Fred is done. The field is now absent any truly principled conservative. May the least bad candidate win.

Fred has said that South Carolina is his state to shine. In the South Carolina debate he showed he was serious. When the moderators asked numerous candidates to speak on the Reagan Revolution, Fred saw his opening and pounced. Demonstrating his leadership ability, he didn’t allow the moderator to move on without coming to Fred, and he insisted on full, rather than rebuttal time. Candidates with strong leadership shouldn’t be over-matched by a debate moderator.

In answering the question, Fred unloaded on Mike Huckabee’s populist record.

Debate transcript

…This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future. On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security. On the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in.

…He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states’ rights. So much for individual rights.

That’s not the model of the Reagan coalition, that’s the model of the Democratic Party.

It’s about time somebody said it. The media is reluctantly catching on to the fact that Fred is still in the race. I laid out “Why Fred Ain’t Dead” on the 6th (if I might toot my own horn a bit), and now after the debate suddenly that’s the cool thing to say, with media and bloggers abuzz with Fred’s performance.

Meanwhile, Human Events has endorsed Fred.

Fred still has his work cut out for him. He needs to leverage this debate and his bus tour into a South Carolina win if he is to have any shot. If he does that, I think there’s a lot of conservative groundswell out there just waiting to burst forth. But they, sadly, remain unconvinced of his viability. South Carolina is where he can, and must, convince them. There are good indications so far.

The democrat race is quite easy to summarize: It’s a toss-up.

The Republican race is a bit more complicated. First things first, ignore the media. They’ll tell you Mitt is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Rudy is out. They’re wrong. They’ll tell you Fred is out. They’re wrong.

Why is the media so wrong? Simply put, they have an overstated opinion of themselves and what they mean to the race. They buy into the idea of massive coverage generating overwhelming momentum for whoever they anoint as the front-runners. Their ego’s prevent them from questioning this assumption even as the present election represents a completely new phenomenon and is unprecedented in it’s compactness.

Here’s the real truth. Yes, momentum matters. But no one has enough to have eliminated anyone else. Rudy is still sitting on some big delegate states and, despite being written off by the media, can easily take the delegate lead on super tuesday. Amazingly enough, Mitt Romney is being declared dead even as he has the most delegates! He’s very competitive in Michigan and, with a win there, would probably be the *real* front-runner. Fred is hurt, but still not out. While McCain, Romney and Huckabee are duking it out in Michigan, he’s in South Carolina all by himself. A win there could give him a crucial second look, though another else is the end of the road.

So that’s where it stands. Don’t listen to the media. No one is out and everyone still has a path to the nomination.

Here I’ll rank how the candidates did on each issue. The topics came back and forth a little bit so it’s not strictly arranged by subject. But I’ve tried to kept it in the sections Wallace used.

Taxes & Social Security

Rudy: Rudy laid out his tax cutting record, then went on to talk about cutting corporate taxes. He correctly pointed out that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate. 4 points

McCain: Despite being criticized for voting against the Bush tax cut, McCain actually came out alright on taxes because of his focus on spending and explanation that he wanted the tax cuts to include spending cuts. This also just so happens to be what most conservatives wanted as well. He didn’t make the argument for his vote against the Bush tax cuts as clear as he could have, and that kept him from the top spot in my ranking on this issue. McCain’s additional comment on social security was also a solid boost. 3 points

Romney: Romney’s tiff with Huckabee on this issue got things off to a heated start. Mitt got a little flustered when he fell back and meekly repeated his “facts are stubborn things” line. Still, he gave a good low tax answer and came out the better against Huckabee. 2 points

Thompson: Wallace dragged Fred into a discussion of Social Security and didn’t let him answer the taxes question. I think I understand his explanation of why reducing future promises of increases isn’t a cut, but it was probably all too confusing for most. 1 point

Huckabee: Huckabee dodged Mitt’s question and came off rather weak here. Zero points

Populism & “Change”

Romney: You’re not going to help the wage-earner in America attack the wager-payer in America. Romney leveraged his private sector experience well here. In his battle with McCain he came out on top. “Washington is fundamentally broken” was succinct and to the point. He managed to successfully hit all the issues in this section. 4 points

Thompson: Thompson, as usual, gave an honest answer on the Fair Tax. A constitutional amendment to ensure that an income tax won’t return in addition to a consumption tax makes this an unlikely solution. Otherwise he likes the idea. “Change has been a part of every election since the dawn of elections, if you weren’t an incumbent.” More important than change is leadership and being honest with the people about the problems we face. That’s the change we need. 3 points

Rudy: Rudy took Wallace’s question on the Fair Tax and completely disregarded it, instead choosing to reach into his New York grab-bag to pull out welfare reform. Not a bad issue in it’s own right. He made a strong case in explaining how important it is to take the case to all people that conservative solutions work better than liberal pandering. But so blatantly not answer questions doesn’t impress voters. Rudy recovered well when he was able to speak on “change”. It can be for good or bad, what matters is the direct. “Change is a slogan.” Essentially he is saying Democrats are for bad change. 2 points

Huckabee & McCain: Huckabee gave a decent answer and avoided the demagogic populism that he uses on the campaign trail. But the video played of his prior statements was enough to hurt him here. Romney twisted that knife further. McCain sounds like he was in the Democratic debate, trying to out “change” the changeofiliacs. His new “agent of change” persona sounds too much like what Hillary to adopedt after Obama’s Iowa victory, and no more sincere. Such platitudes don’t belong in serious discussion and is unbecoming a Republican. He recovered a bit when he was able to bring up his leadership experience in the Navy. 1 point each

National Security & Leadership

McCain & Romney: Romney and McCain highlighted the historically lopsided battle between Senators and Governors. Both won because they were able to dominate the discussion and left the other three candidates all but forgotten on this issue. They were both able to highlight their own experiences and both did so impressively. McCain gets the slight edge because he got the last word and said it wasn’t just his Senate experience, but also his life experience that he brings (which reminds us all he is a war hero). 3 points each

Thompson: “These are different” times that require more foreign relations experience. Fred made fun of the other candidates listing off all the countries they’ve visited and then went on to lay out his solid credentials. He got in a hit on Huckabee’s positions on Gitmo, Cuba and his “bunker mentality” statements. 2 points

Rudy: Trying to compare managing New York to dealing with foreign threats was a stretch. Romney made a much better case for translating domestic executive leadership to the Commander-in-Chief role. Rudy wasn’t bad, but wasn’t strong either. 1 points

Huckabee: Wallace’s litany of Huckabee’s gaffe’s on knowledge of foreign issues was a huge blow. He was obviously flustered by the question and never recovered on this issue. That he had to fall back on leadership of domestic issues only highlighted his weakness. Fred also got the best of him. He scored some points saying Gitmo is too hospitable, but flopped when he said it doesn’t matter where we keep them. Zero points

Immigration & Amnesty

Romney: Pointing out McCain’s statement saying amnesty must be part of the solution was a blow. Pointing out the incentives that amnesty gives to encourage others to enter illegally was an excellent answer. He took a hit when McCain struck back and threw out his quote stating McCain’s plan was reasonable and not amnesty. 4 points

Rudy: Rudy hit all the solid points. Nothing flashy but he got in the “secure the borders” and everything that comes with it lines. 3 points

Thompson: Rudy and Huckabee had polices that “if you made it in, you were home free.” Our policies are encouraging the next generation of people to try and cross the border. Finally someone criticized the President of Mexico for thinking he can tell us not to enforce our borders. He didn’t give any specific for what he would do though. 2 points

Huckabee: Huckabee gave an alright answer. People in the U.S. should live in the shadows, he says. In order to live with dignity they should go home and come back legally. I don’t think his taking umbrage at Mitt’s question came off too well. He didn’t answer Wallace’s question well on when exactly it’s punishing the children and when it’s not, as Huckabee said in the past children should not be punished for the parents crimes. 1 point

McCain: McCain struggled and seemed defensive. He says fixing borders first is his priority, but no one believes him at this point and I don’t see he did anything to change that fact. Zero points

Bonus Round

*I’m not going to rank the question on negative ads and the various questions that went with it because the candidates got different questions. Rather, I’ll give plus or minus one point depending on how each did, or zero if I think they came out about even.

Romney: +1. Romney got in a good point about the difference between an attack ad and an ad on people’s records. Contrasting records has an important role in the campaign process. Once again providing both the setup and punch line to the joke about hair was lame, though. He answered the flip-flopping charge very well.

Huckabee: -1. Mitt got the best of him yet again.

Rudy: 0. Did a good job of dispatching the Kerik debacle, but didn’t gain anything

McCain: +1. Dealt with the age issue with good humor and dispelled it well

Thomspon: -1. Fred loses through no fault of his own. Not included in this discussion, the viewer probably forgot he was even in the debate.

Closing Arguments

Romney: Romney wins basically just on presentation. With a question in which all candidates are saying basically the same things, presentation matters a lot. He came across as the most inspiring. 3 points

McCain: McCain was as positive and upbeat as he is capable of, but still couldn’t match Romney. Having the last word also helped. 2 points

Rudy, Thompson & Huckabee: Rudy is the man for big ideas, he says. Good answer, but yet again nothing stood out. Fred got in the only reference to appointing judges that aren’t activists. Cited his 100% pro-life record. Made reference to being on the short-end of some 99-1 votes, but didn’t explain how that was an example of his strong federalist principles. His tone was rather lackluster and uninspiring. Huckabee starting with a religious reference got him off on the wrong foot. He went into a stronger answer after that but it didn’t stand out. 1 point each

So here’s how my tally came out:

Romney: 17
Rudy: 11
McCain: 10
Thompson: 8
Huckabee: 2

Disappointed by Fred’s Iowa showing, my initial analysis following the Hawkeye cauci about his chances to win the nomination was rather pessimistic. Well, that’s an understatement. I gave him no chance. I still am pessimistic about his odds, but after watching the ABC New Hampshire debate I now see a path for him back to competitiveness.

It’s not yet clear whether Romney or McCain will come out ahead in New Hampshire, but it is all but certain that Huckabee will not have a strong showing. With a split in the early primary winners, no candidate will have control of the race heading into the next big momentum shifting state: South Carolina. The Thomspon campaign has made it clear they are targeting South Carolina and hope ride a “southern strategy” to the nomination.

In the ABC New Hampshire debate, Thompson dogged Guiliani on the issue of immigration (see video), asserting that if illegals receive any reward for their law-breaking is amnesty. Thompson’s lawyerly background is on evidence here as he first lays out a clear definition of amnesty for all to understand, and then proceeds to hold Rudy’s feet to the fire by repeatedly questioning if his plan would allow illegals to remain in the U.S.

Every single major candidate but Thompson has a weak record on immigration. South Carolinians rank immigration has their number one issue. If I’m Fred Thompson I’m saying one thing between now and January 19th: Immigration, immigration, immigration. If his campaign is on the ball they’ll continue to lay the groundwork on that issue in tonight’s Fox debate.

Despite the rumors started by Politico.com, Fred is not exiting the race. Good for him, though I don’t see much chance at the moment for him. There’s no doubt he’s the only true conservative in the race. But McCain, whether he gets first (likely) or second in New Hampshire (where Fred is not competing and will be beat by Ron Paul) is poised to steal Thompson’s thunder heading into South Carolina. A strong New Hampshire debate is critical for Fred. Meanwhile, the Thompson campaign has put out a call for more funds, hoping to rake in $540,000 by January 11th. He’s already up to $70,000+.

Here’s Fred addressing his supporters after the Iowa Caucus:

As the Iowa Caucus finishes up, the winners and losers have been decided. Let’s take a look:

The Winners

Huckabee: Huckabee had to win Iowa to have a shot and he did that. He still has an uphill battle. I hope he trips.

McCain: With Romney and McCain battling for first in New Hampshire, Mitt’s Iowa loss is McCain’s win.

The Losers

Romney: Yes he got second and did better than McCain, but Romney has always relied on an early state strategy. Perception is everything, and Romney is going down while McCain is going up. If Romney isn’t careful, McCain will steal his spot as chief rival to Huckabee. As I said in my previous post, Romney isn’t dead for second. But he has to be dissappointed.

Thompson: Tied for 3rd at 13% isn’t good enough. Thompson is out. He hasn’t the money or support in other major states to fall back on. He may or may not stay in through the New Hampshire debate and hope to capture lightening in a bottle. I’m not holding my breath.

The Republican Party: A demagogic, identity-politics-using populist (Huckabee) has won 2.5 times as many votes in Iowa as the only true conservative in the race (Thompson). This is disaster for the Republican party. It’s a recipe for one thing: President Obama.

America: See above.

Given this campaign season’s radically altered primary schedule, many pundits are asking what this means for the importance of Iowa. However, I’m not going to weigh in here on what the Iowa primary means as a whole, or whether or not the state deserves its long held spot at the front of the primary pack. Rather, I’d like to consider what today’s results will mean to each candidate.

Romney: Long ago assumed to be the winner in Iowa, Romney has relatively recently found himself defending his lead against an insurgent Huckabee. Second place, however, will not significantly harm Romney. He’s strong in New Hampshire and his pockets are deep.

Huckabee: Unlike Romney, Huckabee has to win. He doesn’t have much support in New Hampshire nor a strong national organization. Second will be spun poorly and used as evidence of his implosion due to numerous recent gaffes.

Thompson: Thompson’s best hope for the nomination is already a long shot. He needs at least a strong third (mid to high teens in the polls) to have any shot. He has zero New Hampshire support (he wrote essentially wrote the state off) and will finish behind Ron Paul in the granite state. A strong third, however, will provide significant media coverage as it will be seen as surpassing expectations. He’ll need to parlay this into a bounce in South Carolina, which he has to win to have any shot at the nomination.

McCain: McCain is battling Thompson for the third spot, though he has a bit more leeway. About even with Romney in New Hampshire, a close 4th will keep him alive. Barely.

Rudy: Rudy is not competing in Iowa. Rather, he’s relying on the more populated states, such as Florida and California, to propel him to the nomination. Whether his present support in those states can survive the month long media onslaught of the top candidates coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire remains to be seen. But it makes little difference who those candidates are, and thus who wins Iowa.

My commentary on Fred’s tax plan will be quite short indeed. I mostly like what he’s proposing if compared to our current tax code, and I would pull that lever in a second if these were the only two choices available to me. However, I also feel that there is a better alternative available than what he’s proposing.

The basics, from the Fred ‘08 website:

Tax Reform

The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today?s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars?they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America?s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:

* Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.
* A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens? pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.
* Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.

To be a little more specific:

Key aspects of Thompson’s tax proposal:

–The choice of filing under the current system or a flat tax rate of 10 percent for joint filers with an income of up to $100,000 — $50,000 for single taxpayers; and 25 percent on income above these amounts.

The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption would be increased to $3,500. A family of four would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000. The simplified code would contain no other tax credits or deductions, and retain the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

–Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.

–Protecting marriage penalty relief.

–Retaining education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savings plans, and deductions for higher education expenses.

–Permanently repealing the estate tax.

–Eventually repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, a separate system created 30 years ago to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability.

Thompson also would index the exemptions annually so that millions of middle-class families would not be subject to the tax.

House Democrats earlier this month pushed through an $80 billion bill to block the spread of the tax. The White House and Republicans, protesting tax increases in the bill affecting mainly investment fund managers, maintained that it would never become law. Bush supports relief from the tax, but promised to veto any bill that raises taxes as a condition of fixing the AMT.

–Reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent.

–Permanently extend small business expensing of equipment and other small business items.

–Update and simplify depreciation schedules.

It seems like he’s coming from the right place at least - a desire to streamline and clean up the ponderous tax code. If he’s the man to work with a possible continued democrat majority in the legislature to make these reforms a reality, then it’s a step in the right direction. At the same time, however, I do not feel this is the best possible reform package. Partly because it retains some of the arbitrary progressiveness of the current tax code - he’s merely reducing the number of tax increments. And partly because it’s just not the fair tax (consumption tax) which candidate Mike Huckabee, for example, has voiced support for. I’ll let Alexander Hamilton explain one of the advantages of the fair tax:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, “in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.” If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 21.

Also refer to the fair tax.

The government will never be out of our pocketbooks as long as we need to prove up our income and expenditures to the IRS every year.

Finally, if I were Fred, I would make one addition. A third choice of tax system, where rich liberals can volunteer to pay anywhere from 50% to 95% of their incomes to the federal government. Give the people what they want. There is no shortage of snobbish liberal gazillonaires demanding the opportunity to pay their “fair share”. Any reformed tax code failing to accommodate their wishes would be woefully deficient.