn’t a harsh no, but it was a no.”
Two highly influential publications offer the two leading contenders a chance to have a wide ranging debate on the issues, and to confront each other, and one takes the opportunity while the other one declines.
I understand why Romney declines. But it’s just another step on the road to Pawlentyville.
Update: This Is A Genius Move By Gingrich
Newt Gingrich has invited Jon Huntsman to engage in another long Lincoln-Douglas style debate on December 12, in Windham New Hampshire. Newt did a similar debate with Herman Cain earlier this year. Huntsman accepted.
It’s a genius move for Gingrich, and a good one by Huntsman. Romney has declined an invitation to engage Gingrich in this kind of debate.
Newt Gingrich gets to elevate Huntsman in New Hampshire, which could hurt Mitt Romney.
Gingrich believes that he can beat anyone in a debate and will look smarter than any of his opponents. The more air-time he gets, the better for him.
Mitt Romney looks like a chicken for not accepting a debate challenge with his chief rival.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Actually, William, I think you’re absolutely right. My thing is I just can’t stand Newt Gingrich. I written about it, and you’re linked: ‘Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich’.
Well Mitt didn’t go to Iowa for the Luntz cryfest either.
Newt will crow over Mitt & folks will shrug.
Why doesn’t Newt ask Gov. Perry…I mean if Perry is so dumb it’s a slam dunk for Newt right?
Of course Perry will talk about what he’s been doing as a Three term governor of Texas and Newt can either talk about stuff he did 20 years ago or theory or how many moneymaking political operations he’s built which could be a problem.
This one-on-one debate style is the only way to get the candidates outside of their 30 second sound bite comfort zone. Is it any wonder that most would refuse?
What would there be to gain by winning a debate against Perry? On the other hand, a perceived loss to Perry could be quite embarrassing…
Why doesn’t Gov. Perry ask Newt? I mean that seriously. Would be good to see them on stage together.
I totally agree! And I’m still willing to keep an open mind about Perry. Bring it on!
Prof. I’m assuming it’s a Newt “thingy” but It would be cool to see. I think Newt & Huntsman will have an interesting and wonky policy discussion.
I think the contrast between Newt & Perry would be that of a policy wonk lawmaker and a plain speaking executive who started as a conservator legislator.
no thank you…No More RINOS!
Perry for President 2012.
we know he’s a great candidate because the Beltway pundits and the MFM hate him.
Doesn’t your analysis apply equally to Newt?
Not that it makes a huge difference, but “mano a mano” means hand-to-hand. Unless used metaphorically – and I assume it is – it’s probably not really necessary to wrestle and win to get the nomination 😉
Would liven up them debates tho’. Perhaps Linda MacMahon’s husband could help orchestrate.
Gingrich is displaying the kind of chess playing politics he learned in congress, the sort of maneuvering it will take to defeat Obama in the general when things will get very, very ugly. Gingrich is a consummate political infighter. If Mitt can’t handle Brett Baier and won’t go one on one with Newt, how are we supposed to believe he’d take on Obama?
RE: Perry. I love the guy on paper, and knew little of him till he jumped in, but since then…. what the ? I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something wrong there. I hear and believe Texans and others who support him so strongly, but every time I see/hear Perry it’s either a rather banal ‘okay’ thing, no help, no harm, or he stumbles all over his own brain and tongue. I could easily support the guy, but he’s got to show me he’s been off the ranch in a tie before.
Perry is a regular guy. He’s not a lawyer but he’s been a successful conservator legislator (He started as a budget pitbull grilling bureaucrats)
He’s not an “intellectual” but he has an evolved conservative philosophy and a commonsense approach.
Basically he’s an Aggie & a very effective Governing executive of a large complex state.
He’s plain spoken because he’s from West Texas & isn’t verbose.
He’s very different than George W. Bush.
Leave a Comment