Calling A Spade A Spade

Last night, the four remaining Republican candidates appeared at the NBC Presidential debate.  A few things were very apparent right off the bat.  First of all, a different Mitt Romney showed up.  He was authentic, incredibly well-informed and direct.  Most significantly, he was aggressive without being combative or condescending.  It was very effective and at times, it left his opponent Gingrich grappling for the right response.

From very first answer of the night, it was clear that Mitt was on the offensive.

Romney said, "The speaker was given an opportunity to be the leader of our party in 1994.  And at the end of four years, he had to resign in disgrace."  He went on to say, "Don't forget at the end of the speaker's term as speaker, his approval rating was down to 18 percent.  We (The Republican Party) suffered historic losses after his four years in office."

Gingrich's response? "I am not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney's misinformation."

Misinformation?  Really? Was Gingrich the Speaker of the House for four years? Yes.  Was he forced to resign? Yes.  Upon leaving was his approval rating down to 18%? Yes.  Did the Republican Party suffer historic losses after his four years? Yes.

Misinformation?  Maybe Gingrich meant to say, "I am not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney's uncomfortable information."

***

The most interesting exchange between Gingrich and Romney took place in regards to Gingrich's involvement with the years he worked for the mortgage giant, Freddie Mac.

Gingrich has long defended his role arguing that he acted as a "historian," offering only strategic advice to Freddie Mac.  In previous debates, Gingrich claimed that he was paid around $300,000 for his time.

Yesterday, in response to pressure from the Romney camp, Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac.

From the contract, a few things are now clear.

1) Gingrich was paid $25,000 a month for 6 years equalling $1.6 million dollars.
2) The contract also identified Gingrich as a consultant, not a historian.
3) Gingrich was not hired by the CEO of Freddie Mac, he was hired by their chief lobbyist.

Romney called Gingrich on all of this and clarified that you don't get paid that kind of money to be a historian.  It's called lobbying.

Last night, Romney pressed further and said, "If you're getting paid by health companies...and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you'd like.  I call it influence-peddling.  It is not right.  It is not right.  You have a conflict."

Powerful words--a spade is a spade.

***

Aside from Romney's more aggressive style, one other factor was remarkably different in last night's debate--the audience was surprisingly quiet.  No cheers, no clapping, no booing and it goes without saying, no standing ovations.

The audience was asked by NBC News to hold their applause until commercial breaks.   They did.  A stark contrast to South Carolina.  It was strange.

Gingrich hated it and many have commented that Gingrich was off his game.  The National Journal, co-host of the debate compared Gingrich to "a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on."

The Gingrich team clearly acknowledged his poor performance and today in response, told Fox & Friends that he threatens to skip future debates if his supporters have to be silenced.  Arguing that silencing supporters "stifles" free speech.  (Click to read NYTimes article).

Hmmm.

Hearing this can only make one wonder, was the energetic supportive audience in South Carolina authentic?  Were his supporters coached and encouraged to applaud at just the right time?  Could it all have been staged?

Let's be honest, would the standing ovation zingers that Gingrich delivered last week have been as effective if the audience had been quiet?  Probably not.

Perhaps this is why the Presidential Debate Commission rules specifically say that audience applause and crowd reaction is strictly prohibited.

Debates matter.  It was a great night for Romney and a poor night for Gingrich.  It is impossible to tell how it will affect either candidate, but one has to ask, does last night's poor performance test the theory that Gingrich's stellar debate performances guarantee him an easy win over Barrack Obama?  Too early to tell.

In politics, it can all change in a day....