Our evolution as human beings has programmed all of us to pay heightened attention to threatening or frightening stimuli. But conservatives were drawn to the negative images almost twice as fast as the liberals were. And they fixated there longer, too. This suggests that there exists not only a physiological difference, but also a cognitive one in how political partisans react to such pictures. ...

"I figured because conservatives reacted more strongly to negative things, they’d be more likely to avoid them," said Mike Dodd, an assistant professor of psychology and the study’s lead author. "That ended up not being the case. They ended up locking onto them quicker and taking more time on them, which makes sense from a policy perspective. Oftentimes they end up confronting things that they think of as threats."

Shadi Hamid seconds Slaughter's case:

What made Libya a "pure" intervention was that we acted not because our vital interests were threatened but in spite of the fact that they were not. For me, this was yet one more reason to laud it. Libya provided us an opportunity to begin the difficult work of re-orienting U.S. foreign policy, to align ourselves, finally, with our own ideals.

For me, Syria is part of this bigger debate; what role does the United States seek for itself in a rapidly changing world, a world in which activists and rebels still long for an America that will recognize the struggle and come to the aid of their revolutions? The rising democracies of Brazil and India cannot offer this. Russia and China certainly cannot.

A foreign policy that has no relationship toward national interests is not a foreign policy. The United States should always support, encourage, trade with, talk to, and buoy democratizng countries. But if we haven't learned by now that sending bombs and tanks is unaffordable, given our debt, and inherently compromised, given our lack of control over what happens next, then we have learned nothing.

(Photo: Syrian soldiers who defected join protesters in the al-Khaldiya neighborhood of the restive city of Homs on January 26, 2012. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the army launched an offensive on Thursday evening in the Karm al-Zeitoun district of Homs, killing 26 civilians, including nine children, and wounding dozens. By STR/AFP/Getty Images.)

Ben Johnson wonders if the web ad will have an impact: 

While Romney was never personally implicated in the scandal that embroiled Damon Corp, fact-checking site PolitiFact has rated a separate ad drawing the same connections as “Mostly True.” Will the seven-minute negative ad do damage? After what pundits are calling his best debate performances thus far, Romney is ahead of Gingrich in the latest Florida polling. But national polls have Gingrich pulling ahead as far as 10 points. The sunshine state may not be the end, and it could still get bloodier. 

The latest from Newt's own campaign, which we previewed earlier today, is below:

Huckabee has been quick to distance himself from the ad. The DNC is taking roughly the same approach ("he'll say anything to get elected"): 

Meanwhile, Romney is vastly outdoing Newt on the airwaves (total breakdown of the $41 million in Super PAC spending here): 

The Romney campaign and a super PAC supporting him is spending nearly quadruple the amount that Gingrich and the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, has spent to air television and radio ads ahead of the state’s Jan. 31 primary. So far, Romney has bought $5.6 million worth of airtime and the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, has shelled out a whopping $8.2 million, according to a Republican media buyer who is tracking ad spending in the state. Compare that to $837,000 spent by the Gingrich campaign and the nearly $3 million of airtime bought by Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting the former House speaker, and it’s easy to understand one reason why Gingrich has slipped in the most recent polls.

Alex Leary provides a good primer on the Super PAC landscape in Florida. Money quote: 

It's the latest salvo from a "super PAC," the political action committees that are dramatically reshaping campaigns and providing an outsized role for the wealthy, corporations and unions to influence the outcome. "They're terrible," said political strategist Rick Tyler, an especially startling admission from the man who leads Winning Our Future, the super PAC behind the $6 million anti-Romney TV ad.

Previous Ad War Updates here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

Friday on the Dish, Andrew pinpointed Romney's achilles heel on taxes, pronounced the primary "not yet over," and reacted to the bombshell report that Paul edited his racist newsletters (follow-up here). He also excoriated Grover's plan to impeach Obama over taxes, lauded Corey Booker's defense of marriage equality, explained the sense in sexuality was like religion, inveighed against circumcision, and opened up about his first theatrical role.

Newt appeared to be gearing up for a vicious ad campaign, got defended on the bucket weirdness, continued to employ Alinksyite tactics, wanted to legalize medical pot (in 1982), and might have been suffering from narcissism-induced stress. Romney lied about "blind" investments and may well have packed the debate audience, Santorum appeared to have supported the individual mandate, Obama polled well enough on clean energy that it ought to be a campaign issue, and SuperPACs were arguably not all that scary.

We collected reax to the meh GDP numbers, decided manufacturing jobs were gone for good, debated the US-to-Europe comparison on social mobility, worried the government couldn't fix the housing market, and found a Grand Bargain inevitable if the US wanted to fix its deficit woes. Many of the uninsured were the unemployed, the mandate's unpopularity theoretically rested on the possibility it might be undone, Israel wasn't America, and defense wonks had an obligation to explain the truth about defense cuts. Mickey D's was chichi in France, American elites were culturally out of touch, a new photo of Earth amazed, and "Pink Triangle" was super ironic. Readers debated JoePa's legacy and race in Hollywood. Correction of the Day here, Von Hoffman nominee here, Yglesias nominee here, Cool Ad here, Ad War update here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

By Patrik Stollarz/AFP/Getty Images

Thursday on the Dish, Andrew liveblogged Romney's triumph at the Jacksonville debate (insta-fact check here and reax here), explained why it was so critical to the primary, named something he would appreciate about a Romney presidency, picked out Dole and Drudge's parts in the establishment anti-Newt backlash, pitted Newt's cultural populism againt Obama's economic populism, and demolished Mitt's "Obama is a European socialist" line. Andrew also hoped Obama could buck his party on tax reform, loved his defense against the class warfare canard, saw his economic fortunes rising, examined homosociality, and found former RNC chair Ken Mehlman out-front on the marriage equality debate.

Debates might have been a bad way to vet candidates while tonight's was heavily anticipated. Romney retook the lead in Florida, Frum issued an apologia for Mitt's lying, and corporate taxes likely didn't up his tax rate to 50%. Gingrich took us to the moon (twice), obsessed over Saul Alinsky (despite their similarities), owed his success to Citizens United (and the press), terrified GOP elites (though they might not be able to stop him) engaged on the Reagan debate, and looked EXACTLY like Dwight Schrute. The GOP was whitewashing the 50s and the general shaped up to be nasty.

Calls for intervention in Syria kept coming, brinksmanship with China was (possibly) counterproductve, and the internet spread lies. A man married a lesbian and the origins of heterosexuality were uncovered. A venture capitalist (quixotically) went after Hollywood, an industry that condescended on race. Finally, readers sounded off over Paterno's legacy and the morality of the 1%. Yglesias Nominee here, Malkin Nominee here, Quote for the Day here, Ad War Updates here and here, MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

Wednesday on the Dish, Andrew reexplained his disappointment with Obama's failure to tackle tax reform and still didn't like the tax breaks that were in the State of the Union, but took back his harsh broader characterization from last night and recognized that he got meep-meeped. Andrew also agreed with the RNC about the SOTU, defended the claim that male and female sexuality were different, "enjoyed" the life of the one percent, and posted his Colbert appearance with a bonus spot the underbloggers game. Bloggers had more to say about the SOTU, got angry about the speech's moral blindness, and noticed a distinct lack of health care discussion as compared to previous years. Readers hated Daniels' response but loved seeing Andrew think and write in real time. Roundup of last night's coverage here.

Newt was the narrow 538 favorite in Florida, pushed for the Hispanic vote there, had some absurd ideas (a shock, I know) about the debate schedule, seemed likely to produce great TV in the general, faced ballot access issues, and constantly invoked Reagan even though he trashed the president when he was in office. The myth of a Mitch Daniels candidacy was - again - debunked, it wouldn't have mattered much even if someone like Daniels had been running, self-deportation got explained, and the February debate schedule was mercifully light. Obama's record was defended on both libertarian and pro-Israel grounds.

America failed to decline and our moral understanding of war crime failed to be clear. The 1% found a champion, reblogging had market value, and the future of cars was considered. Readers debated the SAT and teacher intelligence, homeless shelters with alcohol succeeded, and science accounted for night terrors. Ad War Update here, Tweet of the Day here, FOTD here, VYFW here, and MHB here.

Tuesday on the Dish, Andrew developed a blueprint for Obama to attack Romney and save the country in the State of the Union (hint: tax reform), expanded on its political importance, prepared for disappointment in the actual speech after a chat with the White House, liveblogged it, preferred Daniels' response to Obama's speech, and clarified his disappointment. Your take on SOTU here, here and here. Blogger reax here.

Earlier in the day, Andrew knew hope about the future of marriage equality, flagged a particularly incisive piece on Romney's taxes, heralded a small victory for beards at Disney, spotted a gayer YouTubed version of his Newsweek piece, and recapped coverage of last night's debate. We grabbed blogger reax to Romney's 13.9% tax rate, scored some hits on Romney's electability argument, noted Mitt's vulnerability to free market populism, found out his tax rate depended on the election results, and fact-checked him on the size of the Navy. Newt's campaign was a book tour gone wrong, the man had grandiose albeit totally silly ideas, and today's candidates seemed to be calling Adam Smith a socialist. Pundits guessed at the SOTU message (occasionally by parsing the guest list), prepared for a lackluster address, wondered if Daniels' response would wreck his "fantasy candidate" status,  thought the speech was worthless. Also, the campaign got awesomely autotuned.

Hamas' purported moderation was questionable at best and defense spending (protected by the GOP) retarded strategic growth. Readers sounded off on Obama's birth control decision, Chris Christie seemed afrad to veto marriage equality, baby-kissing went way back in American politics, Paterno's tarnished legacy cast a new light on our own lives, and church groups took the largest chunk of charity. Dating shifted spending habits, regulations upped the rent, small colleges handled diversity better than big state schools, and some kinds of teachers were (debatably) smarter than others. Fantasy novels put women in absurd positions, the relationship between intelligence and alien life was complex, and a chart broke down the streaming/DVD availability of 2011's top films.

Chart of the Day here, FOTD here, Hewitt Nominee here, Yglesias Nominee here, VFYW here, VFYW contest winner here, MHB here, Quote for the Day here, and Correction of the Day here.

Havana, Cuba, 8 am

Monday on the Dish, Andrew pronounced Gingrich the favorite in Florida, liveblogged the (somewhat off-kilter, no?) Republican debate with reax here, diagnosed the ailment in the GOP that allows Newt to flourish, blasted the politics of his bankroller Sheldon Adelson, and advised him to grow a beard. Andrew also defended the Newsweek piece against Hot Air's critiques on taxes and health care, flagged some criticism from the left, ran down the article's readership, continued to emphasize Bain's importance to the campaign, didn't think the tax issue was played out, and enjoyed the Romney meltdown.

We compiled reax to the South Carolina victory (weekend coverage here), saw evidence of a lead in Florida, tracked another two rounds of "full unconcealed panic" about Newt in the GOP, thought Romney's blitz could kill Newt in Florida, pinpointed Newt's appeal, marvelled at his chutzpah, wondered why he didn't call Bush a "food stamp president," and dug up his crazy views about pot and Iran. Romney was given free advice, people disliked him for reasons other than his wealth, the GOP was not and will not be saved by a late entry, its current candidates ran for President of red America, and managed to alienate hispanic America in the process.

Beyond the campaign, Egypt's new parliament began working, Bosnia pulled itself apart in its educational system, and morality didn't sink with the Titanic. Gabby Giffords retired with class, Obama pushed for birth control coverage, the defeat of SOPA had interesting political implications, and the construction industry needed fixing. Animals trained people, our conception of what people in stories are created the uncanny valley, and we also liked to smell each other. Reality check here, Quotes for the Day here and here, Ad War update here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

- Z.B.

E.D. Kain makes related points while countering Chait:

[W]hy should we be more concerned with the influence of one billionaire over the decisions of a hypothetical president Newt Gingrich than with the amassed influence of corporations over the Republican party itself? After all, if Gingrich did anything explicitly to help Sheldon Adelson we’d know about it rather quickly. Everyone would be paying close attention. But the machinations of the Republican party itself and the money which keeps the back-scratching mutual between the party and its benefactors is largely opaque – a perpetual process that, like breathing, we barely notice at all.

We believe licensed physicians are competent to employ marijuana, and patients have a right to obtain marijuana legally, under medical supervision, from a regulated source. The medical prohibition does not prevent seriously ill patients from employing marijuana; it simply deprives them of medical supervision and access to a regulated medical substance. Physicians are often forced to choose between their ethical responsibilities to the patient and their legal liabilities to federal bureaucrats.

Richard Metzger digs up more highlights from Newt's past. What he once told the Wall Street Journal:

[Toking] was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era. See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.

A reader writes:

"Pink Triangle" is a great ode to unrequited love because it so wryly captures the absurdity and pain of loving someone who will never - or in the case of Pink Triangle Girl, can never - love you back. So I was amused to learn in this 2009 Fresh Air interview with Rivers Cuomo that the woman who inspired the song was actually straight, and that the pink triangle was a show of support for gay rights. Rivers missed the boat!

I think we in the defense analysis community have to do a better job explaining some things to the public, such as why, in the event of a major war, you can recruit and train new infantry battalions quicker than you can design and build ships, and also how much of the budget is eaten up by personnel costs. If you are a member of the Congress, meanwhile, I think you will find that you have more support to cut the defense budget than you might have previously thought. It will be up to you, though, to explain to your constituents why some cuts are smarter than others and why some "obvious" cuts are not as smart on second glance as they are at first.

A reader adds to the Alinsky thread:

His main contribution, at least in the terms Gingrich and the right talk about, is that he was all about destroying his "enemies". Alinsky used the word "enemy" to describe almost everyone who wasn't a lefty.  He also in practice believed that since conservative, business, and the right were his enemies, the ends justified the means.  From his book:

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. … The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  (P.126 -129B)

Another asks:

Didn’t Hillary Clinton write her college thesis on Alinsky?

Yes.

It’s an unpopular answer, but the best thing for government to do right now, for the housing market, is not very much. Prices may have reached their bottom in any case. A better monetary policy still could improve the economy and wise investments in human capital will pave the way for longer-run growth and new household formation. There is a common attitude of "something must be done," but the U.S. public sector already has screwed up housing, and not every problem can be fixed by further government tinkering.

Aaron Carroll studies the connection between unemployment and lack of health insurance:

Many people like to think that being uninsured is a “choice”. And they’re correct, in the sense that you can “choose” not to buy insurance. I get that. But many people “choose” not to buy insurance for the sole reason that it’s crazy expensive. The average – not gold plated, but average – employer sponsored insurance plan for an individual plan in the United States last year was $5429. And that was just the premium. It didn’t include deductibles, co-pays, or co-insurance. The average family plan was $15,073. The median salary in the US, on the other hand, was less than $50,000 for households. For individuals, the median paycheck is $26,364. When you’re making that amount, and you lose your job, paying for that insurance plan is no longer possible.

Earlier this week, Gallup reported that the uninsured population continued to grow last year.

Paul's odd coalition of Old Right conservatives and young liberal college students hasn't been shaken at all by the newsletter story. In primary after primary, he outperforms with liberals. This convinces me that Paul's close third place result in Iowa was a godsend: It made sure that Newsletteraquiddick remained a boutique story, not an explosive new story about a frontrunner. And it suggests that Paul's voters are so dedicated to their protest votes that they're willing to overlook... well, everything that makes him look bad. Most of them know they're not picking a president. They're keeping an anti-drug war, anti-tax spokesman on the debate stage next to Mitt Romney.

Eleanor Beardsley savors the "MacDo" experience in France, where McDonald's operates 1,200 franchises: 

French McDonald's are spacious, tastefully decorated restaurants that encourage people to take their time while eating. ... [They offer] all kinds of Frenchified dishes, from the Alpine burger with three different kinds of cheese to tasty little gallette des rois, or King's Cakes, popular after Christmas and sold by all the bakeries. Last year, it introduced the McBaguette. Another reason McDonald's works so well here is that the food is locally sourced and very high quality. As we all know, France is the land of haute cuisine. But it's also the land of good cuisine. The French appreciate quality in any category, even fast food. Restaurateurs in France know they'll go bust if they offer substandard products. 

Fortunately our McDonald's in the US remains unabashedly brutish.

Across two studies, participants responded to absolute restrictions (i.e., restrictions that were sure to come into effect) with rationalization: They viewed the restrictions more favorably, and valued the restricted freedoms less, compared with control participants. Participants responded in the opposite way to identical restrictions that were described as nonabsolute (i.e., as having a small chance of not coming into effect).

Sarah Kliff looks ahead:

The Supreme Court won’t rule on the law’s constitutionality until this summer and, even after that, the law’s fate still hangs on the 2012 election. The uncertainty around the individual mandate’s fate may explain why its consistently the least popular part of the law, being met with resistance rather than rationalization.

The Slate article you featured touches on something I've thought for a long time - the fixation on whether gay is "a choice" is interesting but irrelevant. A person's religion is more of a choice than the person's sexuality, and yet we don't allow discrimination based on religion. I'm not allowed to put up a "Catholics need not apply" sign on my business because I don't approve of their choice. "Choice" is a red herring. The question is purely about discrimination.

Scott Long adds:

What if our model for defending LGBT people’s rights were not race, but religion? What if we claimed our identities were not something impossible to change, but a decision so profoundly a part of one’s elected and constructed selfhood that one should never be forced to change it?

That's why excluding gays from hate crimes laws is so wack - because religion is protected category. Of course, I don't actually experience my faith as a choice, in the usual sense of the word. It feels as deep a part of me as my orientation. Zack Ford makes an important distinction:

The bottom line is that there is a big difference between sexual orientation and sexual identity, even if it usually goes unnoticed. In other words, the language a person uses to describe how they identify does not have to perfectly align with what their natural attractions actually are. The Williams Institute estimates that about 3.5 percent of the population identify as LGBT, but as many as 11 percent of Americans report having same-sex attractions. 

I think Nixon’s comments make it pretty clear that she did not choose her attractions to women — nor her attractions to men — she merely chose to identify primarily as a lesbian.

E.J. Graff, "about a 5 on the Kinsey scale", joins the discussion.

His taxes:

Just over half of Americans doubt that he pays his fair share in taxes.  After hearing about his actual income and tax rate, these people are less likely to think he “cares about people like me”—an attribute on which Romney is disadvantaged relative to Obama and which is a perennial predictor of how people vote.  Information about his wealth also leads a larger fraction of Americans to believe he cares about the wealthy, and this belief in turn also reinforces the sense that he does not care about “people like me.”  The more Romney’s wealth and taxes are discussed, the more he may seem like someone who cannot relate to ordinary voters.  This may explain why, during a time in which his wealth and taxes were in the news, negative views of Romney jumped 20 points among whites with incomes below $50,000. 

And that's a key demographic for past GOP victories. If Obama can increase support among those voters, things look much bleaker for Romney/Gingrich/Whoever. My view is that this is less damaging and relevant than that Romney's economic proposals want to tilt the balance even further in favor of the super-wealthy. Maybe there's a way for him to neutralize this in some small way. Jed Graham points out that Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's top economic advisors, opposes the carried interest loophole that Romney has (perfectly legally) taken advantage of. Graham's suggestion:

Perhaps there is a route by which Romney can propose to end the tax break as part of a deal that lowers tax rates while broadening the tax base. That would narrow the gap between taxes on regular income and investment gains, thus making favorable treatment of carried interest less meaningful. But Romney has resisted putting forward a comprehensive tax reform plan, presumably because its details would create plenty of more targets for foes to attack.

If Romney were to roll out a serious tax reform plan, Obama would be in trouble.

The truly troubling part involves a deep inconsistency in Georgia law regarding parental consent in general. This point can be made by offering a stark point of contrast. It is perfectly OK, under Georgia law, for a parent to consent to the surgical removal of her son’s foreskin, before he is able to form words or express an opinion, in a medically unnecessary, irreversible procedure which I have argued elsewhere is deeply immoral and should be banned. Tattoos? No way. Invasive, medically useless, nonconsensual genital surgery? Go right ahead. 

And there's a Biblical bar on tattoos as well, for good measure:

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord."

When you read the fundamentalist defense against tattoos, you also can't help noticing the rationale:

[God] spoke these words in Genesis 1:31,"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." When the Lord created the human body, He pronounced that the way He created it was very good.

So why forbid superficial mutilating by tattoo but demand it by permanently altering a key part of a man's body, the genitals? In a manner that, unlike tattoos, permanently scars a part of the body that provides intense physical pleasure. The double-standard is insane.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney addresses a speech to the Hispanic Leadership Network at Doral Golf Resort in Miami, Florida, January 27, 2012. Florida will hold its Republican primary on January 31, 2012. By Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images.

Or, Romney doing his best Jim Carrey claw. Though it's probably closer to Jerry's.

Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

Today's "conservatives" would use the impeachment provision to oppose an elected president's fiscal policies. If you want to to grasp just how much contempt they really have for the Constitution and the institutions of government - something actual conservatives care about - absorb that fact.

[I]t’s one thing to suggest that the U.S. will naturally favor its historic ally in intractable disputes. It’s another thing altogether to outsource your policies unconditionally to a foreign government whose positions on matters of war and peace are more than a little controversial to its own people, particularly if your represent the supposedly hard-core U.S. nationalist party that claims it doesn’t trust anybody or anything other than naked self-interest and military power. Perhaps the refusal of contemporary conservatives to see allies anywhere else in the world—certainly not among those debt-ridden socialists of Europe—has made them hold Israel all the closer. But an awful lot of Israelis would tell you that giving this sort of total leverage over the United States to Bibi Netanyahu is not an act to be taken lightly. He will not hesitate to use it.

Xeni Jardin coos over the above video, shot by Surrey Wildlife Trust Mammal Project Officer Dave Williams:

The dormouse, a little rodent species you'll find in Britain, hibernate in the winter in nests they hide on the ground. The dormouse spends up to one-third of its life in hibernation, and typically begin that winter "sleep" when the first frost hits, and their food sources are gone.

More on the project's mission here. My first ever theatrical role was as a dormouse in a kiddie production of Alice in Wonderland. I hope my parents have burned all photographs of me in the costume.

There were definitely moments when Romney deserved the applause and cheers he got. But he also got applause and cheers for lines that have elicited no such response in the previous 8,000 debates. If Romney did pack the room with ringers, it was smart if also devious. Gingrich exposed a key vulnerability to his debate superpowers: he feeds off the energy from the audience. If Romney and his team figured that out and tampered with his energy source, that’s smart politics. It’s not like the President of the United States never has to speak to audiences that don’t cheer attacks on Saul Alinsky.

Frum adds:

The complaint reminds what a highly strung mechanism the Gingrich psyche is. If a condition as mildly adverse as a less-than-enthusiastic audience can so disable Gingrich's performance, you do have to wonder what real adversity would do to him. Actually, you don't have to wonder. We learned in the 1990s. Real adversity utterly disorients and defeats him.

Jon Ward has more. Relatedly, Romney surrogates are now systematically "infiltrating" Gingrich campaign events. Yesterday Romney asked supporters to "storm" the debate. 

Chad Stone was disappointed by the GDP report:

Critically, the jump during the third quarter in final sales of goods and services— a better measure of underlying demand than GDP —didn’t continue in the fourth quarter ... [see chart above] .  More than half of the growth in GDP in the fourth quarter came from inventory accumulation — that is, unsold goods piling up on the shelves.

Karl Smith counters:

There is ... a bit of handwringing over the fact that inventories contributed so much to GDP growth. But, what does this tell you. Most of this is autos. During the summer there was a major slowdown in parts from Japan. So Hondas and Toyotas started getting lean on lots. Now, they are coming back. That’s inventory adjustment.  But, it tells us little about the underlying economy.

Yglesias thinks this kind of growth isn't enough:

GDP grew at a 2.8 percent annualized rate in the fourth quarter, up from 1.8 percent in the third quarter. That's a perfectly respectable number for an economy at full employment to put up, but it's not the kind of "catch-up" growth rate that gives you recovery from a recession. 

Scott Hoyt warns:

It is clearly premature to conclude that the economy is off and running. The outlook appeared to be improving at this time last year, only to be derailed by an unexpected surge in commodity prices and fallout from the Japanese earthquake. It would not take much to repeat the pattern this year, since business and consumer sentiment remains brittle from the effects of the Great Recession and events in Washington.

Mark Thoma blames austerity:

[P]remature austerity -- cutting spending before the economy is ready for it -- is taking a toll on the recovery. The fall in government spending reduced fourth quarter growth by .93 percent -- if government spending had remained constant GDP growth would have been 3.7 percent rather than 2.8 percent. This is the opposite of what the government should be doing to support the recovery. We need a temporary increase in government spending to increase demand and employment through, for example, building infrastructure. That would help to get us out of the deep hole we are in, but instead the government seems to be trying to make it harder to escape.

Brad Plumer reminds everyone that these numbers aren't set in stone:

The current GDP numbers are just a first-pass estimate. These numbers will get revised at least twice in the months ahead. Sometimes they get revised very significantly (for instance, it took three years for the Bureau of Economic Analysis to figure out that the recession in the winter of 2008-2009 was much, much, much worse than anyone knew).

And Jared Bernstein hopes the economy increases its momentum:

[H]ave we hit escape velocity from the clutches of the Great Recession?  I’d say no, not yet.  We’re headed in the right direction, we’ve got some mo, but growth is too slow and there’s still too much fragility and slack in the system.

Saginaw, Michigan, 1.41 pm

PolitiFact verified several days ago that Santorum's claim that Gingrich has supported some version of the mandate for 20 years was "mostly true." But it didn't think to ask whether Santorum, too, has supported the individual mandate in the past. And as it happens, he has. He supported it in 1994, according to this April 7, 1994 article in the Allentown, Pa. Morning Call, and this May 2, 1994 article in the same newspaper. It's possible that the newspaper would have gotten this wrong once, but in the heat of a primary campaign it's highly unlikely Santorum's campaign would have allowed it to get this wrong twice. 

[P]eople close to Paul's operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.  "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,'' said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul's company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

TNC pounces:

If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.

What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul "legislated" for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul's heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of  evidence, be made to look ridiculous.

I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul's apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don't think Paul is the "best vehicle" for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He's a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.

But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion's den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.

Would TNC have excoriated Robert F Kennedy in 1968 as someone who could not possibly channel progressive ideas because he was once a hatchetman for Joe McCarthy?

I acknowledge this newsletter incident is ugly, indefensible and, above all, cynical. I don't think it is all that matters in the remarkable late career of congressman Paul. And that hunting for heretics rather than celebrating converts is a losing political strategy.

Defending Gingrich against Dole's dry humor, Yuval Levin clarifies the "empty bucket" situation: 

It’s true that Newt Gingrich used to go around with an empty ice bucket in 1996. It was a symbol of his efforts to cut congressional perks and costs. For decades prior to 1995, every congressional office would receive a daily delivery of ice from a central freezer on the Capitol grounds. It was a holdover from the days before easy refrigeration, and it made for a nice demonstration of the sort of silly and costly perks that members of Congress received. When he became Speaker, Gingrich ended the practice and (in large part because that meant eliminating several staff positions) saved some $400,000 a year. Gingrich liked to use the ice bucket as a metaphor for Democratic governance: expensive, wasteful, and out-of-date. Whatever you think of the metaphor, it was something Gingrich talked about constantly, including on many occasions in the presence of Bob Dole.

(Photo: Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, and Robert Dole, Senate Majority Leader pose with an elephant outside the Capitol building in Washington on April 5, 1995. The elephant is part of the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. By Richard Ellis/AFP/Getty Images.)

Gingrich leads Romney in a four-way matchup, including Santorum and Paul, with “very conservatives” (47 percent to 17 percent), Tea Party supporters (46 percent to 21 percent), and in the South (45 percent to 21 percent). Those numbers gets even bigger in a two-way matchup. For example, in the South, one-on-one with Romney, Gingrich leads 65 percent to 28 percent.

The poll was started after the SC victory and before the Florida debates, so that may skew things in this volatile race. But that kind of advantage with Southern voters, if they do not agree to rally around the Romney establishment, means Super Tuesday becomes much more important.

My own suspicion is that many Southern Christianists will vote for the not-Mormon. I suspect Newt has a better chance of getting that role than Santorum.

Throughout my career, I’ve been associated with the Jewish left—I was to the left of the New Republic staff when I worked there, moved on to Talking Points Memo, hosted my blog at Firedoglake for years, and so on. I’ve criticized the American Jewish right’s myopic, destructive, tribal conception of what it means to love Israel. But it doesn’t deserve to have its Americanness and patriotism questioned. By all means, get into it with people who interpret every disagreement Washington has with Tel Aviv as hostility to the Jewish state. But if you can’t do it without sounding like Pat Buchanan, who has nothing but antipathy and contempt for Jews, then you’ve lost the debate," - Spencer Ackerman, Tablet.

A reader writes:

Following the GOP debates, one salient fact jumps out at me: Mitt Romney lies frequently, easily, and shamelessly. This isn't Reagan's evasions or Clinton's careful parsing or Bush's leaving the lies to his underlings; this is bold-faced making up outrageous crap about his opponents and saying it loudly and directly and repeatedly. Why the hell isn't this the big story the media talks about? Surely the fact that Mitt Romney is a lying sack of shit is more important than Newt's affairs or Ron Paul's old pamphlets.

Money quote from the September 2011 Boston Globe article cited in the above video:

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

A reader cringed at the roundtable discussion:

How awful for Viola Davis. She's an actress in Hollywood who just got nominated for an Oscar. She acts for a living. She probably has a nice big house and a nice expensive car, all from acting. She's "made it." 

As for "[black actresses] are rarely cast as ideals of beauty or objects of desire. On the odd occasion that they are, only a certain look will do." Uh, yeah, no shit. That goes for every white actress as well. Or have you not heard of the plight of the actress that's always cast as the best friend and never the lead? Why would that be? Maybe cause they don't have the right look.

Bottom line: if you're able to support yourself by living out your dreams, and get nominated for Oscars to boot, and go to hot parties and get your ass kissed by fans and other actors and even journalists, no one should give a crap about your "plight."

Another:

"Halle Berry is having a hard time." ????

Black culture actually has an incredibly disproportionate influence and representation within American pop culture as a whole. R&B and hiphop dominate popular music. Urban (code for black) culture is ubiquitous and influences how people dress, act, and speak - across most demographic lines. As far as Hollywood goes, I'm sure that immensely talented people are always overlooked and Davis' contention that it's political frankly doesn't make sense.

Two words prove this: Tyler Perry. Hollywood follows the money - that's not political, or racist. Tyler Perry movies make a shitload of money, whereas high-quality black-lead drama's don't. I would in fact argue that Hollywood is one of the places where we see market forces most directly!

Another drops some data:

The notion that African Americans are underrepresented in television and movies is one of the enduring myths of Hollywood. The Screen Actors Guild keeps casting data that measures diversity in casting. For instance, in 2008 (the last year SAG published the full data set), African Americans represented 13.3% of all TV and film roles cast under SAG contacts.  The year before they represented 14.8%.  (African Americans comprise 12.6% of the population.)  If you examine the data, you'll see the story is quite different for Latinos, seniors, people with disabilities - they're all underrepresented on the big and small screen.

Now admittedly, the data doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the roles, but the notion that African Americans only play maids and drug dealers is based on notions that longer withstand even casual scrutiny.  (If anyone has a right to complain about being typecast as baddies, it's white Englishmen over 40.)  

Finally, I think the fact that Viola Davis has had a hard time finding roles has more to do with being a 46-year-old female than is does with being black.

(Photo: Actor Forest Whitaker and Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis announce the nominations for the Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Amy Adams for 'Doubt', Penelope Cruz for 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona', Viola Davis for 'Doubt', Taraji P. Henson for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' and Marisa Tomei for 'The Wrestler' at the 81st Academy Awards Nominations on January 22, 2008 in Beverly Hills, California. By Kevin Winter/Getty Images. Cruz won the award. The Wiki page for African-Americans nominated for Oscars here.)

A new study explores the connection between narcissism and stress: 

The researchers found that men with high levels of unhealthy narcissism also had higher cortisol levels. Unhealthily narcissistic ladies had higher levels too, but the effect was much smaller. Higher levels of cortisol mean narcissistic dudes have a more active stress response, which could lead to cardiovascular problems — the study authors note that "future work might examine [whether] high narcissism in earlier life predicts poor health outcomes in later life." Though hanging out with a narcissistic person is certainly stressful, it's not obvious why narcissists themselves would be freaked out. Reinhard et al, however, note that previous research has shown that "narcissists are susceptible to a host of unrealistic self-views that are difficult and stressful to continuously maintain." Translation: convincing yourself that you're the most important person in the world is actually a lot of work.

(Photo: Republican presidential hopeful former Speaker Newt Gingrich fires back at a protester in the crowd as he speaks in the parking lot of the Wings Plus restaurant January 25, 2012 in Coral Springs, Florida. By Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images.)

[T]he terms of the Grand Bargain—entitlement cuts in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy—remain the crux of our paralyzed deficit-reduction politics. Even if Obama loses in November, Democrats in Congress are going to continue insisting on those terms. And with the power of the routine filibuster on their side, as well as public sentiment in favor of hiking taxes on the rich, Democrats won't need control of the White House or either house of Congress in order to hold out for the Grand Bargain.

Fresh from an incredible year rounded off by his immensely popular 'The Long Wait' for John Lewis, [director] Dougal [Wilson] lends his uniquely charming touch to a good cause: getting people to eat more vegetables. Celebrating cooking in its most vibrant form, we're reminded that healthy food doesn't have to be boring.

[T]here is an important sense in which elite ignorance reduces the quality of public policy. In a complex society where people have a wide variety of preferences, not even the most knowledgeable elite experts can really have enough information to impose efficient paternalistic regulations that preempt individual choice. But this problem would persist even if all our elites had a deep and extensive knowledge of non-elite culture. The solution is not so much an elite that is better-informed about the culture of the masses, but an elite whose power over those masses is more limited and decentralized.

That said, I’m certainly open to the possibility that diminishing some types of elite ignorance would improve our society. But I’m skeptical that what we need to have a better elite is the kind of knowledge Murray emphasizes.

Tyler Cowen takes issue with the Europe comparison:

Why do many European nations have higher mobility?  Putting ethnic and demographic issues aside, here is one mechanism.  Lots of smart Europeans decide to be not so ambitious, to enjoy their public goods, to work for the government, to avoid high marginal tax rates, to travel a lot, and so on.  That approach makes more sense in a lot of Europe than here.  Some of the children of those families have comparable smarts but higher ambition and so they rise quite a bit in income relative to their peers.  (The opposite may occur as well, with the children choosing more leisure.)  That is a less likely scenario for the United States, where smart people realize this is a country geared toward higher earners and so fewer smart parents play the “tend the garden” strategy. 

Quiggin isn't persuaded:

Cowen’s post is an exercise in defending the indefensible, and its weaknesses reflect that. As Mitt Romney’s tax returns show, wealthy Americans have the rules rigged in their favor from day one. And that’s assuming they obey the rules. Unlike the poor, they can mostly cheat with impunity. In these circumstances, it’s unsurprising that US inequality is so deeply entrenched. The only surprise is the suddenness with which the facts have become common knowledge.

(Chart via Jason Linkins)

A reader comments on another's praise of Paterno:

I understand the desire to not throw away decades of idol worship over one scandal, but the argument is a bit lacking. Sure he made a lot of great coaching decisions, but when confronted with one of the most important decisions a person could possibly be confronted with, the decision to stop the possible endangerment of a child, he failed miserably. It seems society should require this to be part of his legacy. It lets others know it doesn't matter how successful you are - if you allow the endangerment of a child, none of your accomplishments matter. If it keeps kids safer from these sorts of acts, I'm ok with it.

Another is a bit more blunt:

Your reader's email about Paterno's legacy at Penn State and his personal thrill at receiving a thank you note from the Paternos was downright sickening.

Basically, the reader is impressed and personally touched by the fact that the Paternos went out of their way, in a time of great stress, to research his/her address, write a thank you note and mail it to him in a very timely fashion. If only Joe Pa had devoted a fraction of the diligence to reporting a crime against a child (and preventing future abuses) that he and/or his wife put into adhering to Emily Post. Your reader went on to say "Joe never missed an opportunity to remind us that success is only valuable when it comes with honor". Am I to assume there is more honor in etiquette than in preventing child rape?

Another reader:

I live in Central PA, and am currently a grad student at Penn State. Unlike nearly everyone else at PSU, I actively dislike their football team. (I grew up a fan of, and eventually attended, a university that Penn State fans consider a rival.) I couldn't agree more with your first reader's take that "The need to classify him into a category of 'good' or 'evil' seems like folly to [him or her]." Although I don't like the team, I respect that he tried to run his program the right way (no mean accomplishment, to be sure) and by all accounts he was a genuinely kind and decent guy.

Your second reader, however, trotted out a canard that I keep hearing from my many PSU alum friends and people in the area. The reader claims that Paterno "had been mistreated by the University and the press (based on incomplete information and misinformation)." These Gingrichian (or are they Palinesque?) claims that JoePa was a victim of the "national media" and the Board of Trustees are absurd, and I'm getting tired of hearing it.

First off, what do these people think would have been an appropriate response by the media and the Board? I frequently hear that he should have been allowed to retire at the end of the season, but let's unpack that one a bit. If Paterno had still been on the sidelines for the last three games of the season, can you imagine the shitshow that would have ensued?

He was fired Nov. 10, and they had a home game with Nebraska that weekend. That might have been manageable enough in the friendly confines of the Happy Valley, but the next two weeks were road games at Ohio State and Wisconsin. How would those schools have felt about all the extra security they would have had to hire, and the protesters who undoubtedly would have descended on both Camp Randall and the Horseshoe. For that matter, at that point in the season, Penn State had a chance to make it to the inaugural Big 10 championship game. (Conference title games are huge moneymakers, and it was only this season that the Big 10 finally had enough schools to be allowed to hold one.) How would the other member institutions have felt about having a child sex abuse scandal hanging over their biggest game of the year? (Here's a hint: they took Paterno's name off the championship trophy when he was fired.)

Big 10 membership is a HUGE deal for Penn State. My professors are always talking about how the school uses other Big 10 institutions as benchmarks for literally everything. Also, from what I understand, it was the money Penn State got from joining the Big 10 in the '90s that has enabled it to become (I believe) a top 50 research university worldwide, at least by one measure. People like to say how Penn State is "more than just football," but the fact is that if their football brand were destroyed (which can happen, just ask SMU) Penn State might just find itself viewed as a "cow college" again. Letting Paterno stay on would have been malpractice on the part of the Board.

Also, is there a going concern in the world (aside from the Catholic Church, bien sur) that would allow its chief executive to remain in place under similar circumstances?

And let's not forget the dread "national media." What, exactly, is it that these people would have had the press do? There was certainly no lack of media criticism of Penn State or JoePa (or McQueary for that matter) in the wake of the revelations, and some of it could certainly be described as inflammatory. Here's the thing though. Penn State fans who embrace the "national media" narrative seem to be saying that these incendiary commentaries in the press are the reason why so many people were so pissed off about what happened. Seriously? It was the commentary? I can't speak for anyone else, but "raping 10 year olds" was really all I myself needed to get fully pissed, and that seems to have been the reaction of everyone who isn't emotionally invested in PSU football. Is it really so impossible to believe that child rape can piss people off without some talking head telling them that that's how they should feel? Fuck that.

Finally, if Joe wanted to clear his name, he had every opportunity in the world. I didn't watch his WaPo interview, but from the accounts I read, it doesn't sound like the reporter really pressed him on details; I'm pretty sure the biggest news the interview generated was the fact that he "wished he had done more," or some such cliche. Since he'll never face cross examination under oath, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to completely judge Paterno's moral complicity in these alleged crimes, but that's on Joe; I'm sure the national media would have been happy to give him all the airtime he wanted to try and rescue his legacy.

(Screenshot from The Onion)

What really makes the iPhone work isn’t the hardware. Sure, the glass—designed by Corning in upstate New York and manufactured in China—is beautiful. But the transformative part of the phone is the software. The code behind the touch-screen was written here; the iOS operating system was written here; most of the apps that we use are written here. Thousands of companies, in fact, have been started here to write apps for Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android. Software remains a great American expertise, and it’s only becoming more important as processors shrink into ever more powerful forms.

Some calm and perspective in this intense political season. Robert T. Gonzalez explains how NASA made its newest awe-inspiring photo of Earth, "Blue Marble 2012:"

The camera on board [new satellite] Suomi NPP can only photograph small sections of Earth at a time, so the image you see here is actually something of a mosaic — a patchwork piece that collects photos taken from Suomi NPP over the course of January 4, 2012 and stitches them together.  Of course, when I say that Suomi photographs "small sections" of the Earth's surface, what I mean is that they're smaller than an absurdly hi-res photo of the entire planet; in actuality, they're still mind-numbingly enormous — like the true-color image of the Southeastern United States featured here.

Go here for a comparison of the image to the previous "Blue Marbles," including the 1972 original.

Clean energy isolates the Republican base from the broad mass of American opinion and, in particular, from swing-state independents. It’s a wedge issue and an electoral winner for Democrats if they can quit playing defense and go on the attack. The appropriate response to threats from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a well-administered ass kicking.

Ed Kilgore situates the argument in a broader context of Democratic unwillingness to sell its own agenda:

It’s true that some sub-issues in this area remain tough - there’s no question progressives have lost ground with the public on dealing with global climate change during the last few years, and will always have trouble with policy prescriptions that deliberately aim at raising energy prices. But while it’s always appropriate to emphasize or de-emphasize this or that issue on strategic or tactical grounds at some particular moment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about an ideology or a political party that is unwilling to offer its own distinctive "take" on subjects the public cares about. David’s right there is a progressive opportunity on "clean energy" that ought to be fully exploited. Even if he was wrong, though, it’s a terrible habit to shut down thinking and talking about major national challenges just because "the other side" seems to have an advantage. 

[Re-posted from earlier today. My debate live blog is here; our round-up of the blogosphere reaction is here.]

The PAC says "Blood Money" will air starting tomorrow at 5 pm EST. Andrew Kaczynski provided background on the Bain Medicare scandal a few days ago: 

Romney and Bain Capital made huge profits when they sold Damon Corporation in 1993. But the strong revenues that the company had posted were created partially by criminal activity. Damon Corporation participated in a large scale Medicare scam, billing the government for blood tests that never occurred. The Boston Globe show that Romney personally made $473,000 when Corning Inc. purchased Damon Corp. from Bain in 1993. Romney sat on the board of Damon Corp. from 1990-1993, when a large amount of the fraud was occurring. After the sale of the company, Bain reaped in profits of over $7.4 million. In 1996, Damon Corporation pled guilty to federal conspiracy and defrauding the government out of $25 million. The record fine of $119 million was harsh penalty for scheme labeled by then US Attorney Donald Stern “a case, pure and simple, of corporate greed run amok.”

Next, a relatively insipid spot from Winning Our Future: 

Gingrich's own campaign calls attention to Romney's record as a "liberal governor": 

Meanwhile, Romney reminds Floridians of Gingrich's past ethics violations: 

Greg Sargent explains that the above mailer is part of a new campaign strategy to call Newt's "emotional stability" into question: 

The Times observes that Romney’s new strategy of tearing down Gingrich’s character risks turning off the independents, women and suburban Republicans that Romney will need in a general election. As the above mailer suggests, it’s a risk the Romney team is prepared to take — and perhaps sees as an imperative at this point.

Page one of the mailer, which quotes Jennifer Rubin on Gingrich's "well of sleaze," here. Josh Marshall adds: 

As I've told people a few times: wake me up when the Romney campaign schedules a press call with a psychiatrist. ... This anti-Newt mailer sent out by the Romney campaign isn't quite that. But it's close.

Here's a companion TV spot, which warns that Nancy Pelosi could end Gingrich's candidacy: 

Pelosi is now backtracking on her claims. 

Today on the Dish, Andrew liveblogged Romney's triumph at the Jacksonville debate (insta-fact check here and reax here), explained why it was so critical to the primary, named something he would appreciate about a Romney presidency, picked out Dole and Drudge's parts in the establishment anti-Newt backlash, pitted Newt's cultural populism againt Obama's economic populism, and demolished Mitt's "Obama is a European socialist" line. Andrew also hoped Obama could buck his party on tax reform, loved his defense against the class warfare canard, saw his economic fortunes rising, examined homosociality, and found former RNC chair Ken Mehlman out-front on the marriage equality debate.

Debates might have been a bad way to vet candidates while tonight's was heavily anticipated. Romney retook the lead in Florida, Frum issued an apologia for Mitt's lying, and corporate taxes likely didn't up his tax rate to 50%. Gingrich took us to the moon (twice), obsessed over Saul Alinsky (despite their similarities), owed his success to Citizens United (and the press), terrified GOP elites (though they might not be able to stop him) engaged on the Reagan debate, and looked EXACTLY like Dwight Schrute. The GOP was whitewashing the 50s and the general shaped up to be nasty.

Calls for intervention in Syria kept coming, brinksmanship with China was (possibly) counterproductve, and the internet spread lies. A man married a lesbian and the origins of heterosexuality were uncovered. A venture capitalist (quixotically) went after Hollywood, an industry that condescended on race. Finally, readers sounded off over Paterno's legacy and the morality of the 1%. Yglesias Nominee here, Malkin Nominee here, Quote for the Day here, Ad War Updates here and here, MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

- Z.B.

(Photo:  Republican presidential candidates, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shake hands at the end of a debate sponsored by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network at the University North Florida on January 26, 2012 in Jacksonville, Florida. The debate is the last one before the Florida primaries January 31st. By Joe Raedle/Getty Images.)

Rod Dreher thought Romney wiped the floor with Gingrich:

Romney won this debate, and probably Florida, and so the nomination. Newt collapsed, as bullies and blowhards often do when somebody fights back. Santorum auditioned for Romney’s VP, and greatly enhanced his chances. Ron Paul shines on, that crazy diamond.

Will Wilkinson seconds him:

Romney started strong, completely obliterating Newt on immigration and questions about his finances, and then stayed strong. Santorum again turned in an admirably dogged performance, but so what? Romney won the debate and the nomination.

Larison likewise expects a Romney win in Florida:

Romney held off Gingrich, and Gingrich was flailing most of the night. Unless something strange happens in the next few days, Romney should hold his lead in Florida. Santorum may have gained a little, but nowhere near enough to challenge for second place. Paul did a decent job tonight, but Florida is not a good state for him and he’s already looking to the caucus events in February.

Jonah Goldberg gives Gingrich low marks:

I would have bet before the debate that Newt was going to re-energize the race tonight and win the Florida primary. Now, I kind of doubt it.

W. James Antle III agrees:

Gingrich seemed tired, unprepared, and off his game tonight -- bad timing for the former House speaker. Romney had some clunkers -- he got caught redhanded on the anti-Newt attack ad, the line about not making his own investments could come back to haunt him, and he denied being politically involved during a time period that included a Senate campaign -- but he had the better showing overall. I'm seeing many people argue that Gingrich has sharpened Romney as a candidate.

PM Carpenter was amazed by the fight in Romney:

I'm as stunned by Romney's vitality and aggressiveness as Gingrich is. I thought Romney would coast tonight as best he could, given his upward movement -- i.e., Gingrich's downward movement -- in Florida polls. But Romney clearly believes he is now fighting for his political life, and that Florida might be his firewall after all.

E.D. Kain's verdict:

Fundamentally, Romney was much better than we’ve seen him in some time. He started out a little sketchy, but rallied early on and got plenty of kidney punches in at Newt. Both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum sounded more sincere than either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Of course I find most of the things Santorum actually says fairly repulsive, while I find Ron Paul to be a continued breath of fresh air and sanity. Yes, I find most of what Paul says thousands of times saner than what his GOP rivals say. And Paul says a lot of crazy things.

Kain notes that InTrade is betting overwhelmingly on a Romney win in Florida. Dave Weigel ponders Santorum's attack on Romneycare:

Santorum is completely right that Romney can't oppose the idea of a health care mandate (a conservative idea until 2009, etc, etc) in a debate with Barack Obama. I'm just not sure of the calculus here: Which votes does Romney lose in a general election because he's critical of the national health care law but not defends state mandates?

Fallows focuses on the same exchange:

I am not a Republican strategist, but if I were, I would wonder about the problem of the "strongest" candidate making a flat-out ridiculous and disprovable claim about the issue his party says is the most objectionable part of the current president's program. 

Matt Welch liked the audience reaction:

Debates are so much better with a raucous audience. The spectacle of an establishment media dinosaur like Blitzer trying to keep the conversation on trivialities, and getting booed by a bunch of voters, give me hope for this country. 

Henry Olsen felt Romney did well, aside from one mistake:

One bad point for Mitt: He didn’t know it was his own radio ad that attacked Gingrich for allegedly calling Spanish the language of the ghetto. Newt picked up on this at one point, and if a man whose primary rationale for running is his ability to run his company, the fact he seemed not to know what his company was doing might undermine his credibility.

Jennifer Rubin celebrates Gingrich's collapse:

I’d be surprised if the Romney camp had a hand in every statement and article that criticized [Gingrich] over the last week or so. (They aren’t that good.) Conservatives have had enough of him, and have come forward out of fear he might actually get the nomination. After tonight they have less to fear. Not only did Romney have the best debate of the primary season, but Santorum’s strong showing should bleed votes away from Gingrich as well.

And Andrew Sprung, like most of the blogosphere, thinks Newt is finished:

The ready-made attack ads for Democrats may be over; they will have to make their own case against Romney. 

Mitt Romney said, "I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot." ... He voted for Senator Paul Tsongas, a Massachusetts Democrat, when he ran in 1992 for the presidential nomination against Bill Clinton, among others. That was the same day, and the same year, that President George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan were on the Republican ballot.

As an independent, Mr. Romney could have voted in either party's primary, and apparently chose to vote for the Democrat.