Tonight's Wacky GOP Debate

by Matt Latimer

The Republican 2012 field, such as it is, gathers to do battle in New Hampshire Monday night. Matt Latimer on Herman Cain’s upstart energy, Newt’s comeback chances—and Bachmann’s time to shine. Plus, join John Avlon, Howard Kurtz, and Daily Beast readers for a live debate chat at 8 p.m. EST and follow Andrew Sullivan's live blog. 

The Republicans are spoiling us, America. I hope you realize that. Just as hundreds of millions of us finally are coming to grips with the many life-altering reflections and pithy rejoinders offered during last month’s riveting, not-a-second-to-be-forgotten Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, your Grand Old Party is bringing you another installment. And in a brilliantly timed move by CNN, Monday night’s New Hampshire encounter is in the same time slot as the Stanley Cup Finals, the most dramatic episode of The Bachelorette yet, and a re-run of How I Met Your Mother. Which means that no one is going to be watching tonight, except for me and Candy Crowley.

For the rest of you, I offer a few of the major storylines that we’ll be following (ranked from most interesting to least) as well as their probable outcomes:

#1: Herman-ator 2: Judgment Day. To the astonishment of pundits and the embarrassment of every other candidate on stage, Herman Cain was declared the consensus winner of last month’s South Carolina debate. Cain’s challenge in New Hampshire is to turn his following among a small circle of conservatives into a viable national campaign that wins at least the grudging respect of the political class. So Cain’s efforts have been a bit turbulent. But the real question for him to answer is this: Why should voters make Cain the first person since Dwight D. Eisenhower to be president of the U.S. without ever holding any other political office? Founding Godfather’s pizza is not exactly planning D-Day. Chance that Cain will accomplish this tonight: 1 in 1,000.

#2: Newt Gingrich Rides Again. The former speaker of the House has had the worst few weeks of any presidential candidate since Grover Cleveland fended off charges he had an illegitimate child: Newt was glitter-bombed by a gay activist. His press statements were lampooned by John Lithgow. And he was humiliated by his entire staff, who not only resigned en masse, but kicked him in the stomach on their way out the door, with damaging leaks to a gloating press contingent about what a disaster he supposedly is. But as the adage goes, joyful is the man with nothing left to lose. When he wants to be, the former professor can be an insightful and entertaining presence, a font of interesting ideas in a primary race that so far seems to have none. It really is too early for the media to write anybody out of this race—and Republican voters love nothing more than to prove the “lamestream media” wrong. Chance that Speaker Gingrich will prove the nay-saying, Harvard-loving hatemongering elite wrong this evening: 1 in 1,000,000.

#3. It takes a woman. Tonight is a watershed of sorts: the first GOP presidential debate in TV history featuring a prominent woman at the podium (unless you include Elizabeth Dole’s over-before-it-began campaign effort more than a decade ago). Representative Michele Bachmann is a Tea Party favorite with a talent for notoriety and strong credentials with social conservatives—sort of what you might come up with if you combined Sarah Palin, Andrew Breitbart, and Mike Huckabee with PT Barnum (Warning: Do not try this at home). In her first foray against the other guys, Bachmann will need to show she is a plausible presidential candidate while maintaining the sometimes over-the-top feistiness that won her accolades in the first place. Chance of success: 1 in 25,000.

Why should voters make Cain the first person since Dwight D. Eisenhower to be president of the United States without ever holding any other political office? Founding Godfather’s pizza is not exactly planning D-Day.

Republicans Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. Credit: AP Photo

#4. Mitt Romney and the frontrunner’s curse. Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson—each of these presidential contenders were, at one point or another, the frontrunners in the 2008 primaries. None, of course, made it to the White House. Even the eventual GOP nominee John McCain was almost fatally afflicted with the frontrunner’s curse, only claiming the nomination after being given up for dead by everyone but his family and Lindsey Graham. Romney’s toughest challenge in tonight’s debate is to keep himself from being this year’s establishment choice, the kiss of death for disgruntled and disillusioned voters. While Romney is at it, the Reagan wannabe will also try to keep enough voters from remembering that he oncesaid this. Chance he will pull this off convincingly: Zero.

#5. Tim Pawlenty and the Case of the Missing Buzz. There is something unfailingly, but comfortably, boring about the former governor from Minnesota. Yet over and over Pawlenty has been intent on trying to offer us pizzazz. He’s given “bold” speeches. He’s tried to offer “bold” attacks on his opponents. He’s even tried out a “bold” idea or two. The latest? Announcing that America set a goal to grow the economy by 5 percent each year.  If I were Barack Obama, here’s what I’d respond: Is there something wrong with 6 percent? Why not 10 percent, for that matter, or 1,000,000 percent? Is Tim Pawlenty saying 5 percent growth is the best we can do? While we are at it, why don’t we also set an “aspirational goal” that every person in America in 2013 has a job, and free health care, and a new Prius (choice of blue or red), and that no member of Congress ever again will send pictures over Twitter? Monday evening’s debate is another chance for T-Paw (even the nickname seems dull) to embrace his inner nerd. Instead of trying to be something he is not, why not make the case to voters that boring and plodding can be good. Chance Pawlenty will bore us to cheers: 1 in 10,000.

#6. Ron Paul and the Case of the Missing Smile. The cult-favorite presidential candidate seems to think that Americans will elect him president in the hope that he’ll stop yelling at us. Tonight those of us watching will look again for elusive signs of a simple grin. Chance that Rep. Paul will crack a joke, take a breath, or offer a hearty chuckle: too small to be measurable.

#7. Justice for Johnson: No one likes to be the first person voted out in Survivor orCelebrity Apprentice and yet every year someone unlucky soul gets the boot. The same applies to presidential debates. Gary Johnson no longer makes the cut of credible political contenders. Unlike also-rans of yesteryear, like Alan Keyes, he has not pledged to go on a hunger strike. But he is taking his case to the Internet. Chance that Gary Johnson will get what he deserves: 100 percent.

Matt Latimer is the author of the New York Times bestseller, SPEECH-LESS: Tales of a White House Survivor. He was deputy director of speechwriting for George W. Bush and chief speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld.

Rick Santorum Needs a Miracle

While Romney, Pawlenty and Gingrich need a lesson in authenticity, newly minted 2012 presidential candidate Rick Sant...

Posted 12:52 AM | Jun 7, 2011

How Palin's Winning the Media War

The Alaskan continues her unmatched mastery of the press-getting them to slavishly follow her Tour to Nowhere. Matt L...

Posted 10:46 PM | Jun 2, 2011

Callista Gingrich Joins GOP's Worst Wives Club

So Callista Gingrich forced Newt's campaign implosion by dragging him on an Aegean cruise? Hardly-she's just joined M...

Posted 9:17 PM | Jun 10, 2011

Fox News' GOP Debate Debacle

With Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, and other heavyweights absent, the news channel's first 2012 Republica...

Posted 12:25 AM | May 6, 2011

Haley Barbour's Exit Leaves Sad GOP 2012 Field

Now that Haley Barbour, one of the savviest politicos around, has dropped out of the presidential race, we may as jus...

Posted 12:15 AM | Apr 29, 2011

Russell Crowe's anti-circumcision rant blows up

 JUN 13, 2011 11:14 ET

The actor calls it "barbaric" and tells Jews to "stop cutting" -- and learns a crucial lesson about Twitter

BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS

AP/Chris Pizello

Russell Crowe

Maybe a man who's got a history of phone throwing isn't the best judge of what's "barbaric." But let it not be said that Russell Crowe can't become a little more civilized.

The Academy Award-winning actor and father of two sons came under fire last week for a rambling series of tweets that kicked off with a declaration that "Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect."

Predictably, he was deluged with rebuttals from followers, and Crowe, never one to back down from a fight, seemed happy to take them all on. When a user responded that circumcision is "more hygienic and nobody remembers it," he lobbed back, "Hygienic? Why don't you sew up your ass then?" Regarding circumcision's place in the Jewish tradition, Crowe told his followers that "... The Mayans had ceremonial acts too." And with a direct nod to a famous pal he added, "I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats but stop cutting yr babies @eliroth" -- a comment that prompted actor/director Eli Roth to jokingly reply, "You didn't seem to be complaining when I was recutting you this afternoon."

Crowe -- who in the midst of it all also managed to work in a plug for reproductive choice -- ended his tirade with a bang, by stating that "I will always stand for the perfection of babies, i will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires" and that "if u feel it is yr right 2 cut things off yr babies please unfollow and f**k off, I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism."

Yet in the harsh light of hindsight, a whole heap of backlash, and who knows, maybe a little more clarity of thought than when he'd originally been posting, Crowe deleted the offending tweets and issued an apologetic message. "I have a deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities," he wrote Friday. " I'm very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress. My personal beliefs aside I realize that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry."

Yet as days passed, the controversy -- and the public pondering both in the media and the Twittersphere over whether Crowe's remarks indicate anti-Semitism -- refused to go away. Out of context, his remarks about hats and honey seem as dismissive as his comparison of Jewish tradition to Mayan blood ritual seem ignorant. But Eli Roth himself, who is writing and producing  Crowe's forthcoming "The Man With the Iron Fists," seems to have taken his friend's remarks in stride. "We are FRIENDS. Friends joke and tease each other," he tweeted, adding, "One of the nicest people I have ever been lucky enough to meet and work with. AND RESPECTFUL OF ALL RELIGIONS." 

It's entirely possible to respect another's religion while disagreeing with its practices. And it's likewise all too easy to say something as a joke to a friend that sounds entirely wrong when it's addressed to a large group of individuals. Crowe's goofy comment to Roth was likely, in his mind, just a snap to a buddy. That's the thing about the medium: It can create the illusion of intimate conversation when in fact you're broadcasting to the world.

However little offense he may have meant to give -- or his friend may have taken -- Crowe does seem to have learned a little something this week about the power of social media. It can, in its better moments, make a person consider other perspectives. And the same words, in different contexts, can be used to persuade, to hurt, to misinform, or to make amends. Whatever you think about hot button issues like circumcision, it's encouraging when we can occasionally stop shouting our own opinions at each other and simply consider how we sound, and take in what others have to say. Who'd have thought that Russell Crowe, of all the random, temperamental people in the world, would be the type to grok that so swiftly?

"This is a great forum for communication," he graciously wrote this weekend. "I, like any human have my opinions and you all have yours, thank you for trusting me with them." Whether you agree with his views or not, you've got to give the guy credit for being able to know when to apologize, and how to listen. In the morass of Twitter wars and flames that can make the Net feel like a cesspool, Crowe, it turns out,  is anything but barbaric.

Six Questions Tonight's GOP Debaters Don't Want to Discuss

John Nichols

June 13, 2011 

Seven Republican presidential prospects (most of them announced as such) will debate for two hours tonight.

In that time, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul. Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum—yes!the Rick Santorum!—will jockey for a position in a race where everyone who is still trying to figure out whether a candidate who is not present, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, might make the race.

So it is that, no matter what the candidates on stage say, the big “news” from this debate probably involve what Sarah says about it.

That’s because, in addition to their obscurity, the debaters will bring to the stage a reticence when it comes to mentioning the elephants in the room at the Grand Old Party.

Here are some issues and ideas the Republican contenders won’t be leaping to address tonight:

1. Will You Endorse Paul Ryan’s Budget As It is Written?

No Republican presidential candidate wants to go the way of Newt Gingrich and get chided for showing insufficient deference to the GOP’s latest “golden boy.” So, while all the contenders know that the Ryan plan is a failure practically and politically—even Bachmann, who backed it in the House, now claims she’s for the proposal with an “asterisk”—they won’t say that.

By the same token, none of the candidates will fully embrace a proposal to end Medicare as we know it and prepare for an assault on Social Security. To do so would guarantee defeat in November 2012, and, despite appearances to the contrary, these candidates really would like to occupy the Oval Office.

2. Should President Obama Be Censured (Maybe Even Threatened With Impeachment) for Launching an Undeclared War With Libya?

Republican presidential contenders would dearly love to get in some Obama-bashing. But it does not work to hold him to account for his undeclared war-making. It’s not that the president’s Libya mission is legitimate; the problem is that calling out Obama on this fight raises the question: Where were you when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney led us into an even more physically, emotionally and economically devastating war of whim with Iraq?

Only Ron Paul could come close to answering this question without exploding the inconsistent meter. (In fairness, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson could also answer ably; but anti–drug war candidate has been excluded from this debate under CNN’s don’t-let-this-get-interesting rule.)

3. Isn’t the Whole Point of This Debate to Destroy Mitt Romney?

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s presidential run has always prompted the question: “Why?” Plodding and predictable, Pawlenty was a forgettable governor and his presidential candidacy has always lived in the shadows of what passes for a GOP frontrunner, former Massachusetts Governor Romney. But on the eve of this debate, Pawlenty debuted the term “Obamneycare”—a pitch-perfect reference to the Massachusetts health-care reforms that Romney implemented as governor, and that mirror the reforms President Obama and the Democrats outlined at the federal level.

Pawlenty is poised to lead the anti-Romney pile on. And it could get ugly—indeed, it must get ugly if this race is going to open up enough for any of the second-tier candidates to be serious players. But despite the obvious targeting of Romney, all the GOP candidates will claim that their true target is Barack Obama. Ultimately, that’s true. But right now, they’ve got their knives out for each other.

4. How Come So Many of the GOP Candidates Are Out of Work?

The last time a former elected official was elected president was thirty-one years ago, when Ronald Reagan, the ex-governor of California, secured the Republican nomination and the top job. Democrats tried running former Vice President Walter Mondale four years later. But since then, both the Republican and Democratic parties have regularly nominated sitting officeholders.

This year, however, most of the major Republicans are used-to-be somebodies.

So where are all the GOP’s high-profile senators and governors?

The GOP field of the former governors, a former senator and a former CEO does not inspire much confidence. While two people on the stage, Texas Congressman Paul and Minnesota Congresswoman Bachmann, have been actively engaged in policymaking in recent years, the majority of the supposedly serious contenders have been far from the action—in some cases for decades. That’s particularly true of former House Speaker Gingrich, who left Congress during President Bill Clinton’s second term, and Romney, who left his job as governor of Massachusetts when President George Bush was still considered the leader of the Republican Party. Pizza millionaire Cain, who made his last big political play during Clinton’s first term (when he confronted the former president on healthcare issues) and whose previous electoral experience involved losing a Republican primary for a Georgia US Senate seat is considered a fresh face—or, at the very least, a “hold the pepperoni” stand-in for Donald Trump.

5. Why Are So Many of the Serious Contenders for the GOP Nod Showing Up for CNN’s Debate When so Few Showed Up for Fox’s Forum?

Pawlenty was the closest thing to a credible contender to appear on the Fox-hosted debate several weeks ago—creating a circumstance so comic that NBC’s Saturday Night Live mocked it mercilessly. Yet now, barely two months later, the major announced and unannounced GOP candidates—with the exception of Palin—are packing the stage at a debate hosted by CNN, a “lamestream” media outlet (in Palin parlance). What gives? Where is the Fox love? Could it be that, at a point when the Republican field wants to be taken seriously, they are opting for a (somewhat) more serious network?

6. If Anthony Weiner Should Quit Because He Was Too Facebook-Friendly, Should David Vitter Quit Because He Was Too Prostitute-Friendly?

House majority leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, says it is time for Democrats to force their wayward member out of the caucus.

Fair enough.

Here’s a good test for the party of “family values”: Given a choice between taking a strong stand for family values that might offend a powerful Republican senator from state that could influence the nominating process or picking on an already thoroughly embarrassed Democrat, how courageous do you think the contenders will be?

Here’s an even more unsettling question: Will seven presidential prospects and a CNN anchor be able to make it through two hours without mentioning Anthony Weiner? If they do, it will be the longest break the political and pundit classes have given America from the whole distraction that ate the discourse.