Republican Debate in Arizona Billed as the Season Finale

That was the position that political junkies found themselves in on Wednesday as CNN prepared to televise the 20th Republican presidential debate of the 2012 nomination race. There are no more debates on the conveyer belt — an abrupt change for a campaign season that has been punctuated by one every nine days on average from September to the most recent debate in January.

Some in the television news business deemed Wednesday’s debate a “season finale.” Charles P. Pierce of Esquire magazine suggested in a blog post that it be titled “A Very Special Episode,” a promotional line for TV shows that is now mostly a parody of the medium.

“They should invite the whole cast back, all the people who left the show for their own spinoffs, the way they brought Rhoda and Phyllis back when Mary Richards got fired at WJM,” Mr. Pierce wrote, alluding to the classic sitcom “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

Ever since the very beginning, last May 5 on the Fox News Channel, candidates advanced and retreated on the basis of the Republican debates; so, too, did television channels and moderators. Individual debates drew as many as 7.6 million viewers (ABC, Dec. 10), happily surprising executives who saw their networks’ reputations and finances benefit.

And now, suddenly, the show’s over?

Stay tuned, as they say.

CNN billed the Wednesday debate in Mesa, Ariz., as the final meeting of the four remaining candidates before the voting on March 6, Super Tuesday. There was to have been another on March 1, but last week Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Representative Ron Paul declined CNN’s invitation.

Television news executives have expressed optimism that if the Republican campaign lacks an unassailable front-runner after Super Tuesday, some of the remaining candidates will accept new invitations to debates.

“Front-runners are the ones who, typically, look at debates as events that pose more risk than reward,” Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, said in a telephone call from Mesa.

Chuck Todd, the political director for NBC News, said he suspected that “we’re going to go back to a more realistic debate schedule of one every month-ish.”

NBC, he said, is planning “at least one” more debate, though it has not yet proposed that to the Republican campaigns.

“There’s no point in asking them now,” Mr. Todd said. “They’re not going to make a decision until they absolutely have to.”

NBC’s debate in Florida on Jan. 23 attracted 7.1 million viewers, the second-highest total since May.

But, broadly speaking, the ratings for the debates did not climb a lot over time; CNN’s most recent debate, on Jan. 26, drew 100,000 fewer viewers than a debate it co-hosted in October, months before any caucuses or primaries had been held.

Perhaps political devotees were tuning in each time, but casual viewers were not — a suggestion made by some executives and backed up by polls that show relatively low levels of interest in the campaign among most Americans.

That was the punch line, at least, for Jimmy Fallon last week when he told the viewers of his late-night show that CNN would let some viewers ask the candidates questions on Wednesday.

“It’ll be awkward,” he said, “when they’re like, ‘This question’s from Mark in Texas.’ Mark asks: ‘What else is on?’ ”

View the original article here

The Caucus: Arizona Republican Debate Fact Check

Times reporters take a closer look at some of the statements made by the Republican presidential candidates in Wednesday night’s debate.

Romney and the Auto Bailout

Mitt Romney provided a more nuanced explanation of his opposition to the federal loan package that helped rescue the auto industry in 2008 and 2009, saying there was “no way” he would have let American car companies implode. But a bipartisan group of auto industry executives, government officials and financial experts have said that if General Motors and Chrysler had followed his advice at the time and gone into bankruptcy, implosion is exactly what would have happened.

The context is Mr. Romney’s 2008 New York Times Op-Ed, in which he argued that Chrysler and General Motors should not receive federal aid. “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check,” he wrote.

But auto industry executives and people who were involved in the government-mandated reorganization of the auto companies have said that the managed bankruptcy was not an option at the time Mr. Romney wrote his article. Furthermore, they have said, following a path into bankruptcy then would have caused far more severe job losses and even liquidation.

Mike Jackson, a Romney supporter and chief executive of AutoNation, the largest auto retailer in the country, said recently that Mr. Romney’s position on the auto bailout was a “circle that can’t be squared.”

To go through a managed bankruptcy, tens of billions of dollars in financing would have been necessary. Auto executives and government officials have said that the only entity at the time that could have provided that level of financing was the federal government. In late 2008 and early 2009, the credit markets seized up, making financing on that scale virtually impossible to come by.

Mr. Romney and others have argued that the markets would have provided that money if the government demurred. But even Mr. Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital, declined to help General Motors when asked in 2009 to invest in the automaker’s European division, said one person with direct knowledge of the conversations.

The most problematic comment on the auto bailout, however, was made not by Mr. Romney but by Newt Gingrich, who said foreign automakers like Toyota and Nissan were doing “just fine” at the time the federal government bailed out domestic carmakers. Mr. Gingrich made the remarks in an attempt to draw a connection between the American auto companies’ high labor costs and their decline. But at that point, car manufacturers were doing poorly regardless of whether they were foreign or domestic.

In early 2009, Toyota reported its first loss in 70 years — $7.7 billion. Nissan was also in bad shape at that time, reporting $2.4 billion in losses. Honda, another Japanese automaker, also lost billions then.

– Jeremy W. Peters

Santorum on Contraception

Rick Santorum had a hard time explaining his stance on contraception because he has made numerous statements that appear to be in conflict.

Did he clear it up Wednesday night? Not really. “I have a personal moral objection” to contraception, he said, “but I’ve voted for bills that included it too.”

This drew a big boo from the audience.

Last year, Mr. Santorum told an evangelical blog, “One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.”

He added: “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s O.K. Contraception’s O.K.’ It’s not O.K. because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

So, his position seems to be that while he personally opposes birth control, he would not ban it as president. But he did not spell it out clearly tonight. Then again, he successfully deflected Mr. Romney’s attempt to press him on the issue by bringing up Mr. Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts.

– Katharine Q. Seelye

Santorum Waffles on Title X

Mr. Santorum may have had a “I voted for it before I voted against it” moment Wednesday night.

In response to an assertion by Mr. Paul that he had voted to fund Planned Parenthood, Mr. Santorum said: “As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I’ve always opposed Title X funding.” He quickly added, “But it’s included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things.” Here the audience started to boo.

Technically, Mr. Santorum was saying that he opposed Title X funding — not that he voted against it — but he was implying that he had voted against it. Then when he said it was included in a larger bill, the audience cried foul.

Title X, by the way, is the major funding vehicle for family planning programs. It was signed into law in 1970 by a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who declared, “Contraception for all.”

Mr. Santorum said that because Title X “was always pushed through,” he countered by pushing for Title XX to provide funding for abstinence programs, saying they “actually work in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active.”

Finally, he got around to an admission: “Yes, I — I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn’t like.”

His bottom line, he said, is that as president, “I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.”

Mr. Santorum’s recent statements are likely to add to the confusion about his stance on the issue. Since 2006, he has cited his support for Title X to show that he is not opposed to funding for contraception.

As recently as last week, on “CBS This Morning,” Rick Santorum told the host, Charlie Rose, that he has no problems with federal funds for contraceptives, saying that he voted for Title X funds in the Senate.

– Katharine Q. Seelye

Obama and Iran

Mr. Romney pressed his case that President Obama had practiced appeasement toward Iran, but he mischaracterized Mr. Obama’s position on potential military action. The president has repeatedly said that military action against Tehran remains on the table.

It is also not true that Mr. Obama agreed to Russia’s demand to give up missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe. He negotiated with Russia over the scale of the system, in an effort to win Moscow’s agreement to the Start arms reduction treaty. In his discussion of national security, Mr. Romney also said the administration wanted to cut the Pentagon’s budget by “roughly a trillion dollars,” which is twice what Mr. Obama has suggested.

Mr. Santorum is correct in saying that in 2009, the Obama administration cut funding for a United States-based group that documented human rights abuses in Iran. But the State Department continues to finance other groups that seek to block censorship of the Internet in Iran. Mr. Santorum also slightly misstated Mr. Obama’s decision to open an embassy in Syria. The United States withdrew its ambassador to Damascus under President George W. Bush; Mr. Obama decided to send an envoy back to Syria before withdrawing him recently because of the civil strife.

– Mark Landler

Expanding E-Verify

When Mr. Romney spoke of Arizona as a model for fighting illegal immigration, he was referring to one of several laws Arizona passed in recent years that requires employers to confirm that new hires are legally authorized to work through a federal system called E-Verify.

The system, which is voluntary at the federal level, has been growing rapidly, with 288,000 employers now using it nationwide. It has proven to be a reasonably effective and efficient way for employers to avoid hiring illegal immigrants, and it discourages those immigrants from seeking jobs in companies known to use the system. There is bipartisan support in Congress for some kind of national system to verify the immigration status and work authorization of new hires.

However, there has been debate over proposals currently before Congress to expand the E-Verify system, making it mandatory for all employers nationwide. If that happened, all new hires — including Americans as well as immigrants — would have to provide documentation to verify their identity and eligibility to work. Some critics, including Republicans, have said that could become another costly and intrusive federal mandate.

E-Verify currently relies on data from the Social Security system, which has been shown to have errors that could be costly and time-consuming for Americans and legal immigrants to correct.

Also, farmers across the country are strongly opposed to making E-Verify mandatory nationwide without a new guest worker program to provide legal migrant labor for agriculture. So while the general idea that Mr. Romney proposes has support in theory, putting it into practice nationally is not easy — particularly for Republicans.

That said, all four of the candidates avoided the hot-button issue: what to do about 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the country.

– Julia Preston

Gingrich and Earmarks

Earlier in the debate, three of the Republicans – Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney — jousted as they often do on the subject of earmarks, which are spending items that members of Congress insert in the annual appropriations bills to benefit a particular project or program backed by constituents or supporters. Mr. Romney has criticized both of his rivals for their use of earmarks when each was in Congress. As the moderator, CNN’s John King, indicated, earmarked spending has always been a minuscule piece of federal spending – typically less than 1 percent.

Mr. King asked Mr. Gingrich to respond to Mr. Romney’s criticism that Mr. Gingrich, as speaker of the House from 1995 through 1998, raised earmarking to an art form. Mr. Gingrich, rather than respond directly, recalled that the federal budget was balanced when he was speaker.

Mr. Gingrich, as speaker, did preside over a period in which the number and total cost of earmarks spiraled, and Republican leaders openly encouraged new members to seek earmarks to buttress their local standing. In 1992, when he was still in the minority, Representative Gingrich said, “I am committed to hunting down every appropriation … that is some politician taking care of himself.”

But in 1995, Mr. Gingrich’s first year as speaker, the new Republican-led Congress approved a record 1,430 earmarked projects worth $10 billion, according to the conservative group Citizens Against Government Waste. The totals escalated annually. Mr. Gingrich was forced to resign his office in late 1998 after a fraud scandal and Republican election losses. But Republicans remained in control of the House through 2006, when there were 9,963 earmarks worth $29 billion. Disgust among conservative voters with the trend, and scandals surrounding the earmarks, was a factor that year in Republicans’ election losses, which gave control of the House and Senate to Democrats.

Earmarks are still a part of the budget process, but Congress and the executive branch disclose them. And nonpartisan groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, with its annual “Pig Book,” continue to report on the spending.

– Jackie Calmes

Controlling the Federal Debt

The Republican debate opened with a question from the audience that allowed each of the four remaining candidates to claim that they would bring the mounting federal debt under control. But nonpartisan analysts have concluded otherwise for the proposals to date from Mr. Romney, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum.

Another group will weigh in on Thursday: the U.S. Budget Watch project of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a longstanding nonprofit group that includes former members of Congress, administration officials and budget experts of both major parties, will issue a report showing that all three Republicans would add to the projected debt. Each candidate has proposed deep spending cuts in coming years, but the reductions are exceeded by the additional tax cuts they propose.

– Jackie Calmes

Santorum and Romney's Earmarks

In recent weeks, Mr. Santorum’s rivals – and Mr. Romney in particular – have hammered him over his use of earmarks while in Congress. John King, tonight’s debate moderator, asked Mr. Santorum about the topic directly. He asked if there were any earmarks Mr. Santorum regretted and, pointing out that Mr. Santorum has attacked Mr. Romney over earmarks he secured to help the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he asked if Mr. Santorum thought the Olympics were an improper use of earmarks.

In his answer, Mr. Santorum first defended his use of earmarks, as he has in the past. In multiple interviews, he has said that some are necessary, adding that there are “good earmarks and bad earmarks.”

Switching to the Salt Lake City Olympics, which Mr. Romney helped turn around, Mr. Santorum said that he no problem with the federal funding Mr. Romney secured – in fact, Mr. Santorum volunteered, he had even voted in favor of some of the earmarks – but that Mr. Romney was a hypocrite for attacking Mr. Santorum over earmarks after having used them to his own advantage. Mr. Romney, he added, asked for “tens of millions” in federal funds to help save the 2002 Olympics.

This is largely true. When Mr. Romney headed to Utah, he did so with the help of about $1.5 billion in federal funding, including $60 million for security. The Democratic National Committee has already made an issue of Mr. Romney’s own use of earmarks, including releasing a video that attacks him over the Olympics funds. .

In his answer, Mr. Santorum mentioned his specific use of earmarks. During his time in Congress, Mr. Santorum did request a lot of earmarks – Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, estimates that he requested more than $1 billion. In the defense appropriations bill for the 2006 fiscal year, for instance, the group says that Mr. Santorum helped secure 54 earmarks, costing $124 million in federal financing.

When it was Mr. Romney’s turn to respond, he accused Mr. Santorum, as he has in the past, of supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a bridge in Alaska that cost almost $400 million and was intended to connect Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island with an airport. In 2005, Mr. Santorum did vote with the majority of the Senate in favor of a transportation bill that included the bridge, though the money for it (roughly $225 million) was a minuscule portion of the overall bill, which was nearly $300 billion.

Though earmarks are currently being demonized by both parties, there is nothing inherently wrong with a legislator requesting federal spending in his or her home district or state, or setting aside federal money for a state project.

– Ashley Parker

The Auto Bailout and the U.A.W.

Several Republican candidates, especially Mr. Gingrich, charged that President Obama gave in to the autoworkers’ unions when his administration rescued the auto industry in early 2009, and Mr. Gingrich went so far as to say that Mr. Obama turned the companies over to the United Auto Workers.

The auto rescue of General Motors and Chrysler was worked out between the unions and management, with both sides making concessions they never had before as a condition for their federal loans, conditions set by the Obama administration’s team.

In contrast, a smaller rescue package in late 2008 from the Bush administration had no such conditions. Mr. Gingrich also cited a number of auto companies with operations in the United States that did not need bailouts, but he the ones he named are foreign-owned, like Toyota. The only major American company that did not take federal assistance was Ford, but Ford supported the rescue program because if G.M. and Chrysler had failed, that would have threatened the entire auto-manufacturing supply chain in the United States, which in turn would be a threat to Ford.

– Jackie Calmes

Repealing Health Care Law

Mr. Santorum said repealing the health care insurance law that President Obama signed in 2010 would reduce the deficit. His rival Mr. Romney has repeatedly made the same claim in debates and repeatedly been judged incorrect.

Mr. Romney said repealing the law would save $95 billion a year. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the health care law would reduce deficits by $210 billion in the first decade from fiscal year 2012 through 2021 given taxes, fees and health cost reductions mandated by the law. Similarly, the office reported that legislation passed last year by the House Republican majority to repeal the law would increase deficits by the same amount.

While the budget office has declined to put an exact figure on projected savings of the health care law beyond the first decade, given the uncertainty of such long-range projections, it concluded that the savings would be in the range of half a percentage point of the nation’s gross domestic product, a substantial amount. The Obama administration has projected that the savings in the second decade will exceed $1 trillion.

In November, the nonpartisan fact-checking group PolitiFact said of Mr. Romney’s claim: “We rate his statement false.”

– Jackie Calmes

Romney and Massachusetts Taxes

Mr. Santorum, rebutting claims that he expanded government spending in Congress, just claimed that Mr. Romney “raised taxes and fees” by $750 million as governor of Massachusetts.

There is truth to that claim — though there is debate about the terminology. As governor, Mr. Romney raised more than $700 million in revenue through two major measures: first, he increased fees on a variety of government services, like the price of a commercial driving license; second, he closed dozens of corporate tax loopholes, requiring corporations to pay bigger tax bills.

Were those, technically, “tax” increases? Mr. Romney did not think so, perhaps unsurprisingly — he had run for governor on a “no new taxes” pledge. But many Massachusetts business leaders — and the prominent Washington anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform — said otherwise. They assailed the changes as tax increases by another name.

“They changed the laws and the rules to significantly raise taxes,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, has said of Mr. Romney’s corporate tax loophole changes. “That is a tax increase.”

– Michael Barbaro

Gingrich and a Balanced Budget

Trip Gabriel previously looked at Mr. Gingrich’s claim that he helped balance the budget four years in a row:

Mr. Gingrich has made a campaign theme out of how the economy improved when he was last in office, as speaker of the House in the 1990s. In his first answer, challenged about his conservative credentials, Mr. Gingrich said he was responsible for four consecutive balanced budgets and paid down $400 billion on the national debt.

But in only two years when he was speaker was the budget balanced, in fiscal 1998 and 1999. Although the government remained in the black for two more years, Mr. Gingrich left office in January 1999 and had no role in those later budgets. The total surplus when he was speaker was $194.9 billion, not $400 billion.

And it takes two to tango — Mr. Gingrich didn’t mention that these years of government surpluses were the result of policies that fostered an economic boom, many worked out with President Bill Clinton. Mr. Gingrich opposed a 1993 tax increase widely credited with helping to begin reducing the deficit.

– The New York Times

View the original article here

Romney Duels With Santorum in Republican Debate

Outside the Mesa Arts Center, people gathered on Wednesday to watch the debate taking place inside. It was the final one on the Republican primary calendar. More Photos »

MESA, Ariz. — Mitt Romney challenged Rick Santorum’s credentials as a fiscal conservative in a fiercely combative debate on Wednesday, trying to redefine Mr. Santorum as part of the problem in Washington and regain his footing in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

With the Arizona and Michigan primaries only six days away, followed quickly by a dozen more contests, Mr. Romney arrived here at a critical moment of his candidacy armed with a detailed indictment of Mr. Santorum’s record in Congress. Mr. Romney sought to dismantle his rival’s claim to be the authentic conservative in the race.

“While I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ ” Mr. Romney said, drawing upon a noted symbol of government excess to drive home his point against Mr. Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.

It was Mr. Santorum’s first time in the cross hairs as a leading candidate, an uncomfortable position that has set back other Republican challengers. He did not recoil or wither under pressure, but he was placed on the defensive again and again, with Mr. Romney and Representative Ron Paul of Texas acting as a tag team in critiquing his record in Congress.

They criticized his earmarks, his vote for a provision that financed Planned Parenthood and his support of the No Child Left Behind law, President George W. Bush’s signature education plan now out of favor with conservatives. By the end of the night, the scrutiny seemed to wear on Mr. Santorum, who was taunted with boos when he said he had voted for the education program even though “it was against the principles I believed in.”

He explained that he had done so because of its importance to Mr. Bush, saying: “Sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader.” That line provided an opening for Mr. Paul, who declared: “He calls this a team sport. He has to go along to get along, and that’s the way the team plays, but that’s what the problem is with Washington.”

The landscape of the Republican presidential campaign — reshuffled yet again since the last time the candidates debated on Jan. 26 — came into sharp view here on stage at the Mesa Arts Center. It was the final scheduled Republican debate on the calendar, but unless a presumptive nominee emerges swiftly, debates could take place throughout the spring as the party’s nominating contest becomes a drawn-out fight for delegates.

If Mr. Romney came across as a persistent prosecutor, jumping in eagerly to make his points, Mr. Santorum was defensive yet did not lose his temper as others have in the hot seat.

From the start, it appeared that Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum had a shared goal: turning the night, and the race, into a two-man contest. But Newt Gingrich came alive yet again, not as an angry combatant but as what he described as a “cheerful” alternative, enthusiastically challenging the moderator, John King of CNN, and turning questions to his own purposes.

The candidates sat behind a table for only the second time in the long-running series of debates, rather than standing behind lecterns, which at times made them seem like squirmy schoolchildren scrunched into classroom desks.

The economy — the dominant issue to most voters — took a back seat to a host of other topics in the wide-ranging debate, which dwelled on social issues, immigration and the arcane world of Congressional voting records. Mr. Romney played up his status as the only candidate on the stage who had never served in Washington, but Mr. Santorum would not let his rival take credit for balancing the budget as governor of Massachusetts, which is required by state law.

“Don’t go around bragging about something you have to do,” Mr. Santorum said. “Michael Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that make him qualified to be president of the United States? I don’t think so.”

Mr. Santorum parried the barbs from Mr. Paul as he has all year, often laughing and shaking his head. But the exchanges between him and Mr. Romney were sharper.

“You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Mr. Santorum told him at one point.

“Wait — wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait!” Mr. Romney said, cutting in as Mr. Santorum attacked the Massachusetts health care plan that Mr. Romney signed into law.

Mr. Romney managed to bring before Republican primary voters an issue that has been a sore subject between Mr. Santorum and conservatives for years: his support in the 2004 Republican primary in Pennsylvania for Senator Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, his conservative challenger.

Michael Barbaro contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Santorum takes heavy fire in Arizona Republican debate

MESA, Arizona (Reuters) - Mitt Romney is fighting his way back into the driving seat in the Republican presidential race, putting in a strong debate performance in Arizona and gaining in polls against conservative rival Rick Santorum.

An aggressive Romney repeatedly put Santorum on the defensive in a CNN debate on Wednesday and attacked the former U.S. senator and staunch social conservative for supporting big-spending government programs.

Romney has also battled his way into a slight lead in a new poll in Michigan, which along with Arizona will hold a primary contest on February 28. Romney had trailed Santorum by as much as double digits a week ago in the Michigan race.

The pace of the Republican race quickens dramatically next month, with 22 state nominating contests in March, including 10 on "Super Tuesday" March 6.

"This debate will really give Romney some momentum heading into the Michigan primary," Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said. "Santorum clearly was having a hard time having to apologize and explain so many of his votes."

The debate was Santorum's first time in the political spotlight since charging into a national lead after winning three contests on February 7 in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

But his sometimes awkward defense of votes he cast in the Senate, including his claim that politics was a "team sport" and that he sometimes had to vote for bills that did not like, could hurt his support among conservatives tired of Washington politics-as-usual.

"There is always an excuse," rival Ron Paul said of Santorum's various explanations. "That's what the problem is with Washington," said Paul, a Texas congressman who described Santorum's fiscal conservatism as "fake."

The primary in Michigan, where Romney was born and raised and his father was an auto executive and popular governor, has become a must-win for the former Massachusetts governor and former head of a private equity group.

A Romney loss there would be crippling blow that would set off alarm bells among Republicans about his ability to win the allegiance of conservatives, ensuring a long and potentially draining battle for the nomination.

But a win in Michigan and Arizona would put Romney back in command in a race that has featured a series of conservative rivals who have risen to challenge him only to fall back into the pack.

Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, is the latest candidate to seriously contest the party's nomination to face Democratic President Barack Obama in a November 6 general election.

On Thursday, Romney will speak to a builders' group in Arizona before heading to Michigan for an evening rally of the conservative Tea Party movement. On Friday, he will address the Detroit Economic Club. Santorum is fund-raising in Texas on Thursday.

POLLS TIGHTEN

New polls in Michigan and Arizona on Wednesday showed Romney gaining ground on Santorum. He held a slight 2-point edge on Santorum in an NBC/Marist poll in Michigan, and a 16-point edge in an NBC/Marist poll in Arizona, where a CNN/Time poll earlier in the week gave him just a 4-point edge.

The broader campaign battleground in March could allow Romney to exercise his financial and organizational edge on his rivals, and put him in a strong position to knock them out and wrap up the race at least by April, if not earlier.

Santorum may have missed his chance at Wednesday's debate.

"Santorum needed a strong performance in the debate and he didn't get it," Republican strategist Ford O'Connell said. "All eyes were on him. He had an opening and he missed it."

A devout Catholic, Santorum is best known for conservative positions on religious freedoms, abortion and gay marriage, but Romney took aim at him frequently on Wednesday night as a big spender.

"I'm looking at his historic record - voting for raising the debt ceiling five different times without voting for compensating cuts," Romney said.

"Voting to fund Planned Parenthood, to expand the Department of Education. During his term in the Senate, spending grew by some 80 percent of the federal government," he said. Planned Parenthood provides abortion, birth control and other health services to women.

Former U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, who represented Georgia while he served in Congress, is hoping to rebound from his recent drop in the polls to reassert himself during some of the March contests in Southern states like Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana.

No other debates are scheduled in the Republican race, although more could be added if the contest stretches into April and beyond.

(Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Alistair Bell and Paul Simao)

View the original article here

The Caucus: Caucus Video: The Last Debate?

February 23

Michael D. Shear reports on the what could be the final debate of Republican primary season.

February 22

Times reporters take a closer look at some of the statements made by the Republican presidential candidates in Wednesday night's debate.

February 22

Rick Santorum said he opposed a major funding vehicle for family planning programs, but ultimately voted for it as part of a larger spending bill.

February 22

Rick Santorum's rationale for an education vote was a curious -- and unusual -- acknowledgement of politics trumping values.

February 22

Newt Gingrich, as speaker, did preside over a period in which the number and total cost of earmarks spiraled upward.

View the original article here

The Caucus: Debate Quote Is a Negative Ad in the Making

Rick Santorum just offered up what may be the evening’s most wince-inducing moment: he declared that he had voted for President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education law even though “it was my against my principles.”

For a presidential candidate, it was a curious — and unusual — acknowledgement of politics trumping values.

Mr. Santorum suggested that he had backed the bill, despite his reservations, to assist a Republican president with a major policy initiative, referring to himself as a “team player.”

The political advisers over at Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters must be salivating. Mr. Santorum may have just handed them footage for a potent attack advertisement.

View the original article here

A Final Debate?, Romney Poolside, McDonnell's Two-Step, Tax Plans, the Pink Turban (PM Note)

ABC's Z. Byron Wolf ( @zbyronwolf) and Sarah Parnass ( @wordsofsarah) report:

Virginia Gov, a VP Contender, Flips on Abortion Ultrasound Bill - http://abcn.ws/yq5zTU

Obama Plan for Corporate Tax Rates - http://abcn.ws/zJcHoJ

Romney Plan for Personal Tax Rates - http://abcn.ws/ycNZrk

WATCH: The White House Loves Aggressive Journalism - Abroad: Jake Tapper asks White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the White House's use of the Espionage Act in prosecuting whistleblowers and how that affects journalism - http://abcn.ws/wEf1aQ

The Man in the Pink Turban - Picture of the day - Who was the gentleman in the pink turban behind President Obama? - http://abcn.ws/wOnUnW

Nine Months Later, GOP Nominee Past Due - It's official: a baby can be born in less time than it takes to pick a Republican candidate to battle Barack Obama. In case you forgot what went down back in May 2011, here's a debate-by-debate rundown of the most important and amusing debate moments from the past nine months. - http://abcn.ws/zw4nxG

Many Arizonans Already Voted - Amy Walter points out that a good chunk of Arizona primary voters have already made their choice - http://abcn.ws/yv3WIq

Spotted - Romney pre-debate relaxation poolside enjoying time with son Craig and daughter-in-law Mary as two grandkids played. (from Emily Friedman)

Pre-emptive Punning - Song Titles Appropriate for Pithy Punning After Tonight's Debate - :

Sympathy for the Devil, Get behind me, Satan, Satan is my Motor (if only the debate were in Detroit), Devil with the Blue Dress, The Devil's Been Busy, The Devil Went Down to Georgia, Devil's Haircut… Sure we're missing some.

Don't Forget -This Cycle Debates Have Been Influential, but Clearly Not Decisive - http://abcn.ws/xB7Wm8

Santorum's Ghosts  - Ahead of tonight's debate, some of Rick Santorum's earlier comments about religion, birth control and women in combat have followed him all the way to Arizona. - http://abcn.ws/zM1b2M

The Immigration Question - in Arizona, the one place where Romney is among the most conservative Republicans, will be a focus - http://abcn.ws/zFroYB

About ? of GOP Like Romney, Santorum - Gingrich, however, has hit a new low in terms of popularity. All three still fall behind the historical favorability of McCain and Obama at this point in their respective campaign timelines. http://abcn.ws/A44zlX

Stumping for the President - President Obama's re-election campaign named 35 leaders who will tout his achievements across the country during the 2012 election cycle. Among them Eva Longoria and actor Kalpen Modi but not former President Bill Clinton or George Clooney. ABC News' Devin Dwyer has the fulll list. - http://abcn.ws/zJhv9r

Corporate Tax Plan Comparison - Today Obama unveiled his plan to lower the corporate tax rate - something all the GOP candidates have also said they plan to do. http://abcn.ws/zJcHoJ

But Not Everyone Has Confidence That Obama's Plan Will Work - http://abcn.ws/weYl0u

Do Si Nos - An Indiana Republican state representative rips Girl Scouts, pegging them as a "radicalized organization" that backs abortion and promotes the "homosexual lifestyle." His own daughters, of course, are in a carefully-selected, conservative troop. http://abcn.ws/yG8SeR

Obama Speaks at Ground Breaking for African American Smithsonian Museum - http://abcn.ws/quPxwr

Hoekstra Scrubs Racially-Tinged Super Bowl Ad from Internet - http://abcn.ws/wWv6XW

Also Read

View the original article here

Newt Gingrich Urged to Be Himself at Debate

Mr. Gingrich, more than any other candidate, has seen his fortunes ebb and flow with debates, and there is a consensus in his team that his big loss in Florida’s Republican presidential primary last month was in no small part because of debates in which he strained to look above the fray. According to one top aide, Mr. Gingrich’s two daughters had advised him to strike a presidential pose, but that was not the Newt Gingrich voters craved.

“To some extent,” said Bob Walker, another top adviser, “we didn’t let Newt be Newt in those debates.”

In the debate on Wednesday in Mesa, Ariz., the first in nearly a month, Mr. Gingrich will not be center stage. His advisers believe that will allow him to remain unscathed while Rick Santorum, the current leader in national polls, and Mitt Romney do battle.

“They can be the Chihuahuas, and he can be Churchill,” said Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Mr. Gingrich.

The stakes are high for Mr. Gingrich, who is low on money and facing eclipse by Mr. Santorum’s surge even in Southern states that were to be his bulwark. He needs to give voters, especially conservatives, a reason to return to him.

“He’s got one shot,” said Keith Nahigian, who managed Representative Michele Bachmann’s campaign before her withdrawal. “He has to do something substantial. He blew two debates pretty badly.”

After Mr. Gingrich won South Carolina on Jan. 21, he ignored openings at the two debates in Florida to criticize Mr. Romney, accepting advice that he refrain from being aggressive, even though the fiery, combative Mr. Gingrich is what rallied so many of his supporters.

One of Mr. Gingrich’s daughters, Kathy Lubbers, a senior adviser to the campaign, said she did not recall what advice she gave her father about the Florida debates.

Herman Cain, campaigning with Mr. Gingrich in Georgia, last week told crowds, “I knew I had the right guy when Speaker Gingrich at that debate did a smackdown of the media on the very first question,” referring to a CNN debate in South Carolina.

Ms. Conway, who is a pollster, said she and the campaign’s top ad creator, Rex Elsass, “were beside ourselves” over the advice Mr. Gingrich received in Florida to remain above the fray, writing “memo after memo that you’ve got to go on the attack.”

“Newt’s got to be Newt,” she added. “He doesn’t have to act presidential.”

While candidates traditionally prepare for debates with fat briefing books and by practicing answers to anticipated questions, Mr. Gingrich likes to say his only debate coaches are his two grandchildren, who remind him to smile and be brief.

That is not the full story. Although he does not hold formal debate prep sessions, senior advisers weigh in with suggestions about what issues he should expect to address and offer possible responses.

“It’s important at times for the team to give him some ideas of what questions we think might come up,” said Mr. Walker, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who is a longtime friend. ”He has to feel comfortable in doing it the way he thinks it should be done. He’s had enough experience over the years to be able to handle it on his own. We just need to give him some things to think about in terms of issues so he has some responses in mind.”

Mr. Gingrich’s advisers think he will have an advantage as Mr. Santorum is peppered with questions about the social issues that he has made the centerpiece of his campaign, especially controversial remarks against prenatal testing and contraception. Mr. Gingrich is being advised to emphasize instead his latest economic issue, rising gasoline prices and his pledge to expand drilling to drop the price of gasoline to $2.50 a gallon.

One of Mr. Gingrich’s biggest applause lines while campaigning is that no American president should “ever have to bow to a Saudi king,” a reference to a 2009 incident in which President Obama bent deeply while greeting a Saudi ruler. His campaign recently added a photograph of the encounter to the home page of its Web site.

Mr. Santorum is expecting Mr. Gingrich to come after him, but he will most likely repeat the effective point he made in Florida debates, in which he lumped Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney together as once favoring individual health care mandates, the heart of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.

“There’s no doubt that Gingrich is a great debater, but there’s no great performance that will enable him to rewrite history,” said Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum.

One important difference heading into Wednesday’s debate, sponsored by CNN and the Arizona Republican Party, is that Mr. Gingrich has no other public appearances that day, a departure from previous debate days when he campaigned vigorously and, his staff believes, was tired during the debate.

“You can’t help, after you’ve gotten the adrenaline going a couple of times during the day, being a little weary by the time you get on the stage that night,” Mr. Walker said. “A lot of the plan here is to make certain he has time to relax.”

Ms. Conway said, “It’s tough for Newt to chill,” but that is the right plan for him on debate day. “The best prep for Newt is a Diet Coke and time to think,” she said. “Not to study. Time to think.”

“In Florida he had one too many people talking in his ear, and nobody appreciated that until after the fact,” she said.

View the original article here

The Caucus: Debate Fact Check: Santorum Waffles on Title X

Rick Santorum may have had a “I voted for it before I voted against it” moment Wednesday night.

In response to an assertion by Mr. Paul that he had voted to fund Planned Parenthood, Mr. Santorum said: “As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I’ve always opposed Title X funding.” He quickly added, “But it’s included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things.” Here the audience started to boo.

Technically, Mr. Santorum was saying that he opposed Title X funding — not that he voted against it — but he was implying that he had voted against it. Then when he said it was included in a larger bill, the audience cried foul.

Title X, by the way, is the major funding vehicle for family planning programs. It was signed into law in 1970 by a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who declared, “Contraception for all.”

Mr. Santorum said that because Title X “was always pushed through,” he countered by pushing for Title X to provide funding for abstinence programs, saying they “actually work in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active.”

Finally, he got around to an admission: “Yes, I — I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn’t like.”

His bottom line, he said, is that as president, “I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.”

Mr. Santorum’s recent statements are likely to add to the confusion about his stance on the issue. Since 2006, he has cited his support for Title X to show that he is not opposed to funding for contraception.

As recently as last week, on “CBS This Morning,” Rick Santorum told the host, Charlie Rose, that he has no problems with federal funds for contraceptives, saying that he voted for Title X funds in the Senate.

View the original article here

The Caucus: Debate Looms as a Critical Moment for Santorum

The Republican presidential debates have proved critical for just about every candidate in the race — disastrous for some and essential for others.

Now it is Rick Santorum’s turn.

On Wednesday, the four remaining contenders for the right to challenge President Obama will meet again under the glare of the television lights, and under the scrutiny of a nation trying to understand where the Republican contest is headed.

The face-off, sponsored by CNN and held in Arizona, one of two states to hold primaries on Feb. 28, will be important for each of the candidates. But none more so than Mr. Santorum, who is suddenly being taken seriously as a threat to Mitt Romney.

It is the first debate since Mr. Santorum swept contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri two weeks ago, and it comes as he is under more scrutiny for his background and positions, including his opposition to many prenatal tests and his assertion on Saturday that the government’s role in education is “anachronistic.”

Despite moving to the top of four national polls and several state ones, Mr. Santorum remains a long shot to prevent the well-financed, well-organized Mr. Romney from winning the nomination.

Wednesday’s debate could change that dynamic. A strong performance by Mr. Santorum, or a particularly weak one by Mr. Romney, could ensure a shocking upset in Michigan, the other state that will vote a week from Tuesday. If that happens, the nomination could slip from Mr. Romney’s grasp.

Last year, in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, Rick Perry’s debate performances knocked him out of contention. In South Carolina, Newt Gingrich used two debates to become a serious threat to Mr. Romney. A week later, Mr. Romney reclaimed his position by putting Mr. Gingrich in his place in two Florida debates.

But the task for Mr. Santorum is not easy. Here are five things that he must do if he wants to emerge from the debate with momentum on his side:

Focus on Health Care

Senior Republican strategists say Mr. Santorum’s most aggressive moments in the debates so far have been when he criticizes Mr. Romney’s health care plan as governor of Massachusetts. He has been relentless in accusing Mr. Romney of being the inspiration for Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. During one debate in Florida, he had Mr. Romney stammering. If he can do that again, it will be a good moment for him.

Look Presidential

When Mr. Santorum was at 2 percent in the national polls and hardly seemed to be a threat, he could afford to come across a bit like a fringe candidate. He cannot anymore. Voters in Arizona, Michigan and 11 Super Tuesday states will be watching closely on Wednesday, and they will be trying to determine whether they can picture him in the Oval Office.

Mr. Santorum will no doubt try to rise above the mudslinging that has characterized much of the race, in part as a way of conveying that presidential quality. But Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney will be doing everything they can to keep him engaged.

Rattle Romney

One of Mr. Romney’s great strengths throughout most of the debates, and for much of 2011, was his calm, cool demeanor. He rarely got rattled and conveyed a sense of stature that voters tend to like. But there have been times when his rivals have gotten under his skin, and those have tended to be his worst moments. Mr. Perry did it on immigration in an early debate. And Mr. Gingrich did it on taxes and Bain Capital in South Carolina.

The question for Mr. Santorum is whether he can find a way to do it without coming across as mean. One of Mr. Santorum’s strengths with voters is that he remains likable. If he can get Mr. Romney to lose his cool without seeming like a bully, it will help him in the coming primaries.

Be Authentic

If elections are about presenting voters with contrasts, this may be Mr. Santorum’s ace in the hole. With Mr. Romney sometimes seeming calculating about his positions, Mr. Santorum seems that much more real. But it is easy to be authentic when you are at the bottom of the pack, with no one thinking you can actually win. The challenge for Mr. Santorum is to make sure that the possibility of success does not make him come across as somehow less genuine — like a typical politician.

Avoid Gingrich and Paul

Most of the focus on Wednesday will be on the matchup between Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum. But the two other candidates, including Ron Paul, will be on the stage, and they will be eager to knock Mr. Santorum down as well. Mr. Gingrich, in particular, has a sharp wit and an ability to harness the enthusiasm of the audience. If Mr. Santorum is not careful, it could be Mr. Gingrich who sets a trap for him.

View the original article here

Romney Bows Out of a Debate, and Others Follow

A debate scheduled for March 1 in Atlanta was canceled after Mitt Romney’s campaign announced that the candidate had no plans to participate in the event being sponsored by CNN and the Georgia Republican Party. Two other candidates, Rick Santorum and Representative Ron Paul, quickly followed suit.

The debates held in the Republican nominating contest have been so frequent and omnipresent that they have become something of a running joke. The campaigns — especially Mr. Romney’s — like to grumble about them, and they have become such a feature of evening television that they have almost come to resemble just another TV reality show, albeit of a different bent. Some have even said that comedic takes on the debates, like those on “Saturday Night Live,” have not lived up to the theater of the actual events.

For viewers suffering separation anxiety, there is still one more Republican debate, which CNN is sponsoring next Wednesday night in Arizona. For Mr. Romney and some other hopefuls, it will be the 21st of the race, seemingly some sort of record. (In fact, in 2008, both the Democrats and Republicans had an equally unending string of debates.)

In an e-mail, the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney was unable to make the debate because of scheduling demands before the series of primaries and caucuses on March 6, known as Super Tuesday.

“Governor Romney will be spending a lot of time campaigning in Georgia and Ohio ahead of Super Tuesday,” wrote Andrea Saul, a campaign spokeswoman. “With eight other states voting on March 6, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate. We have participated in 20 debates, including eight from CNN.”

A spokesman for Mr. Santorum told a reporter for CBS News and The National Journal, which first reported the debate cancellation, that the candidate had “no plans of doing it right now.” Jesse Benton, a national campaign chairman for Mr. Paul, said that he, too, would be bowing out. “We have decided not to participate,” Mr. Benton said in an e-mail.

One candidate did not seem to like the turn of events: Newt Gingrich. Upon being told that Mr. Romney would skip the debate, Mr. Gingrich, campaigning in Los Angeles, said he expected to participate, then offered a reason Mr. Romney would want to avoid confrontation.

“The Romney model is to go to Wall Street and raise huge amounts of money to run negative ads,” Mr. Gingrich said, “and you can understand why having to defend that strategy is probably not something he’s very happy with.”

Mr. Gingrich is perhaps the most debate-happy of the four remaining candidates. When Herman Cain, a pizza magnate, was still in the race, he and Mr. Gingrich sat down for a one-on-one, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. And Mr. Gingrich, who is known for aggressively confronting the debate moderators to score points with the audience, saw his candidacy resuscitated by his verbal confrontations with Mr. Romney and debate moderators.

He has challenged everyone from President Obama to Mr. Romney to join him in a more freewheeling debate format. (So far, they have declined.)

But CNN, in a statement, said that “without full participation of all four candidates” it would not hold the March 1 debate.

Trip Gabriel contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

View the original article here