The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes is correct to brand last night "Newt's night," since the most memorable exchanges were between the former Speaker and Juan Williams.
But Howard Kurtz at the Daily Beast gets the bottom line exactly right:
"Mitt Romney Shrugs Off Attacks, Emerges Unscathed in Fox News Debate in South Carolina."
And IBD's Andrew Malcolm adds the key context for all the debate analysis:
"Beyond the debates, Romney's support quietly spreads." (HT:
Powerline, as I don't yet have the remarkable Malcolm's new column on my alert list.)
Throw in all the instant analysis from Twitter and the post-debate wrap-ups and blend them n the great American machine that is the public opinion maker and you end up with hundreds of headlines, thousands of paragraphs and almost certainly no significant movement in the polls except the slow steady move towards a Romney-Obama showdown.
"If this was truly a “last chance” debate for the non-Romney candidates, Gingrich seized it," wrote Hayes. "Was it the proverbial game-changer?" he continued.
"It’s still hard to see how anyone overcomes Romney’s considerable advantages, in organization and what seems to be growing acceptance among conservatives," Hayes said as he answered his own question. "And Gingrich has two obstacles: the way he’s campaigned over the past two weeks and Romney."
That Hayes is writing about Gingrich is the real key here, because for the race to change he needed to be writing about Santorum. In horse race terms, Romney is far ahead, and Santorum's move to the outside in an effort to gain position to pass the frontrunner has been blocked by Gingrich. There's a reason scribblers use these horserace analogies, especially in a crowded field.
Santorum had gained a news hook with the evangelicals' endorsement in Texas, and with Newt and Governor Perry essentially DQed by millions for the Bain attacks, he has the one shot at getting past everyone else and setting Florida up as a last choice between Mitt Romney and someone else. Newt having a very good night blocked that coalescing.
As I wrote last night at National Review, Romney was steady and turned in a solid performance. There were no gaffes, some very strong moments, but mostly just the careful answers of a man with a commanding lead and a vast advantage in money, endorsements and organizations.
The New York Times' Nate Silver's analysis is eye-opening even with all th caveats about sample size, and Team Romney is like the playoff bound NFL club with a lock on homefield advantage wondering how long to keep the stars in the game for fear of injury. Romney has to be on the field for these debates, but he doesn't have to expose himself or get into scrums.
First Baptist Church of Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress was on my program yesterday and
the transcript is here. He is hardly a friend to the Romney campaign but he did brand Romney's nomination as "inevitable," and all but acknowledged that all conservatives, even those with qualms about electing a president from a denomination they have deep disagreements with, will have to support hm versus Obama.
Rick Santorum needs a clear, sustained confrontation with Mitt Romney over who is better positioned to beat Obama, not win a round or two the voting rights of felons. He didn't get that last night and
he must try for it again in Thursday's night CNN debate..