<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Live-Blogging The Florida NBC&nbsp;Debate]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LxwFNcY9xt0" width="515"></iframe></p> <p>10.55 pm. A reader sums it up:</p> <blockquote> <p>Not  sure if we just watched a debate between Two-Face and the Penguin.  Watching Newt waddle off the stage really made me think that the visual  fits.</p> </blockquote> <p>But he waddled off a statesman. In his own mind. Another writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>I just walked out to the living room to find my husband passed out (from boredom) on the couch. I can&#39;t vote as I am a registered Democrat in Florida and my husband can&#39;t vote as he&#39;s a registered Independent. We just want the ads to stop.</p> </blockquote> <p>They&#39;ve only just begun. And after the statesmanlike torpor tonight, they&#39;ll have to be vicious. We&#39;ll keep you posted. Every day with our <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/ad-war-update-6.html" target="_self">Ad War Update</a>. As for the neologism of the night, a reader notes:</p> <blockquote> <div>In response to your question about who  &quot;self-deports&quot;… didn&#39;t Romney&#39;s granddad self-deport to Mexico to  maintain his right be married to more than woman at a time?</div> </blockquote> <p>Yes, he did. But I suspect he&#39;d have more in common with Newt than Mitt in that regard.</p> <p>10.42 pm. What a different Gingrich tonight: eager to thank and support his rivals; humble with respect to the huge challenges ahead. He has decided to cut the fireworks to foil his critics. And I presume his Super PAC will meanwhile open up various cans of whup-ass on Romney. So this is Newt on his best behavior. Even when Romney called him a &quot;disgrace&quot; three times.</p> <p>Maybe Gingrich is trying to reassure the establishment that he is not the constant bomb-thrower and surprise agent. Maybe he realizes he needs to look more presidential. My own take is that this gambit cannot work for Newt. He is not a serene statesman. He&#39;s a ferocious demagogue. That&#39;s all he knows. I don&#39;t find the new Newt very appealing. But maybe tactically, it makes sense.</p> <p>As for Romney, he was back on form, but also oddly Romney-esque. The crude and dumb attacks on Obama remained. The occasional weirdness - why is he so proud that Ted Kennedy took out a new mortgage? why brag that he&#39;d pay no taxes under Newt&#39;s tax plan? - endured. The confidence returned, but still no character and no personality to engage with.</p> <p>Santorum? Competent and unlikable. Paul? Well, you know what I think. This was a great line:</p> <blockquote> <p>&quot;How can you be conservative and cut food stamps, but not cut a penny over-seas ...&quot;</p> </blockquote> <p>That line may well have more resonance in the future than anything else tonight, if, as now seems possible, Obama wins in a landslide.</p> <p>Anyway, it&#39;s late now and it&#39;s time to self-deport. Maybe the tax releases tomorrow will be more exciting.</p> <p>10.39 pm. Santorum does very well on his stark contrast to president Obama, in contrast with Gingrich and Romney. Then Paul reminds us that constant war is not a real conservative value.&#0160;</p> <p>10.37 pm. A reader writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>Until tonight, I turned on the Republican debates, heard the crown hoot  and holler, turned it off and followed it on your live-blog.&#0160; Tonight, I  turned it on, could hear a pin drop, watched <em>and listened </em>to the men on the stage.&#0160; First time in 18 debates - &#0160;kudos to NBC for pulling the plug on bloodlust.</p> </blockquote> <p>10.34 pm. How does having a family advance conservatism as an ideology? Or working for a private equity company? Just when you think Romney has rallied, he gives you a lame-ass answer like that one. And ends it with a smirk.</p> <p>10.29 pm. So Gingrich says that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy not to go under after 9/11. Does that mean that the Obama tax cuts helped the economy not to enter a Second Great Depression? Or does Keynesian economics only work under Republicans?</p> <p>But notice how that question - why didn&#39;t the Bush tax cuts work? - should have prompted an anti-media tirade from Newt. It&#39;t the perfect set-up, and also the kind of valid point that usually makes Newt&#39;s head explode. But he just went along with it. He seems completely robbed of that South Carolina fire. Is it the audience? Or is he just exhausted? I wouldn&#39;t blame him. But Romney has, in my view, done well in this debate so far. Because he has never really been challenged.</p> <p>10.25 pm. No one has laid a hand on Romney so far. After the first exchange between him and Newt, the attacks evaporated. Romney seems to have won the alpha dog fight. Either that or Newt has finally decided to calm down and control his anger. That way, he&#39;ll lose. Without anger, he is oddly small.</p> <p>10.23 pm. Newt has finally found a reason for a judge to exist - to keep people alive for ever. Then Paul urges living wills. Sanity as usual.</p> <p>10.20 pm. Maybe I was too hyped up for fight night, but NBC has managed to drain the entire thing of drama. Some readers, however, like it:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sorry, Andrew. I think Brian Williams is doing fine. Calm, rational, but  with pointed questions that get the candidates answering directly -  without making himself or how the questions are asked the issue. This is  the kind of debate we should have.</p> </blockquote> <p>Another:</p> <blockquote> <p>Gingrich cannot perform outside of high drama. He plays one note, but  it can only be played under a specific media-centric form of duress.&#0160;</p> </blockquote> <p>There is a method to Williams&#39; dullness.</p> <p>A reader writes:</p>]]></html></oembed>