Paul Rips Gingrich, Perry Wants to Reinvade Iraq, Hunstman Speak Chinese, Romney Wins

Paul Rips Gingrich, Perry Wants to Reinvade Iraq, Hunstman Speak Chinese, Romney Wins

Paul Rips Gingrich, Perry Wants to Reinvade Iraq, Hunstman Speak Chinese, Romney Wins

A bizarre and unfocused debate, where his opponents seem to forget the point, cements Romney’s frontrunner status.


 

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Ron Paul reaffirmed his view that Newt Gingrich is a chickenhawk.

Rick Santorum called Ron Paul a liar.

Jon Huntsman explained to his fellow contenders that his marriage was not threatened by civil unions.

Gingrich said Barack Obama was "sincere" in his determination to create "a radical European socialist model" of governance.

Rick Perry proposed reinvading Iraq. Seriously.

Perry said that if he wasn’t debating, he’d be at the shooting range. Most of the rest of the candidates said they would be watching football — except for Paul, who said he’d be reading an economics text. Seriously.

Then the six men who would be president sent the better part of Saturday night’s debate arguing about contraception.

It was drab and uninspired debate. And so it should come as no surprise that the winner was the drab and uninspired frontrunner, Mitt Romney.

Indeed, said ABC News’ Jake Tapper, "It was almost as if they (the other candidates) were not aware that Mitt Romney is the frontrunner."

Instead of taking Romney down a few pegs on the eve of a primary polls that polls suggest he is likely to win, the other candidates pretty much gave Romney a pass. Indeed, even when they tried to damage him, it was with ineffectual jibes — like Santorum suggestion that the former governor and organizer of the Olympics is too much of a manager.

The only real dust-up between Romney and one of his challengers was a late-in-the-debate clash with Huntsman.

And Romney won that one. Big time.

Huntsman scored Romney for some protectionist statements regarding China.

Romney shot back that, while he and the other candidates on the stage were fighting the Obama administration’s policies in recent years, Huntsman was "implementing" them as the U.S. ambassador to China.

Ouch.

Huntsman responded by speaking Chinese.

Double ouch.

Romney walked away stronger than he went in.

He also got off the best line of the night.

As the most arcane Republican presidential debate wrestled with a question about federal regulation of birth control, Romney wisely gave up and turned to Paul, the Texas congressman who has positioned himself as the most consistent defender of the Constitution in Washington.

"You can ask your Constitutionalist here.," said Romney. "I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to… it’s kind of a silly thing I think."

Paul assured Romney and the rest that the 4th Amendment protects privacy.

But Romney was right. The whole debate was "kind of a silly thing."

And he walked away looking kind of like the likely nominee of the Republican Party.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x