Mr. Media Training

Perhaps you’ve noticed: Mitt Romney is rich.

Really rich. By some estimates, he’s worth as much as $200 million. He brought in a cool $20.9 million last year.

So it’s no surprise that Romney thinks and acts like a rich guy. And his rich guy persona keeps slipping out, seemingly accidentally, since each slip takes his campaign “severely” off message. He tells audiences that he “likes being able to fire people,” informs interviewers that he’s “not concerned about the very poor,” casually makes $10,000 bets, dismisses his $374,000 in speaking fee income as “not very much,” brags about putting his political opponents into debt, claims that while he’s not an ardent NASCAR fan he has “some friends who are NASCAR team owners,” and stays in the ritziest hotels while on the campaign trail.

I know, it sounds like I‘m begrudging Mr. Romney his success. I’m not. He figured out a legal way to make a lot of money, went after it, and succeeded.

But his condescending attempts to present himself as a “man of the people” have bordered on pathetic. He recently told one audience that, “there were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip,” and told another, “I’m also unemployed.” He claimed that he lives on the “real streets of America” (many real streets, actually, each with a multi-million dollar home). And he tried to establish his “Buy American” bona fides last week by saying that his wife Ann “drives a couple of Cadillacs.”

As a result, Mr. Romney finds himself in the worst of two worlds. On one hand, he’s a rich guy whose privileged life keeps slipping out through obliviously tone-deaf gaffes. On the other hand, he’s pretending to be a populist who personally relates to the financial struggles of ordinary Americans.

I understand why Mr. Romney’s advisers didn’t want him to run as a “rich guy” candidate. With income inequality at record-high levels and Romney’s image as a corporate raider, his wealth could easily be viewed as a campaign-killing liability. But Mr. Romney’s chronic gaffes have rendered that strategy impossible. It’s time for Romney to start running as the person he really is: a rich guy.

“Rich guy” candidates often win. Jon Corzine served as both Senator and Governor from New Jersey, and Michael Bloomberg is serving his third term as New York City mayor. And although he didn’t win, billionaire Ross Perot led the polls during his 1992 presidential run. But all three candidates used their wealth as a positive talking point, convincing voters that their wealth allowed them to serve without being compromised. Mr. Romney hasn’t sold himself on a similar promise.

Instead of hiding from his wealth, Mr. Romney should start explaining why his wealth will help the American people. His accumulation of wealth has exposed for him both the opportunities that the system affords ordinary Americans, as well as the abusive loopholes that should be closed. That knowledge, deployed properly, could be of great value to the American people.

Since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, there have been eight general elections. The candidate who has been perceived as being the most comfortable in his own skin has won all eight. Mr. Romney should stop presenting himself as what he thinks the public wants to see from him, and should start being himself. That means we’d see an unabashed rich guy. And as long as he sells that as a positive, it would be a step in the right direction for his campaign.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Tonight’s debate – the 20th of this election cycle – came less than one week before the possibly decisive Michigan and Arizona primaries.

Coming into tonight’s debate, Sen. Rick Santorum had the national lead in most polls, was narrowly leading most Michigan polls, and was closing the gap in Arizona. Did he do enough to retain his new frontrunner status, or did he fumble the political football on his opponent’s ten yard line?

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

RON PAUL (1st Place, Grade: B+)

Rep. Paul had one of his better debates tonight.

One of his best moments came on international policy, when he said the United States shouldn’t be talking about war with Iran. He told the crowd that although he recognizes that he won’t win the moral or constitutional argument in the short-term, he would win the economic one right away. He then offered a passionate plea to his opponents: if you’re going to lead us into war, at least get a declaration of war from Congress. “The obligation should be the oath to the office,” he said, “not the oath to the party.”

Dr. Paul also got a few digs in, shrugging his shoulders and laughing while calling Rick Santorum a “fake.” No other candidate could get away with such a direct attack, and Mr. Santorum offered a minimal defense, weakly telling Paul, “I’m real.”

Paul made a questionable assertion at the end of the night, when he was asked what the biggest media misconception about him is. He said it was “the media myth” that he couldn’t win. As a reminder, Ron Paul lost all 50 states in 2008, and is winless after nine contests this year. That makes him “0 for 59,” hardly a media myth and more an obvious electoral reality.

But he was right on the one word that defined him more than any other: “consistent.” Even his harshest critics would have a tough time making the case that his adjective of choice is anything but spot on.

NEWT GINGRICH (2nd Place, Grade: B)

Speaker Gingrich had a decent night tonight, but didn’t fundamentally do anything to help resurrect his flagging campaign.

As usual, he used strong language, lashing out that it is “utterly stupid to say the United States can’t control the border.” He also used evocative language, saying, “I’m inclined to believe dictators.” That line, of course, could be used against him in political ads – if his opponents determine that he’s relevant enough to be worthy of their attacks. I don’t expect they will.

Mr. Gingrich spoke of a “modern management system” in four answers. I’ve yet to hear a political base – especially one craving a strong emotional appeal – fired up about that kind of process-oriented language. A new “management system” may be good government, but it’s unlikely to influence tens of thousands of voters to suddenly change their votes.

When asked to define himself in one word, Mr. Gingrich selected, “cheerful.” It’s better than “strategery” or “lockbox,” but let’s hope he meant that one sarcastically.

MITT ROMNEY (3rd Place, Grade: B-)

It’s hard to know whether Mitt Romney had a good night or whether Rick Santorum had a bad one. Graded objectively, Gov. Romney didn’t do much to make himself look more likable or relatable tonight. But sometimes, the strongest candidate is the one left standing at the end of the battle as his opponents eliminate themselves one-by-one.

Mr. Romney did have some good moments, twisting the metaphorical knife in Rick Santorum’s side when Santorum started flailing. He derided one of Santorum’s answers, saying, “I didn’t follow all of that,” and reminded viewers that Santorum had voted for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.

Somehow, Romney even managed to lay blame at Santorum’s feet for “ObamaCare,” saying, “Don’t look at me, take a look in the mirror.” His point, which contained a bit of twisted logic, was that because Santorum had supported moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter over the more conservative Pat Toomey, Republicans lost a critical vote against President Obama’s health care law.

Mr. Romney had a few off moments, but they didn’t play terribly on television, thanks to the obviously pro-Romney crowd. He dodged the last question of the night, when he was asked about what misconceptions the public has about him. When reminded of the original question by moderator John King, Romney retorted: “You get to ask the questions you want, I get to answer the questions I want.”

And when asked to define himself, he used the word, “resolute.” That shows either a shocking lack of self-awareness or a brazen attempt to recreate his political past.

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

This was a bad night for Rick Santorum.

As the new GOP frontrunner, he was predictably attacked by his three opponents. But instead of transitioning to safer ground, he spent most of the night on the defensive, trying in vain to explain his way out of corners instead of just moving to the center of the ring.

For example, during one particularly grueling answer on his support for No Child Left Behind, he earned the enmity of the pro-Romney crowd with a long, process-oriented answer, followed by a lecture that “politics is a team sport.” He ended his answer by boosting his credentials as a “home schooling father of seven.”

A better approach would have been to begin his answer with his home schooling bona fides instead of adding them at the end as an afterthought. He should have used that technique during the entire evening, beginning each answer with a strong, action-oriented headline instead of getting mired in explanations about the slow-churning legislative process.

It wasn’t all bad for Santorum. He offered a passionate defense about the importance of family, and delivered a strong retort to Ron Paul’s assertion that his voting record wasn’t conservative enough. He helped diminish the controversies surrounding his views on contraception by saying, “Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it.”

He also got a good line off when Mitt Romney bragged about balancing the Massachusetts state budget: “[Former Massachusetts Democratic Governor] Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for ten years. Does that make him qualified to be president? I don’t think so.”

Overall, though, Mr. Santorum had a bad night at the worst possible moment for his campaign. Don’t be surprised if his poll numbers slip a bit between now and next Tuesday.

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!

During halftime of Sunday’s Super Bowl game, Chrysler aired a stunning two-minute commercial featuring Clint Eastwood.

The ad was a masterpiece of political writing. It acknowledged in stark, unequivocal language that the United States is in rough shape – but it wrapped that tough message in optimistic language that aimed to rally the nation.

Here’s the ad:

“It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.

It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game.

The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.

I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead.

But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.

This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.

Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.”

So what lesson can President Obama and the eventual Republican nominee take out of this ad? That this is the precise type of language Americans demand from our presidential candidates.

There have been eight general elections since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980. In all eight, the candidate with the more optimistic message has always won. That’s not to say we can’t handle tough truths – we can. But we want them delivered from a sunny candidate with a “can do” message, not from a dour candidate who fails to inspire us.

1. THE OPTIMISTS
2. Ronald Reagan, whose 1984 “Morning in America” campaign was the obvious inspiration for this ad
3. George H.W. Bush, who promised a “gentler, kinder” nation in 1988
4. Bill Clinton, who encouraged “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” in 1992 and promised to “build a bridge to the 21st Century” in 1996
5. George W. Bush, who ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and who almost never allowed a pessimistic word to cross his lips.
6. Barack Obama, whose “hope” and “yes we can” campaign was a salve in 2008, during the worst economic downturn in decades
7. THE PESSIMISTS
8. Not coincidentally, all of the presidential losers since 1980 have been perceived as pessimists: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, George H.W. Bush (as compared to Bill Clinton), Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain.

It’s easy to see the theme here. President Obama has started to pivot to this type of optimistic language, and he demonstrated in 2008 that he has the capacity to deliver it well. Mitt Romney, assuming he gets the nomination, will need to quickly pivot to this type of rhetoric as well. His attacks on President Obama are fine and expected. But they’re not enough.

When trying to predict the outcome of the 2012 election, you can almost forget about the economy and foreign affairs. Ask yourself one question: Which candidate’s rhetoric is most like Clint Eastwood’s? The answer will likely determine which man is sworn into office on January 20, 2013.

It’s only January. You’d think that public figures would have made a New Year’s resolution to leave their disastrous media gaffes in 2011.

No such luck. This month, a taco-loving mayor, layoff-loving presidential candidate, and threat-loving politician put their feet firmly in their mouths.

Without any further ado, here are the five worst media disasters of January 2012!

(And if you missed the 10 worst media disasters of 2011, click here to catch up.)

5. Michael Moore: Older Voters Are Racist Homophobes

Michael Moore is right that younger people voted for President Obama in larger numbers than older generations did. But his conclusion that older people didn’t vote for President Obama because they’re racist homophobes is an offensive generalization.

Some older folks likely match his characterization – but many others voted for John McCain for his pledge to end earmarks, his foreign policy bona fides, or for hundreds of other legitimate reasons. Castigating them all as bigots is a perfect example of the small-minded reductionist politics that Mr. Moore blasts in his movies.

4. Nancy Pelosi’s Empty Threat

When Nancy Pelosi was asked whether former House colleague Newt Gingrich could become president, her tone became icy, responding, “That will never happen.”

When CNN Host John King asked why she was so sure, she offered a not-so-veiled threat: “There is something I know.” After Newt Gingrich responded by telling the press that she should come out with whatever she thinks she knows, Ms. Pelosi backtracked on her threat.

Her distasteful threat was tantamount to a childhood game of, “I have a secret and I’m not telling” – and it’s beneath her position as a former House Speaker.

3. The Marines Who Urinated on Dead People (And Their Defenders)

That four U.S. Marines urinated on dead Taliban insurgents (while laughing about giving them a “shower”) was bad enough. But the incident was made even worse when some conservatives suggested that it wasn’t a big deal. Former GOP hopeful Rick Perry said so, and CNN’s Dana Loesch went a step further, saying, ‘I’d urinate on dead Taliban too.”

No matter that Marine Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said that, "These actions are in direct opposition to everything the military stands for.”

Or that Army Lt. Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, said, "Defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach of the LOAC (laws of armed conflict), violate basic standards of human decency and can cause serious damage to relations with the Afghan government."

2. Mitt Romney Likes Being Able to Fire People

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney can’t help himself. If he’s not making $10,000 bets, telling people that he’s unemployed, boasting about putting his political opponents into debt, or bragging about living on the “real streets” of America, he’s threatening to fire people.

So it’s not so much that he uttered the words, “I like being able to fire people.” In fact, that sound bite alone is out-of-context. But it’s an oddly worded way of making his point (about being able to switch underperforming health care providers), and it’s little wonder that many people viewed it as revelatory, not accidental. You better believe his Democratic opponents can’t wait to use it against him.

1. One Mayor’s Pledge to Eat Tacos

When four police officers in East Haven, Connecticut were indicted on charges of beating Hispanic residents, a reporter asked the town’s mayor, Joseph Maturo, “What are you doing for the Latino community today?”

Mr. Maturo’s shocking response led to him being blasted by members of the community, the governor, and the media. 

I hope he was drunk when he gave this interview – at least that would give him an excuse. It’s only January, but his train wreck may end up as one of the worst media disasters of 2012. 

BONUS DISASTER:

If you’re the captain of the Costa Concordia and you abandon ship after running aground in Italy, you might not want to come with an excuse so ludicrous as to dishonor the men and women who died on your ship. That didn’t seem to bother Francesco Schettino, who claimed that he didn’t want to leave the ship, but…

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

I’ll admit it.

After 19 debates, I’ve become jaded. You may have noticed that if you read my review of Monday’s debate a few days ago. But tonight’s debate actually mattered, and it may prove decisive.

We may be able to look back to January 26, 2012 as the night Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee.

The candidates sparred energetically this evening, and the polls are doubtlessly going to shift after tonight’s performances. The question is in which direction they’ll move – and my scorecard below may help answer that question.

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

RICK SANTORUM (1st Place, Grade: A)

If this Rick Santorum had shown up to each of the previous 18 debates, he’d probably have cleared the field already and been marching toward the presidential nomination by now. Yup, he was that good. 

Sen. Santorum’s finest moment came after a battle royale between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, when he passionately jumped in and scolded the two men:

“These two gentleman are out distracting from the most important issues we have by playing petty personal politics. Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress and used the skills that he developed as a member of Congress to go out and advise companies, and that’s not the worst thing in the world, and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy because he worked hard and he’s going out and working hard, and you guys should leave that alone and focus on the issues.”

The audience erupted at his line, showing how Santorum won Iowans over three weeks ago. But he wasn’t a one-trick pony tonight. He also took Mitt Romney to task for “RomneyCare,” saying, “Folks we can’t give this issue away in the election. It’s about freedom….Your mandate is no different than Barack Obama’s mandate.”

He had other fine moments, name-dropping the name of the Puerto Rican governor after an audience question (he had even gone to church with him), and knowledgably discussing Central and South America with great passion.

But his finest moment may have come when he was asked a throwaway question about what his wife would bring to the White House as First Lady. Unlike the other three candidates, he offered a truly heartfelt answer that likely melted the hearts of many a voter.

This is not only Mr. Santorum’s best debate, but it may be the best of any candidate so far this election cycle. Unfortunately for him, it may be too late. So any votes he picks up after tonight – and he will likely pick up many – will likely reduce Newt Gingrich’s total and pave the way for Mitt Romney to win Florida’s primary on Tuesday.

MITT ROMNEY (2nd Place, Grade: B)

Mitt Romney started the debate strong but had a couple of off moments that knocked his grade down a bit.

Early on, he schooled Newt Gingrich on the immigration issue when the former House Speaker accused him of wanting to send grandparents who had been in the U.S. illegally for years back to their home countries. “The problem is not 11 million grandmothers,” Gov. Romney said to great applause.

When Mr. Gingrich accused him of making money off of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Romney responded, “You also own mutual funds that invest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Mr. Gingrich meekly said, “right,” and retreated. 

Mr. Romney hired a new debate coach recently, and it showed in his performance. He was much stronger, looked genuinely angry at moments tonight, and was better prepared.

But even a new debate coach couldn’t stop Mr. Romney from committing a few mistakes:

1. 1. He denied putting an ad on the air about a quote in which Mr. Gingrich appeared to call Spanish “the language of the ghetto.” Wolf Blitzer quickly corrected him, saying that not only did he run the ad, but that it said, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.”
2. 2. He responded to Newt Gingrich’s idea about a moon colony by saying, “I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they want to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say you’re fired.” Can he seriously not get through a public appearance without threatening to fire someone?
3. 3. On health care, he told Rick Santorum, “It’s not worth getting angry about.” That line will likely be used against him for the rest of the week. 

Overall, thought, Mitt Romney may be the big winner tonight. His relative strength, combined with Newt Gingrich’s weakness and Rick Santorum’s master performance, may help seal his nomination.

RON PAUL (3rd Place, Grade: C)

Let’s end the fantasy that Ron Paul has a chance to be the next president. He’s running to get attention for his issues and broaden the movement – laudable goals, but not winning ones for 2012.

At this point, CNN may as well use one of its famous holograms to replace the actual Ron Paul and just press play. We know the old familiar soliloquies by heart by now, and they were there again tonight on Fannie and Freddie, monetary policy, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

That’s not to say he didn’t have some terrific moments. When asked about his health, he challenged his opponents to a 25-mile bike ride in the Texas heat. On the colonization of the moon (yes, a real topic at this debate), Dr. Paul said. “I don’t think we should go to the moon. I think maybe we should send some politicians up there.”

Increasingly, he’s running as the libertarian Bulworth – less interested in winning than in being intellectually honest. That’s admirable. But to grade him as a serious contender at this point seems like a stretch. If he truly wanted to win, he wouldn’t go into Florida and offer a tepid defense of Israel.

NEWT GINGRICH (4th Place, Grade: D)

Tonight may be remembered as the last evening Newt Gingrich was ever viewed as a serious presidential contender.

He delivered a limp, restrained, and uncertain performance in which he wildly vacillated between offering truces to his fellow candidates and attacking them, often within seconds of each other. That he did so poorly after insisting upon a live audience (and getting it) made him look even worse. He simultaneously looked both defensive and unable to defend himself.

Not only did Mr. Gingrich lose this point to Mitt Romney, he also lost it to moderator Wolf Blitzer:

When Ron Paul later accused Mr. Gingrich of not balancing four budgets in the House as he’s been claiming, Gingrich responded that he had indeed balanced the budget, “Under the system that was used.” That’s right, folks, that perfectly parsed, Clintonesque line earned him the boos of the Republican crowd.

Finally, Mr. Gingrich said his investments are a "tiny mouse" compared with Romney’s “giant elephant." That may well be a perfect metaphor for the rest of this campaign.

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!

After Newt Gingrich’s unexpected blowout in South Carolina on Saturday night, tonight’s debate promised to be a barnburner.

Instead, tonight’s debate – the 18th of this election cycle – was the most insufferably boring, and likely the least newsworthy.

Well, one thing was newsworthy. For the first time in 18 debates, NBC decided to mute the audience, ostensibly to lend much-needed gravitas to the proceedings. I appreciate their intention, which helped focus attention on the candidates instead of on audience misbehavior. But the silence managed to suck the life out of the debate – and audience members were reduced to being, as one former journalism boss once called them, “potted plants.”

This was supposed to be an exciting Republican debate in a suddenly tumultuous field. Instead, it was a tough-to-grade snoozer. How dull was it? One of the GOP frontrunners discussed the fine distinction between beet and cane sugar. Really.

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

MITT ROMNEY (1st Place, Grade: B)

Gov. Romney had a much more sure-footed performance tonight than he has in the past few debates. It’s not that he came across as particularly appealing tonight (he was far too negative for that), but he at least wasn’t particularly unappealing tonight. That’s progress.

He came out of the gate by launching a frontal assault on Newt Gingrich. About the former House Speaker, Mr. Romney reminded viewers that, “It was Republicans who replaced him in the House, voted to reprimand him.” He twice said that Mr. Gingrich resigned from Congress in disgrace, and accused him of being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac.

He was steadier tonight on the now-predictable question of releasing his tax returns, but still refuses to put out 12 years of tax returns as his father did when he was a presidential candidate in 1968. I’m not convinced that releasing two years worth of tax returns will fully put this issue to bed. Nor did his conventional talking point, “The real question is not so much my taxes, but the taxes of the American people” work. A more gifted retail politician could have finessed it better; from Romney, the line looks scripted and insincere.

Mr. Romney had at least two off-pitch moments tonight. First, he again bragged that he put Ted Kennedy into debt during his failed bid for Massachusetts in 1994: “I didn’t beat him, but he had to take out a mortgage on his house so he could beat me.”

Second, he said that illegal immigrants are, “…going to find they can’t get work here, and if people can’t get work here, they’re going to self-deport to a place they can get work.” Critics are already seizing on Mr. Romney’s awkward phrasing of “self-deport,” saying it’s a ludicrous notion that people will deport themselves. It’s an unfair interpretation of his meaning – and he’s right on the facts – but that won’t prevent from some people trying to turn it into a, “I was for it before I was against it” moment. 

But the big picture tonight for Mitt Romney was generally positive. He didn’t deliver anything even remotely close to an inspiring performance – but at least he stopped the bleeding tonight.

NEWT GINGRICH (2nd Place, Grade: B-)

Speaker Gingrich clearly doesn’t do as well without an enthusiastic audience to play off of. He was oddly muted tonight, playing the role of “above it all” frontrunner and barely defending himself against Mitt Romney’s attacks. When the roles were reversed, Mr. Romney’s failure to strongly defend himself against Gingrich’s attacks didn’t work so well, so it’s curious why Mr. Gingrich would adopt the same strategy in reverse.

To the degree Mr. Gingrich launched any “attacks,’” they were meek. Alluding to Mr. Romney’s low tax rate, Gingrich said that he was prepared to call his tax plan the “Mitt Romney Flat Tax,” since he proposed to bring all Americans down to Romney’s tax rate.

He also defended himself badly against charges that he accepted $1.6 million from the unpopular housing lender Freddie Mac. At one point, he turned to Mr. Romney and challenged whether any of the money he had earned with Bain Capital was from the government. Romney said “no,” and Gingrich didn’t follow up. A candidate should know better than to ask a question to which he doesn’t know the answer and can’t follow-up upon.

His strongest moment came when, after being scolded by Romney for accepting money from Freddie Mac, Gingrich asked Romney how much money he made with Bain Capital. Romney seemed genuinely surprised by the question, stumbling a bit before saying he had earned a “substantial” amount.

In the end, he didn’t do much to hurt himself, and Mr. Romney’s punches didn’t land hard enough to change the state of the race. Still, I’m not sure Mr. Gingrich can afford to be so laid back in Thursday’s debate.

RICK SANTORUM (3rd Place, Grade: C)

Rick Santorum is languishing toward the back of the pack with no discernible path to the nomination. He did nothing tonight to change that.

Although Mr. Santorum did nothing wrong tonight, he didn’t do anything to stand out. And for a guy polling a distant third, that’s a losing performance.

RON PAUL (4th Place, Grade: C-)

After 18 debates, there’s little new to say about Rep. Paul. He meandered, attacked the Fed, and discussed monetary policy. Here’s a prediction: He’ll do the same in the 19th debate. And the 20th. But like Santorum, he did nothing tonight that will help him suddenly surge and win the White House – and he seems to know it, acknowledging that he doesn’t “daydream” about being President.  

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!

Newt Gingrich may have done Mitt Romney a favor by winning the South Carolina primary tonight.

If Mitt Romney had won, he would have become the de facto nominee earlier than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history, meaning that he alone would have had to endure more media scrutiny – for a longer period of time – than any of his predecessors.

Instead, he’ll now continue to share the media’s harsh glare with Newt Gingrich, a severely flawed candidate who will steal some of the limelight and help buffer Mr. Romney’s coverage. More stories about Mr. Gingrich’s angry ex-wife and messy leadership as House Speaker means fewer stories about Mr. Romney’s tax returns and Bain Capital.

If Mr. Romney had won tonight, he would have had to endure the media scrutiny alone for the next ten months. That would have been bad news for the Romney campaign for one reason: Mitt Romney does not wear well.

The more people are exposed to him, the more they dislike him. That’s not a personal view, but the conclusion of a Pew Research Center survey, which found that Mr. Romney is viewed favorably by only 33 percent of the public and unfavorably by 47 percent.

But now, Mr. Romney will have the advantage of appearing side-by-side in media stories with Mr. Gingrich, allowing voters to see a stark contrast between the two men.

Mr. Gingrich will be seen as an exciting politician who says unpredictable things that excite the base, traits that didn’t exactly rocket Pat Buchanan or Howard Dean to the nomination. Mr. Romney, who comports himself more like eventual nominees Al Gore, Bob Dole, and John Kerry, will likely be viewed as more presidential in comparison, likely helping to pave his way to the nomination. Of course, those three men eventually lost their general elections – but not before capturing their parties’ nominations first.

Assuming the wheels don’t fall completely off the Romney campaign, the comparison between the two men will help him and will shorten the length of time he has to endure the spotlight on his own.

I know some people will say a quick win would have been better for Mitt Romney since his campaign would have been able to save its money for a general election run. That’s true. But the bigger problem for Mitt Romney isn’t cash-on-hand. It’s likeability.

Note: For comparison’s sake, here are some of history’s earliest “clinch” dates:

• January 27, 2004: John Kerry wins New Hampshire, becoming the de facto nominee.
• February 1, 2000: Al Gore narrowly beats Bill Bradley in New Hampshire, becoming the de facto Democratic nominee.
• February 5, 2008: John McCain becomes the de facto nominee after his Super Tuesday wins over Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
• February 29, 2000: George W. Bush finally becomes the de facto nominee after beating John McCain in Virginia and Washington.

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!

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!