Mr. Media Training

This might be the last debate that matters during this primary season.

South Carolina’s primary is this Saturday. If Mitt Romney wins, even Newt Gingrich admits the race will probably be over. If he doesn’t, we could be in for a long nominating fight.

So the big question coming into tonight was whether Newt Gingrich could capitalize on his well-reviewed performance in Monday night’s debate.

So, did he continue his debating success? Did Mitt Romney recover from Monday’s near-disastrous debate? And did the other two candidates do anything to change the dynamic of the race?

Here are tonight’s grades in order of best to worst:

RICK SANTORUM (1st Place, Grade: A-)

Rick Santorum had his best debate tonight. It won’t be enough to help him win South Carolina (or stay in the race), but he had a great night nonetheless.

Sen. Santorum has gotten much better at hitting his opponents with a cudgel while still managing to appear humble. His attacks on Mitt Romney’s “RomneyCare” landed strongly, as did his attacks against Newt Gingrich for supporting the individual mandate.

Mr. Santorum tried to establish himself as “old reliable” while simultaneously whacking Newt Gingrich’s perceived instability by saying:

“I don’t want a nominee where I’m going to look at the newspaper and wonder what he’s going to do next….Something’s going to pop and we don’t need that in a nominee. I’m steady, I’m solid.”

Toward the end of the night, Mr. Santorum was asked what about his candidacy he would have done differently. After thinking for a moment, he said, “I wouldn’t have changed a thing.” His answer was sincere, natural, and authentic – and it stood in marked contrast to Mitt Romney’s more calculated answer.

Mr. Santorum has a lot of political enemies. But even Dan Savage would have to conclude that Mr. Santorum is sincere in his beliefs.

NEWT GINGRICH ( Place, Grade: B+)

This debate will be mostly remembered for the very first question and answer, an exchange Speaker Gingrich used to castigate CNN Host John King. When Mr. King asked Gingrich about accusations made by his second wife, who claimed Mr. Gingrich requested an open marriage before divorcing her, he lit up:

“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine…you and your staff chose to start this debate with that.”

Although a lot of pundits believe he won the debate with that attack, but I’m not so sure. Mr. Gingrich already has the largest discrepancy between male and female voters in South Carolina (men support him more than women). Displays of anger typically turn off female voters, so I’m less sure how this will play in South Carolina.

Did that clip earn him a standing ovation? Yes. Will the moment be talked about? You bet. Will it yield him votes? Maybe not, especially if his ex-wife appears credible on tonight’s Nightline.

Two other moments warrant comment.

First, when Rick Santorum attacked him as “too grandiose,” Mr. Gingrich embraced the language instead of fighting it by saying we “need grandiose thinking.” I have a name for what he did – “media jujitsu.” It’s a terrific debating technique of taking your opponent’s negative language and spinning it into a positive.

Second, he released his tax returns at the very beginning of the debate. That allowed the attack on Mitt Romney to stick that much more – and that topic became Mitt Romney’s worst moment of the debate.

MITT ROMNEY (3rd Place, Grade: C+)

First, the good news. Gov. Romney had a better debate tonight than he did on Monday night.

But that’s hardly enough. Mr. Romney had yet another platitude-filled performance, using the same tired lines he’s used dozens of times in his stump speeches, such as: “Obama wants an entitlement society,” Obama “takes from some, gives to others,” America is the “hope of the Earth,” “I believe in free enterprise,” “I’m going to defend capitalism,” and “I believe there’s nothing wrong with profit.”

Those hackneyed lines make him look calculated and insincere, as if he’s simply regurgitating poll-tested lines that some focus groups liked. He needs to abandon the lines that are by now more familiar than a child’s pull-string doll and develop some fresh material. Stat.

Mr. Romney’s worst moment unfathomably came when he was asked, yet again, when he planned to release his tax returns. He had to know that question was coming – yet he bumbled and stumbled through his answers, earning boos from the live audience. In the end, he said he would release this years’ tax return in April, but refused to commit to releasing earlier years, as well.

Although it won’t do much damage, Mr. Romney displayed yet another lack of self awareness when he said that he, unlike Washington insiders like Newt Gingrich, has "lived in the real streets of America." Sure, real streets that have 11,000-square foot homes on them. He’s still trying to appear like an average Joe, and it backfires every time.

He did have a couple of good moments tonight: One when he was defending our nation’s obligation to veterans, and another when he was asked what he would have changed about his campaign. “I would have worked to get 25 more votes in Iowa, that’s for sure,” he quipped.

RON PAUL (4th Place, Grade: C)

When asked what one thing he wishes he had done differently in this campaign, Rep. Paul said he would work on the delivery of his message.

See, Ron Paul fans? You’ve attacked me for criticizing Dr. Paul’s debating skills, and even the candidate knows he needs to improve in that area! 

He’s right, of course. His wonky answers live in the weeds, and he lacks any of the soaring and optimistic rhetoric that voters demand from their presidents.

That’s not to say he had a terrible night. He gave a compassionate answer about our returning veterans instead of his typical non-government rant, and had a couple of terrific quips throughout the night, including one which rightly labeled Rick Santorum “over-sensitive.”

But Dr. Paul did nothing tonight to change the dynamic of his candidacy. He appears to be running as an issues candidate, not one who has a real chance at winning the White House.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

I know, I know. The Republican race is over, so why am I still covering these debates?

Well, although Mitt Romney will probably be the Republican nominee, he hasn’t earned the nomination quite yet. And it’s important to place this nominating race in a historical context:

• In 2008, Barack Obama was “definitely” going to be the nominee after his Iowa win – until Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary and complicated his path to the nomination for months.
• In 1984, Walter Mondale (who eventually won the Democratic nomination), won the Iowa caucus before losing seven of the next ten primaries to Gary Hart.
• In 1968, Ronald Reagan earned the most votes in the Republican primaries but didn’t win the most delegates, allowing Richard Nixon to become the party’s nominee.

My point? Weird things happen in politics, so it’s still just a bit too early to declare Mitt Romney the winner.

Here are tonight’s grades in order of best to worst:

NEWT GINGRICH (1st Place, Grade: A)

Recent polling shows Gov. Mitt Romney pulling away in South Carolina (which votes this Saturday), with Speaker Gingrich in a strong second place.

With time running out on his chances, Mr. Gingrich made the most of tonight’s debate. He had the single most dramatic and memorable exchange of this election cycle, during which he defended his attacks on President Obama as a “food stamp president.”

The moment occurred when moderator Juan Williams accused Speaker Gingrich of racial insensitivity – but instead of backing down, Mr. Gingrich doubled down. The strength of his reply – which led to a standing ovation – evoked President Reagan’s infamous 1980 “I paid for this microphone!” moment.

Mr. Gingrich’s response gets stronger as it goes on – it’s worth watching the complete clip as a memorable example of political rhetoric:

Mr. Gingrich looked weak when he went after Mr. Romney on his Super PAC’s incorrect ads; Romney confronted him by asking what he could do differently, and Gingrich admitted there was nothing else Romney could do.

But that didn’t matter. Mr. Gingrich won the night in a performance that is likely to play very well with South Carolina Republicans.

RICK SANTORUM (2nd Place, Grade: B)

Sen. Santorum remains an eager and effective attack dog.

In one notable exchange tonight, he put Mitt Romney on the defensive regarding whether or not felons should be able to vote once they paid their time (Santorum said yes). Romney’s Super PAC had attacked Santorum’s views on the issue, but Santorum attacked hard, backing Romney into a corner which had him fecklessly stumbling for the right answer.

He also put Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on the defensive about their unambitious plans to curb entitlement spending.

Unfortunately for Mr. Santorum, Speaker Gingrich emerged as the conservative star tonight, likely diminishing his shrinking chances for an unexpected South Carolina victory even further.

RICK PERRY (3rd Place, Grade: B-)

Gov. Perry earned the second most enthusiastic applause from the local crowd tonight when he proclaimed that, “South Carolina is at war with the Federal Government.” He attacked the Obama Administration for going after South Carolina on right-to-work issues, and said it had declared “war on religion.”

Mr. Perry also scored pointed when he challenged Gov. Romney to release his income taxes, saying, “We cannot fire our nominee in September. We need to know now.” Mr. Romney limply replied with a non-committal and overly-cautious “maybe.”

The problem for Rick Perry is that this relatively good performance is too little, too late. He, like Rick Santorum, suffered from being outshined by Speaker Gingrich tonight, and as a result, Perry will likely have little impact on the remainder of this nominating contest.

MITT ROMNEY (4th Place, Grade: C-)

Mitt Romney started strong tonight, deflecting a few early attacks with agility and ease. His game plan coming into the debate was clearly to appear magnanimous. But when his opponents began attacking him – and most of them did – he began to look increasingly agitated, like a man who didn’t have any place to duck.

That’s not to say he didn’t try to duck:

• He refused to commit to releasing his tax returns, suggesting he might release them in April but that “time will tell.”
• When confronted by Rick Santorum about his views on whether or not felons who served their time should be allowed to vote again, he stalled for time, clearly calculating what the correct answer should be.
• When asked if he’s hunted since he famously claimed he hunted “small varmints” in 2007, he said he had recently been moose hunting. The he corrected himself and said he had been elk hunting. 

Gov. Romney is still in the pole position, both in South Carolina and nationally. But just as Bill Clinton became known as “Slick Willie,” he’s at risk of becoming “Slick Mittie.”  He can’t continue answering every question by transitioning to a vague but patriotic-sounding and platitudinous talking point, and he should stop trying to “out-bellicose” Newt Gingrich – it ain’t going to happen. 

Finally, he had a curious moment when he proclaimed that “McCain-Feingold is a disaster.” Funny that the legislation didn’t seem to bother him when he proudly accepted John McCain’s in-person endorsement earlier this month. Overall, a lousy performance that could hurt his vote totals on Saturday.

RON PAUL (5th Place, Grade: D+)

What happened to Ron Paul tonight?

He started the debate strong, blasting one moderator’s question by saying, “Your question suggests that you’re very confused about my position.” He continued by giving a solid answer on the difference between defense spending and military spending, offering an effective analogy that, “The embassy in Baghdad is bigger than the Vatican.”

But Dr. Paul was awful during the rest of the debate, giving long and winding answers that lacked both energy and a central thesis. Overall, a bad night that may cost him a few votes in South Carolina, and one of his worst performances of this election cycle.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

Instead of enjoying my typical Sunday morning ritual of sipping a warm cup of coffee, listening to Miles Davis and reading the paper, I was instead assaulted by politicians on my TV screen calling one another “liars.”

It will be interesting to see how New Hampshire’s voters react to the Sunday morning assault – will they punish the more hostile candidates and reward the more respectful ones?

Here are this morning’s grades in order of best to worst:

THE TOP TIER

JON HUNTSMAN (1st Place, Grade: A)

What a difference a day makes.

This was Gov. Huntsman’s best debate of this cycle, and it couldn’t have come at a better time.

He came across as serious, mature and tough, wisely adopting the uplifting rhetoric Americans demand from their leaders:

“I’ve heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game…you know what the people of this country are waiting for? They want a leader who’s going to unify.”

Responding to an attack from Mitt Romney during last night’s debate about accepting an ambassadorship to China from President Obama, he sharply said:

“I was criticized last night by Gov. Romney for putting my country first…he criticized me while he was out raising money.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Huntsman picks up a few votes between now and Tuesday as a result of his strong performance. But if this ends up as his last debate of this election cycle, he should be proud of his final performance. 

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

NEWT GINGRICH (2nd Place, Grade: B)

The “old” Newt was back for most of this morning: quick-witted, quick to castigate the media, and quick to scold his opponents.

After Mitt Romney tried to make a virtue out of leaving his post as Massachusetts Governor after one term to pursue private sector work, Speaker Gingrich offered a terrific retort: “Can we drop the pious baloney?”

He would have ranked higher, but came across as vindictive toward the end of the debate, when he sarcastically told Mitt Romney that “hoped’ the video his PAC was about to release about Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital was accurate.

The clip that will be played repeatedly over the next 48 hours is the one in which he turned to Mitt Romney and said:

“Governor, I wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staffer running the PAC, it is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC, and you know some of the ads are untrue. Just say that.”

I doubt that clip will yield him many new votes in New Hampshire; he may be playing for South Carolina at this point.

MITT ROMNEY (3rd Place, Grade: C+)

Good politicians frame information in a way that makes them look good. That’s no surprise.

But there are times that goes too far, and Gov. Romney appeared more disingenuous and slick today than sincere. His answer about why he decided not to run for Massachusetts governor for a second term, for example, was nonsense. He didn’t run again because he decided to run for the presidency – not, as he claimed, to return to the private sector.

Mr. Romney would likely benefit from being more candid on occasion instead of trying to spin everything in his favor – if he wins the nomination, his failure to do so will wear poorly over time. 

A good example of his disingenuousness was this: He claimed he hadn’t seen the ads running against Newt Gingrich, and then proceeded to name five of the things the ads claimed. Why try to have it both ways? If he’s not careful, he’s going to trip many Americans’ “bullshit” detectors.

So why am I rating him in third place? Because despite everything above, he still performed well enough to leave the state of the race mostly unchanged.

RICK SANTORUM (4th Place, tied, Grade: C)

When he started surging in the polls, Sen. Santorum left behind the grimace that accompanied him through most of the campaign and started actually looking charismatic and likeable. But he brought the old Santorum back this weekend, and came across more as a strident critic than an inspirational leader. 

His strategy was clear today – to try to siphon off votes from Ron Paul in an attempt to secure a second place finish. On Paul, he said:

“He’s never really passed anything of any importance…he has no track record of being able to work together. He’s been out there on the margins.”

His performance wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t noteworthy enough to help him continue his surge.

RICK PERRY (4th Place, tied, Grade: C)

Gov. Perry had a more even performance this morning than he has in past debates – had he brought this version of himself from the beginning, he might not be languishing in single digits.

Still, Perry’s biggest applause line came when he remembered which three federal agencies he would cut (he famously blanked on them at a previous debate). It’s never a good sign when both the audience and fellow candidates applaud his failure to forget. All in all, a non-factor.

TRAILING THE FIELD

RON PAUL (6th Place, Grade: C-)

I’ve worked with a few libertarian clients through the years, and they almost always forget one critical thing: When they’re asked what should happen to poor people who need public support, they go on rants about libertarian principles and the role of government instead of simply agreeing with the questioner.

Here’s what I mean: I don’t believe Ron Paul wants poor people to have no heating during the winter. But he, unlike many other Americans, wants the support to come from private charities, religious organizations and neighbors rather than government.

So when he was asked whether he would continue a program that subsidized energy for low-income people, he didn’t need to give an abstract answer about supply and demand. He should have started by aligning his message to where most people are, saying, “I want to live in a country where no one freezes in winter. The question is how we make sure that happens.” Instead, his “no” answer made him look uncaring.

Dr. Paul has a lot of support in New Hampshire. I’m guessing he’ll score double digits on Tuesday, but this debate, filled with abstractions and hectoring lectures, likely did little to expand his base.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

New Hampshire voters go to the polls on Tuesday to cast their votes for Republican nominee.

The race in New Hampshire appears to be settled – hometown favorite Mitt Romney is way ahead in almost every poll. So the question coming into tonight’s debate was this: Could anybody else position themselves to become Mr. Romney’s main competition moving forward?

Here are tonight’s grades  in order of best to worst:

THE TOP TIER

MITT ROMNEY (1st Place, Grade: A)

The status quo helps only one candidate in this race: Mitt Romney. And since nothing happened to threaten the status quo, Gov. Romney stands alone in the top tier tonight.

Mr. Romney has clearly pivoted to becoming a general election candidate, brushing his fellow competitors aside with the kind of ease Mike Tyson once used to dispatch Michael Spinks. He competently deflected questions about whether he was responsible for downsizing thousands of employees as part of Bain Capital, leaving his glass jaw completely intact.

Mr. Romney bumbled an answer regarding the rights of states to ban contraception. Although that error will likely get some ink in tomorrow’s papers, it’s not a major gaffe that does anything to challenge Mr. Romney’s dominance in the race.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

RICK SANTORUM (2nd Place, Grade: B)

This race has three candidates vying to become the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. Of the three, Santorum had the best night.

He focused on the middle class, aligning his message with their struggles. Of course, he would disagree with my analysis – he pointed out that there is no such thing as a middle “class” in America, just middle-income people. It’s a curious distinction that may lead to more than a few unfavorable opponent ads.

Mr. Santorum displayed his mastery of state privacy laws when asked about the contraceptive case Romney fumbled. He also got off a good line when Ron Paul’s microphone started feeding back the very moment he began attacking Santorum (“They caught you not telling the truth, Ron.”).

Still, Sen. Santorum continues to look too defensive when attacked. If he’s going to become a credible alternative to Mitt Romney, he needs to focus on appearing more presidential and less peevish. One way to do that is to stop getting so excited when defending his record – when he does, his voice rises and his pace quickens. He could appear more in control if he did the opposite – slowed down and spoke in a stronger and more controlled – but not louder – voice.

NEWT GINGRICH (3rd Place, Grade: C+)

Talk about anticlimactic.

After his fourth place finish in Iowa on Tuesday night, Speaker Gingrich pledged to attack Mr. Romney’s record. Before the debate, his spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said: “It’s fight night. We’re excited.”

If this was a fight, it was more the kind that ends up with the two combatants dating. One of the most important jobs for debate nights happens before the debate, when the candidates attempt to manage expectations. On that count, Mr. Gingrich vastly oversold and under-delivered.  It’s almost as if he decided to hold his fire in the hopes that he can score a cabinet position in a Romney administration.

Mr. Gingrich would have ranked lower, but for a few good attack lines. He pretended to defend President Obama by saying, “I’m sure in his desperate efforts to create a radical, European socialist model [he] is sincere.” And values voters will appreciate, “There’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concern of the other side, and none of it gets covered by the news media.”

All in all, a muted performance and blown opportunity.

TRAILING THE FIELD

JON HUNTSMAN (4th Place, Grade: C)

Jon Huntsman will be remembered for only one moment in this debate: The one when he suddenly decided to attack Mitt Romney – in Mandarin.

That’s right, in what must be a first in presidential elections, Mr. Huntsman used the Chinese dialect to attack Mr. Romney’s lack of understanding of China.

Beyond that, Gov. Huntsman speaks too elliptically, making his points in tentative and diplomatic language missing any fine edge. In his attempt to sound like the “reasonable” guy, he instead comes across as soporific – and a bit weird (see speaking in Mandarin tonight, earlier Kurt Cobain joke).

It’s too bad. Mr. Huntsman has the qualities that could have allowed him to position himself as the other “adult” in the room, alongside Mitt Romney, but he was never able to effectively deploy them.

Mr. Huntsman has one last shot – tomorrow morning’s debate. I suspect it won’t matter, and that his candidacy will end before he ever makes it to South Carolina.

RON PAUL (5th Place, Grade: C-)

Rep. Paul spent most of his evening going after Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, a clear strategic choice to try to knock them both out and become Mr. Romney’s sole competitor.

I’ve never seen Ron Paul more angered, to the point of trembling, when he discussed “chicken hawks,” or legislators who send kids off to war but who didn’t serve when called. Mr. Paul had a shocking moment when he said of Newt Gingrich:

“I think people who don’t serve when they could…and they get deferments…they have not right to send our kids off to war…I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least I went when they called me up.”

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, Americans have not elected an “angry” candidate since the beginning of the 24/7 media age. His flash of anger will likely be greeted with enthusiasm by his considerable base of supporters, but it’s hard to see how it helps him expand his base before Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.

Dr. Paul is better when he’s in the role of a passionate ideologue with a cause. But he’s a lousy attack dog, appearing as unlikeable, cranky, and yes – even mean – as Bob Dole was back in 1996.

RICK PERRY (6th Place, Grade: D)

Remember last week when Gov. Perry said he was going back to Texas to re-assess his candidacy? He should have stayed home. It’s not that he had a bad night tonight. It’s that he was thoroughly irrelevant.

Well, almost irrelevant. He did have one memorable moment, when he said America should send troops back into Iraq. That’ll make a few headlines, but not ones that will help him break out of single digits. 

COMMENTS: Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

As of this writing, at 1:10 a.m., just 18 votes separate Sen. Rick Santorum and Gov. Mitt Romney with 99 percent of precincts reporting. It’s been quite a night.

Although we don’t know the final verdict yet, all six candidates have given their speeches.

Here are my reviews of the candidates’ speeches, what they mean, and what’s next for the candidates:

Rick Santorum hugs his wife after Iowa caucus night

RICK SANTORUM (1st or 2nd Place):  Sen. Santorum gave a terrific (if long) speech that came across as sincere, humble, and grateful. The sour persona that undermined his performances during the debates was largely gone, replaced with a fierce determination and the words “game on.” He appeared less strident and more human than he has in other appearances.

Mr. Santorum did a nice job of laying out a competing vision with the President’s, using his grandfather’s story as an effective speechmaking device. He also, curiously, ran away from the reflexive Republican mantra of “cut taxes,” saying that tax cuts should be a part of the solution, not the sole solution. His focus on the working class was an astute attempt to reach moderates in New Hampshire, which votes next Tuesday.

In short, he gave the best speech of the night.

MITT ROMNEY (1st or 2nd Place): Gov. Romney appeared completely nonplussed by his neck and neck finish with Rick Santorum. In fact, both he and his wife praised Mr. Santorum’s impressive finish. He looked looser than he has in recent months, as two of his toughest competitors – Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich – were likely vanquished tonight.

Mr. Romney came across tonight as confident that he’s going to be the nominee. And he did look presidential, having an American flag framed behind him that made his speech look like a State of the Union address. But his stump speech seemed a little canned, and he risks looking more slick than sincere.

RON PAUL (3rd Place): Rep. Paul finished in third place tonight. Although he enthusiastically pledged to plow ahead with his campaign, he curiously didn’t say much about winning the election, focusing instead on the growth of his movement. His speech appeared to make clear that his campaign is more about disseminating his message than electoral success, and he clearly reveled in the appreciation of his young supporters.

If there was an off-note to his speech, it belonged to his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The younger Paul, standing behind his father during the speech, appeared downright glum. He seemed to know that even though his father wasn’t saying it, their best chance to win the nomination disappeared tonight.

Newt Gingrich couldn't hide his anger after the Iowa caucus

NEWT GINGRICH (4th Place): Just five weeks ago, Speaker Gingrich said, “I’m going to be the nominee…the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.” He looked like he was having a blast back then. Not anymore.

If there’s one word to describe how Speaker Gingrich came across tonight, it’s this: pissed.  He  emanated anger, directed at Mitt Romney, for the negative ads run against his campaign. He went so far as to suggest that the negative ads against him were not worthy of the sacrifices of American men and women in combat. He then proceeded to unequivocally slam Mitt Romney’s leadership as the governor of Massachusetts. 

Americans do not elect angry candidates. Just ask Pat Buchanan or Howard Dean. If Gingrich can’t get a grip on his temper and radiate some optimism again, he’s going to implode before he ever makes it to South Carolina.

RICK PERRY (5th Place): Rick Perry cried when reading a note that called him a “great man.” No wonder. Three minutes later, he said he was going back to Texas to reassess his campaign (code for “I’m dropping out.”)

I’ve never seen a candidate give his pre-dropping out speech by struggling to read a handwritten note out loud. He stumbled over the words like a barely literate man who had to focus intently on the phonetics (I’m guessing the letter had sloppy handwriting, but Gov. Perry can’t afford reinforcing the narrative of his “limited” intellect). It served as a perfect closing metaphor for his inept campaign.

MICHELE BACHMANN (6th Place): Rep. Bachmann read a prepared statement, barely making eye contact with the crowd and sans the spirit she radiated in her earlier speeches. She claimed she was going to stay in the race, but she looked completely deflated – not surprising, considering her rejection came from her native Iowa. Her defeated tone sounded valedictory, not like a candidate who intends to move forward. 

Her opening line, “We’ll have a party afterwards, so stick around,” bordered on painful: I’ve made Shiva calls that were likely more fun. 

Jon Huntsman (7th Place): Gov. Huntsman did not compete in Iowa and received less than one percent of the vote.

Note: The order above indicates where each candidate finished in the Iowa caucus, not my rankings of their performance.

UPDATE: January 4, 2012, 2:36 a.m.: Iowa’s Republican State Chairman just made it official: It’s Romney over Santorum by eight votes. Eight. What a night. I’m going to sleep. Thanks for reading.

Just two months ago, a Newt Gingrich comeback seemed as unlikely as a comeback for other 1990s superstars, such as Color Me Badd, flannel shirts, and that Susan Powter “Stop The Insanity!” lady.

But in tonight’s debate, the former House Speaker entered as the clear favorite in national polling. Did anything happen tonight to threaten his lead?

Here are tonight’s grades, in order of best to worst:

THE TOP TIER

MITT ROMNEY (1st Place, Grade: A-)

Mitt Romney was on his game tonight.

His game plan was clear: He’d be the rational, level-headed one, serving as a nice contrast with Newt Gingrich, who Romney’s campaign accuses of being “zany” and irresponsible. He succeeded.

Gov. Romney  focused his attacks on President Obama – not his opponents – which is good, since he looks unappealing and peevish when he attacks on the debate stage. He looked less defensive in his responses to Chris Wallace’s tough questions than Gingrich did when facing similar aggressive questioning.

Mr. Romney had a terrific line regarding the downed drone in Iran. Reacting to President Obama requesting that Iran return the drone, Gov. Romney caustically said that the President’s response amounting to having a foreign policy of “pretty please?”

Iowa is very much up in the air, but Mr. Romney did a lot to help his chances tonight.

RICK SANTORUM (2nd Place, tied, Grade: B+)

Sen. Santorum had a good night, successfully conveying a single message: Been there, done that.

By using that response, Mr. Santorum successfully whacked all of his opponents. He was able to use that refrain to whack those competitors who have changed their positions over time, and to whack those who he accused of not being sufficiently conservative.

If any of the candidates in the bottom tier move up over the next three weeks, I’m guessing it’ll be Santorum.

RON PAUL (2nd Place, tied, Grade: B+)

Rep. Paul also had a good night tonight. He was more animated than he has been in past debates, even displaying a little humor over his favorite Supreme Court justice (“All of them are good and all of them are bad,” he said.) He made Rep. Bachman look like a naif after a particularly heated exchange over Iran, angrily wagging his pen as he pressed his case.

It’s easy to see why so many Americans have been attracted to his campaign; no candidate on either side of the aisle has been as ideologically consistent.

Still, it’s important to point out that Americans always elect the more optimistic candidate (they’ve done so since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980), and Dr. Paul conveys little optimism. He’d do himself a favor by wrapping his principled arguments in a “can do” spirit that offers fewer strident lectures along the way.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

MICHELE BACHMANN (4th Place, Grade: C+)

Rep. Bachmann launched a successful attack against Speaker Gingrich on Freddie Mac tonight, but was less successful when going after Ron Paul on Iraq. The bigger problem for her is that she did nothing to change the dynamic of her campaign. After tonight, it’s tough to see how she finishes in the top three in Iowa, which would effectively end her campaign.

NEWT GINGRICH (5th Place, Grade: C)

Speaker Gingrich had a lousy first half tonight, which may hurt his already slipping poll numbers in Iowa.

When his opponents predictably attacked him, he looked defensive and his face tightened. Given that he knew the attacks were coming, I was surprised he didn’t have a witty rejoinder at the ready – where was the debate wit that launched him into the top tier in the first place?

He used the language of denial – a political “no-no” – by saying, “I have never once changed my positions due to any type of payment.” Count on that sound bite being played repeatedly on tomorrow’s cable news programs. He also allowed himself to be thrust into the role of being a defender of big government. Plus, did we really need a history lesson dating back to 1802?

Mr. Gingrich had his moments, such as when he said, “I get accused of using language that’s too strong, so I’ve been up here editing. I don’t want to be accused of being ‘zany.’” That ‘zany’ line was a sly allusion to an ad being run against him by the Romney campaign.

TRAILING THE FIELD

RICK PERRY (6th Place, Grade: C-)

Listening to Rick Perry speak is kind of like looking at a randomly assorted collection of refrigerator word magnets. His awkward cadence, bordering on manic at times, is like a high-wire act – you know he could slip at any moment (and he often does).

His attempt to relate himself to NFL quarterback Tim Tebow, a darling of conservatives, was a good idea on paper. But in real-life, it’s a talking point that has a high degree of difficulty, and Gov. Perry looked foolish trying to pull it off.

It wasn’t all bad for Perry. His pitch for a “part-time Congress” is the most likely idea to stick since “9-9-9,” and he delivered a strong answer on immigration. All in all, though, not enough to significantly alter his electoral odds. 

JON HUNTSMAN (7th Place, Grade: D+)

We learned something new in this debate: Jon Huntsman’s favorite curse word is “screwed.”

He used the word no fewer than three times: “We are getting screwed as Americans;” “President Obama “screwed up” the economy;” and our “visa system is so screwed up in this nation.” 

For good measure, he threw in a rhetorical question that asked “how stupid are we,” referenced Donald Trump, and alluded to George Kennan, the barely remembered diplomat best remembered as the “father of containment.”

Gov. Huntsman is screwed. His effort to use stronger language that will resonate deeply with the American people isn’t natural for him, making him look desperate. And what was with him looking at his notes as he was speaking throughout the debate? If you can’t deliver an answer without a crutch at this point, you’re, well, screwed.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

Republican Debate Scorecard: Who Gets The Highest (and Lowest) Grades For Debating Skills So Far?

World’s Most Visited Media Training Website Ranks Candidates’ Debate Performance In First Ten Debates

November 29, 2011 (Washington, DC) – Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the best debaters in the Republican field, while Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry rank among the worst, according to a detailed analysis of ten Republican debates held between May and November 2011.

To help determine the winners and losers, the candidates were ranked using seven specific communications criteria – including clarity of message, optimism of message, and charisma – that have accurately predicted the winners of every general election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980.

The 10,000-word series appears on the Mr. Media Training Blog (www.MrMediaTraining.com), the world’s most visited media training website. The blog’s author, Brad Phillips, was formerly a journalist with ABC News and CNN. Here are the rankings:

First Place: Mitt Romney (B+) Gov. Romney has been the most consistent debater thus far. He has easily deflected his opponents’ attacks, proving himself to be a “Teflon” candidate to whom nothing sticks. He has demonstrated a mastery of public policy and shown toughness as a debater. The Republican base may not love him, but they have to concede he would fare well in next fall’s debates against President Obama.

Second Place: Newt Gingrich (B) Speaker Gingrich propelled himself to the top of the Republican pack primarily through his strong debate performances, during which he often castigated the mainstream media. Like Romney, he has demonstrated his policy mastery. Unlike Romney, his propensity to go off-script leaves open the question of whether he’s a more disciplined politician than he was in the 1990s.

Third Place: Michele Bachmann (B-) Rep. Bachmann, who briefly flirted with the lead, has shown an impressive ability to articulate an unambiguous message throughout the debates (ObamaCare bad, repeal good). She has also demonstrated a skillful ability to attack her opponents directly without ever appearing nasty. Still, she falls off-script too often, such as when she said after one debate that the HPV vaccine caused “mental retardation.”

Fourth Place: Herman Cain (C+) Mr. Cain dominated the storyline in several early debates with his “9-9-9” plan; no other candidate offered such a memorable proposal. Mr. Cain’s ability to offer a well-timed one-liner helped make him a crowd favorite. But recent debates about foreign policy have revealed his superficial knowledge of international affairs and will likely hasten his decline in the polls.

Fifth Place, Tied: Ron Paul (C) Rep. Paul is the most ideologically consistent of anyone in the field, and is unafraid to defend his views – many of which are unpopular with the GOP base. Still, he too often comes across as lecturing and strident, and hasn’t made the personal connection that will help him expand his reach beyond his relatively small but deeply loyal base.

Fifth Place, Tied: Rick Santorum (C) Sen. Santorum is passionate, but conveys that passion with an ever-present sour expression. Mr. Santorum has launched a few effective attacks on his opponents. But whereas Ronald Reagan used to eviscerate his opponents with a warm smile, Mr. Santorum looks thoroughly disgusted with his opponents. There’s a reason Mr. Santorum hasn’t moved in the polls, and it’s that Americans express a clear preference for sunnier candidates.

Fifth Place, Tied: Rick Perry (C) During the debate held on November 9, Gov. Perry committed one of the worst debate gaffes in memory when he struggled for 43 seconds to identify the third of three government agencies he pledged to eliminate. He never remembered it, ending his answer with a lame, “Oops.” Mr. Perry has careened between too hot and too cold, unable to settle on the right tone. His halting speaking style, filled with long pauses during which he struggles to find the next phrase, makes him hard to watch. But for a strong first debate, Perry would have ranked lower.

Eighth Place, Jon Huntsman (C-) Gov. Huntsman’s debate performances were mostly memorable for his frequent (and failed) attempts at humor. Whether making a joke invoking Kurt Cobain or the “gas” coming from Washington, Mr. Huntsman too often resembled the awkward uncle who elicits sympathy laughs at family events. Still, Mr. Huntsman may be someone to look out for. His last debate performance was by far his strongest, and that makes him the most improved debater in the field.

“This season’s many debates have given Republican voters a clear sense of which candidates would square off most effectively against President Obama,” said Brad Phillips, author of the Mr. Media Training Blog. “That matters, as the more charismatic general election candidate with the clearer message has won the presidency in every election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980.”

###

Brad Phillips is the author of the Mr. Media Training Blog (www.MrMediaTraining.com), the world’s most visited media training website. He is the president of Phillips Media Relations, a media and presentation training firm with offices in NYC and Washington, DC. Mr. Phillips previously worked as a journalist with ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel and CNN’s Reliable Sources and The Capital Gang.

MEDIA INTERVIEW REQUESTS:

Brad Phillips, Contact@MrMediaTraining.com

FULL DEBATE REVIEWS:

Below, you will find links to the scorecards for each debate:

November 22, 2011

November 9, 2011

October 18, 2011

October 11, 2011

September 22, 2011

September 12, 2011

September 7, 2011 

August 11, 2011 

June 13, 2011

May 5, 2011

The leader board for the Republican nomination has changed more often than Mitt Romney’s policy positions.

Over the past six months, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich have all led the Republican field.

But the main story tonight wasn’t Newt Gingrich’s sudden rise to the top of the polls. Rather, it was the significant amount of airtime the so-called second-tier candidates received, namely Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Both made the most of their chances.

Here are tonight’s grades, in order of best to worst:

THE TOP TIER

JON HUNTSMAN (1st Place, Grade: A)

I never thought Gov. Huntsman would land at the top of my debate scorecard, but he had a good night.

Instead of making lame jokes in this debate (or doing anything to evoke last Saturday’s dreadful Saturday Night Live appearance), Mr. Huntsman made the most of the significant airtime he was offered in this debate.

He was more focused tonight, looking both tougher and more serious than in earlier debates. He made his most genuine connection with the live audience to date, regularly eliciting cheers and applause for his answers. He also stood up well when Mitt Romney attacked one of his points, showing more backbone in a debate than he has thus far. 

As a former diplomat, Mr. Huntsman still has a propensity to utter too many carefully calibrated words before getting to his point – but he gained strength as the debate continued, and he emerges as tonight’s winner.

RON PAUL (2nd Place, Grade: A-)

Okay, Ron Paul fans. I’ve been hard on Dr. Paul through the debate season. No one as un-telegenic has won a general election since the dawn of television, and his delivery evokes The Simpsons’  Montgomery Burns more than a serious presidential candidate.

But Rep. Paul had a terrific night, and made the most of the extra airtime he was afforded in this debate. Instead of merely appearing strident, Dr. Paul made his points with a bit of humor, bewilderment, and bemusement. He held his own in a tough exchange against Newt Gingrich, standing his ground while remaining amiable.

His comments on Israel will likely make some headlines tomorrow, as he’s the only candidate not to offer almost unequivocal military support to the critical American ally. 

MICHELE BACHMANN (3rd Place, Grade: B+)

If someone had told me I’d be ranking the candidates in this order tonight, I would have told them to turn their sheet of paper upside down. But I call ‘em like I see ‘em, and Rep. Bachmann had a good night.

Ms. Bachmann has perfected the art of taking shots at her fellow candidates with a smile. She called Rick Perry out for being “naïve” on aid to Pakistan, and directly challenged Newt Gingrich on immigration. She may not have landed a knock-out blow to either, but she reasserted herself with a demonstration of the political skills that briefly allowed her to flirt with the lead. She also demonstrated an impressive knowledge of foreign policy.

Ms. Bachmann may not gain much ground as a result of this debate, but she likely encouraged her supporters with tonight’s performance.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

NEWT GINGRICH (4th Place, tie, Grade: B)

Tonight introduced the newer, gentler, frontrunner version of Newt Gingrich. The former House Speaker didn’t bring the same antagonism toward the media or his questioners as he has in virtually every other debate tonight, meaning he disappeared into the background a bit tonight.

That’s not to say he didn’t have another solid debate performance – he did. He offered a terrific answer early on regarding Timothy McVeigh, for example, eliciting cheers from the crowd.

It will be interesting to see how his answer regarding illegal immigration plays with the GOP base. He said that if a person has been in the United States for 25 years and has deep roots into their communities, they should be able to stay in the country. That may sound obvious to most Americans, but the conservative base takes a hardline on immigration and may view his answer as support for a backdoor amnesty.

MITT ROMNEY (4th Place, tie Grade: B)

Early in the debate, Gov. Romney launched an aggressive attack on fellow candidate Jon Huntsman for his answer on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Considering Gov. Huntsman’s low poll ratings, Mr. Romney’s condescending attack came across as an over-reaction. He later went after Ron Paul over budget cuts.

Mr. Romney’s tone has become one of almost permanent “Why am I here” annoyance, and he’s at his least appealing when he presents himself that way. It makes him appear frustrated that he hasn’t been able to break through into a clear lead.

Still, Mr. Romney knows his facts and knows how to win an argument. For example, he got the better of Ron Paul in his answer about defense cuts. 

Tonight’s performance will likely leave the needle unchanged for Romney, who has struggled to break the 25 percent mark in Republican polls.

TRAILING THE FIELD

RICK SANTORUM (6th Place, Grade: C)

There’s little new to say about Rick Santorum. He’s passionate and knowledgeable, but also sour and strident. He hasn’t grown as a candidate or a debater, and he’ll be one of only a few candidates never to have had a shot at or near the lead. Tonight once again showed why.

Many people are also commenting on Sen. Santorum’s “gaffe,” in which he called Africa a country (it’s a continent). I have little doubt Mr. Santorum knows the difference, and don’t think it’s revelatory of any deeper lack of understanding. Slips of the tongue happen, and this one is no big deal.

RICK PERRY (7th Place, Grade: C-)

I could comment here on Gov. Perry’s halting answers, distractingly sweaty upper lip, or his bizarre opening statement about his wife (it was supposed to be about foreign policy).

The truth is, none of that really matters. Mr. Perry’s tone was better-calibrated tonight, but he didn’t make a dent in this debate. He may have stopped the bleeding from his “oops” moment two weeks ago, but he flirted with utter irrelevance in tonight’s debate, which will likely do little to calm his nervous donors.

HERMAN CAIN (8th Place, Grade: D-)

Remember that Happy Days episode when Fonzie jumped the shark? This debate was that episode for Herman Cain.

Foreign policy is undoubtedly Mr. Cain’s kryptonite (well, that, plus former female employees). A candidate can hide behind empty bluster for only so long before his policy ignorance is exposed; tonight was the night it was. There are many reasons to bomb Iran (or not), for example, but Mr. Cain seemed enamored with the idea that we couldn’t bomb it primarily because it is too mountainous.

Mr. Cain couldn’t even get the moderator’s name right, referring to Wolf Blitzer as “Blitz.” This was a bad night for Mr. Cain, who will not get another shot at the top.

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Related: November 9, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: October 18, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: October 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 22, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 12, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 7, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: August 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: June 13, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: May 5, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard