Today’s buzz is the showdown between John McCain and Mitt Romney at last night’s Republican debate in California, and bloggers are sharply divided on the winner. The two sparred over each other’s conservative credentials and stances on Iraq. Live-blogging at Pajamas Media, Bridget Johnson reports on the evening’s many “full-body slams.” Chris Cillizza has the video of the Iraq showdown and says, “McCain insisted that Romney had supported a timetable for withdrawal, while Romney bitterly disagreed and accused McCain of ‘the sort of dirty tricks Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.'” The showdown resulted in McCain’s major jab at Romney — that McCain led “for patriotism, not for profit.” More on the “Simi Valley Showdown” from Stephen F. Hayes at the DAILY STANDARD. Many right-wing bloggers say that this debate made McCain look bad. Hugh Hewitt chides McCain for “his display of bad temper and his rambling filibuster of his wrongful ‘timetables’ attack on Romney.” Paul Mirengoff at Power Line agrees: “McCain not only persisted in his dishonest claim that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, he used one evasion after another to try to make it stick.” As for his patriotism/profit comment, Captain Ed says that this won’t appeal to many conservatives: “The people McCain wants to lead as President often lead for profit, and won’t appreciate the aspersion this phrase that McCain uses in every appearance casts on their own motives.” Michelle Malkin agrees. At the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez questioned McCain’s leadership abilities, and Mark Steyn remarked, “Just because McCain can poke Mitt in the eye is no indication he’ll be as effective with Putin.” Ross Douthat adds that McCain “kept on behaving as if Romney were the front-runner, and he was the scrappy underdog who needed to bring his rival down a notch.” Still, many bloggers disagree. At the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, Richard Starr says that “this line of McCain’s is more than a cheap shot; it actually illuminates a deep and important difference between the two GOP contenders.” Scott Johnson at Power Line expands on this line of thought, noting that in today’s world of “Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids,” an experienced politician is preferable to an experienced businessman: “This is not a game for amateurs. I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it.” These bloggers say that McCain was the clear winner of the debate–and is the clear frontrunner. At the Politico, Roger Simon wrote, “McCain stuck to his guns, knowing that, as long as the conversation is on the Iraq war and McCain’s unswerving support for that war, he probably will continue to do well. (Just as long as the war continues to go well, of course.) And when it came to his vulnerabilities, McCain learned how a front-runner handles those: He blows by them.” And the bloggers at MSNBC’s First Read say that even if McCain did use “dirty tricks,” “it should also serve as a comfort to nervous Republicans about McCain’s ability to play hardball in the general. McCain may seem like a guy who likes to reach across the aisle, but he’s not afraid to get dirty.” Daniel Casse says Romney “blew it,” and Goldfarb wrote last night that “Romney missed his chance, and it’s not clear that he’ll get another.” Regardless of your thoughts on the candidates, it looks like the Republican nominee is emerging, and he won’t be afraid to get tough with the Democrat.
