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.

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.

Another week and another republican presidential debate. Ok, maybe they aren’t happening that often, but it feels like it. I’m not going to recap the entire thing. Rather I’ll hit what I think are the highlights and important developments, though in no particular order.

Fred Thompson can be exciting. After some lackluster performances I was beginning to question whether Fred Thompson was capable of energetically delivering what are quite sound and desirable positions. Last night he took a big step in the right direction. He also called Ted Kennedy fat. Mega bonus points. He got hit on tort reform, and though his answer included his federalist argument (one I sympathize with), his answer also rambled a bit. It was the only issue that provided a real weak point, though.

If John McCain is a top-tier candidate, so is Mike Huckabee. There’s no doubt that McCain gave many strong answers. His statement that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war probably the most memorable of any candidate in the entire debate. It was that rare occasion where not only was a politician putting principle above politics, but it was believable. He also joked and got the laughs just as well as any of them. Yet it doesn’t seem to be enough to connect with the voters. He did possibly flub one answer, when he talked about the importance of reconciliation with former “enemies”. Though he was making a valid point, lumping the religious right into the same category as the Vietnamese may not have been quite what he intended. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, continues to impress. Even where I disagree, the clear sincerity behind his views is itself inspiring.

Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner, but not by much. The most striking observation to take from this debate is that this race is wide open. Giuliani has the best position at present, but any of the five main candidates (I’m including here Huckabee) could catch fire and make a run for it. Giuliani gave a potent line in response to a question about whether he can win teachers over. He said he cared more about students than teachers. Right on. Rudy didn’t step into anything here, so in so far as he came in ahead, he also came out ahead. Romney didn’t do anything particularly memorable, but he was similarly without any major flops. He’s warming on me, slowly.

Ron Paul would be right if he weren’t so wrong. His first question (on gay marriage) actually showed his intelligent, rather than crazy, side. But then we got to foreign policy. Nonintervention is a preferred default policy. But there are times when that policy is completely disastrous. Our nonintervention, and the nonintervention of Europe, in the lead up to WWII nearly let Hitler and his evil ideology triumph. Nonintervention in todays world would be just as dangerous, as radical global jihad poses the same threat. But we should temper our action with the awareness that it’s best not to engage in such policies if we don’t have to. It’s just not acceptable to adopt Ron Paul’s philosophy of complete isolationism.

Edit: I almost forgot to include one of the most stark comparisons presented by this debate.

Fox News is light years above the rest of the media. This debate outclassed the rest by miles. That hack Chris Mathews and his joke of a debate that he hosts on MSNBC has now been twice blown away by Fox.

Rudy Giuliani outlined his foreign policy vision in the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs. The article, titled “Toward a Realistic Peace,” declares that “civilization itself” has come under attack by radical Islamists, who the former New York Mayor understands to be our primary enemies.

Giuliani rejects the strict adoption of a realist foreign policy, arguing instead for a balance between realism and idealism. He is right to reject a strictly realist view for two reasons. One, Islamist states are driven by more than just power and security considerations (granted, greed - expansion for reasons other than security - is acknowledged in the neorealist schools, but it offers little use in understanding and/or countering ideologically driven greed). This fact is best evidenced by the Israeli situation. The promise of security through negotiation and concessions is entirely ineffective in placating Islamists and the Islamic governments which they control. This is because their hatred of Israel and desire to destroy her is primarily ideological, which realism discounts.

The second reason for rejecting the adoption of only a realist point of view is the relatively recent emergence on the international stage of non-state actors. The realist view considers these groups irrelevent to the big picture. Unfortunately, modern weapons have negated the usefulness of that assumption. Non-state actors are now capable, through the use of weapons of mass destruction, of projecting just as much power as many states. While it’s valid to question whether or not the leader of an Islamic state, such as Ahmadinejad, is acting out of true belief or simply a cynical desire for power; there is no such question with Al-Qaeda. They are an ideological organization that a realist analysis simply cannot properly understand.

Rudy contends that realism “defines America’s interests too narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our values.” This is where his idealism, which advocates a coupling of political philosophy (our values) and international action, comes from. He justifies this stance by asserting that “[t]o rely solely on this type of realism would be to cede the advantage to our enemies in the complex war of ideas and ideals.” On this point he is right. The world is facing an ideological threat that can only be defeated ideologically.

In order to meet the demands Giuliani believes should be placed upon it, he argues that the military needs to be expanded. He wants at least ten new combat brigades. Personally, I think we should also focus on expanding the numbers and use of special forces, which are more suited for the delicate task of rooting out terrorists from environments in which they freely mix with civilians. Rudy also acknowledges the obvious need for greater intelligence capabilities.

Rudy also calls for a change in how we practice diplomacy. In addition to pointing out the problems of a Congress that undermines diplomatic efforts by refusing to present a united voice, or even by engaging in its own diplomatic efforts at cross-purpose to White House policy, Rudy also wants a revamping of the State Department. He wants our ambassadors to be stronger advocates of American ideals, and declares that “the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.”

Diplomacy should also be used to strengthen the international system. As such, he would like to see NATO, which was formed to counter the U.S.S.R, transformed to meet new challenges by opening up membership to “any state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness, and global responsibility, regardless of its location.” It sounds like Rudy wants NATO to serve largely the same intended function as the UN Security Council, though I assume he wants to avoid the primary problem that plagues the UN body such as the inclusion of corrupt and obstructive member nations. In fact, Rudy argues that the United Nations should be looked at for nothing more than “some humanitarian and peacekeeping functions.” He goes so far as to declare that the organization “has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years.”

He finds an important role for economic and cultural influences. He calls for more open trade and the need to ensure that foreign aid serves to support, rather than substitute for, private investment - which he sees as the best way to promote economic development. He believes that “the global marketplace can build bridges between the West and the Islamic world in a way that promotes mutual respect and mutual benefit.” Rudy ends his analysis by emphasizing the importance of strength in the face of Islamist aggression, and observes that “evil must be confronted — not appeased — because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.”

It is hard to find much philosophical difference between Rudy’s vision and the Bush Doctrine, other than Giuliani’s intention to (in my interpretation) deemphasize the importance of the UN Security Council and rely instead on a revamped NATO. The continuation of Bush’s foreign policy is both good and bad. The good is that the Bush Doctrine correctly evaluates how we need to combat the Islamist threat, at least in the broad sense. The bad is that Bush’s tactical blunders have become tied, in the view of the public, with the underlying doctrine itself. Rudy’s task will be difficult, as he will have to convince the American people that the mistakes made in Iraq by President Bush were not an inevitable result of the application of the doctrine itself, but simply poor decision making. He will also need to prove that he is serious about making the kind of military and intelligence reforms necessary to get our capabilities to where they need to be in order to implement such an intensive foreign policy vision.

If only you believe the polls. He managed 33%, a plurality, in the post debate text message poll (I voted for Huckabee). Naturally, this is due to Paulites spamming the poll which is standard operating procedure for them. Sites like this one act as repositories for Paul’s sad few supporters to go out and vote in every poll anyone can find. This biases the sample for those polls greatly in favor of Paul’s supporters.

Cries one Paul Spammer:

Fox News LIES about their own post debate poll…Fox News reported last night on Hannity and Colmes that Ron Paul supporters were spamming the text poll vote after Ron Paul wins with a overwhelming 33% of the vote.

No! Ron Paul’s supporters would never do that! (This was posted on a website which links to various online polls so they can more easily spam them)

This man is an unfunny joke. I hope he runs as a third party candidate. He might think he’s hurting the Republican’s position, but he’d actually be stealing nutroots votes from the dems I think. How satisfying was Huckabee’s Ron Paul beatdown last night? Ron Paul is boohooing about how the party is losing elections because of our position on the war. Then Huckabee, “Doing what’s right is more important than winning elections.” (paraphrased). You’re damn straight it is. That’s what sets Republicans apart from the democrats. Or at least it should be. And it’s pleasing to hear that from a candidate. Chris Wallace even mixed it up a little when he asked Paul if he takes his marching orders from Al Qaeda. He deflected the issue, of course, but it’s hard to tell when the man says we should withdraw from the middle east because our presence there is one of the excuses the terrorists have made up to justify violence. They’ll only run out of reasons to kill us when we stop breathing, Mr. Paul. Even the biggest fool should understand that by now.

In the same vein of failed logic, on the topic of torture, it was said that if we engage in torture that it will be an excuse for our enemies to torture our captured soldiers. Please. History has shown time and again that our enemies don’t need any excuses to torture our soldiers. Let’s put that argument to rest already.

I don’t mean to make this summary of the debate all about Ron Paul. Credit is due for the worthy performances of some of the others on stage. Huckabee foremost in my mind, though at times it sounded like the hamster wheels in his head needed a little WD40. He’ll need to work on being more fluid with his off the cuff remarks if he wants to compete in the final laps. McCain I thought did surprising well. He actually sounded appealing. Whether we can trust his changes of heart or not is a question we might have to ask ourselves soon. But darn it if he didn’t look and sound presidential up there. Romney was polished as ever, and dealt with the hypothetical question better than the rest. Giuliani was apparently the mayor of some city called New York. I wouldn’t even know it if he hadn’t reminded me fifteen times last night. Still, he’s right when he says he’s probably the most capable guy out of both parties’ pool of candidates to run this country. I thought the family values question was a little lame. What was that?

Then there’s Fred Thompson. Glad to hear he’s finally in. He’ll bring a whole new dynamic to the race. If I have one criticism already, it’s that he needs to try and keep his head still while speaking. On that commercial, every time he enunciated a word it’s like he was trying to head-butt some invisible bat flying around his face.

All in all, an excellent debate. It had more substance than all fifty-eight democrat debates combined. And I’m now feeling much better about our choices next year.

Rudy Giuliani outlines the focus and tone of his presidency through the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s long, so here’s the important stuff:

On our nations great challenges:

The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build the foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.

On the long war against jihad:

Our goal is to see in Iraq and Afghanistan the emergence of stable governments and societies that can act as our allies against the terrorists and not as breeding grounds for expanded terrorist activities. Succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary but not sufficient. Ultimately, these are only two battlegrounds in a wider war. The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.

On diplomacy:

America has been most successful as a world leader when it has used strength and diplomacy hand in hand. To achieve a realistic peace, U.S. diplomacy must be tightly linked to our other strengths: military, economic, and moral.(…)The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s actions during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjav?k in 1986: he was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate — whether ally or adversary — must know that America has other options.

On nation-building and a Palestinian state:

Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.

The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians — negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.

My comfort level with Giuliani is nudging up. But man is he going to drive the libs crazy with his 9/11 invocations. If they thought Bush did it a lot…

The latest Rasmussen poll (the only poll proven to be worth a lick, in my book) has Thompson moving into a tie with Giuliani for the republican nomination, with both garnering 24% of would-be votes.

The first Republican primary debate is slated to begin in a few hours. I’ll update this post with some thoughts on the debate later tonight. Notably absent from tonights battle royal will be the as yet undeclared Fred Thompson, who is currently running 3rd in the polls.

Post Debate Update:

I turned off the post debate TV coverage so my thoughts would not be influenced by any of the talking heads.

McCain all but declared himself the “tough guy” of the bunch. In his first answer he seemed angry (and oddly a bit nervous?) with Harry Reid and expressed his disgust over the behavior of the surrender monkeys in the House and Senate. He later gave an passionate speech about why he should be Commander-in-Chief and declared: ?I?ll follow [Osama] to the gates of hell.? I think he may have come on too strong. He looked like he had something to prove. He did correctly identify radical Islam as the greatest threat facing America in his direct appeal to the public, where he all but claimed that he is the most qualified to take it on. The tough guy stance may gain him a little ground on Rudy, especially given Rudy’s performance.

Giuliani flailed about. He opened on the right note, highlighting his Reaganesque optimism. He fell flat on his face when the issue of Roe v. Wade came up. Every single candidate said without qualification they would be most pleased the day it is repealed, all Rudy could muster was that it would be “ok,” and he even went on to add it would be “ok” if it was not repealed. Unacceptable. He didn’t have to do what some other candidates did and talk about the 40 million abortions and all that; all he had to do was state clearly that a repeal of Roe v. Wade would return the issue to the states where it belongs, but he couldn’t even do that. Expect Rudy’s poll numbers to drop, though he should get credit for actually knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.

Mitt Romney was ok. He was comfortable. He apparently didn’t give a particular response impressive enough for me to remember distinctly. No, that’s a lie; he did have one. He said that he “can’t wait to get [his] hands on the Washington budget” when talking about cutting spending.

Ron Paul is great to have at the debate. When he’s right, he’s very right. And when he’s wrong…boy is he wrong. On most issues having to do with the size and scope of government he is right on. He’d get rid of the IRS and the income tax. But he’s also a narrow minded blockhead. His “noninterventionism” worked great when this country was founded 200 years ago. It has no business in modern foreign policy. We cannot hide with our heads in the sand and expect to survive. It’s no longer the case where any nation that wanted to make war against us had to first sail for months across a vast ocean. In the modern world more damage can be done in an instant by a very small number of people than could be done with massive armies during an entire war just a century ago. A Ron Paul foreign policy would be a disaster, worse even than a Hillary Clinton presidency. Thankfully the American people, or at least the members of republican party, understand this, which is why he’ll never be regarded as anything more than a novelty. And the fact that he thinks Scooter Libby deserves his punishment not because of the “crime” he supposedly committed, but because he supported going into Iraq is reprehensible. That’s the kind of stupidity I’d expect from the kook left, not a man in the republican primary debate who thinks he should be taken seriously.

Both Huckabee and Tancredo expressed support for the FairTax. Tancredo added that what many candidates, including McCain and Romney, talked about in terms of controlling spending (vetoing prok legislation) is not enough. He says we must deal with the “structural problems” found in the mandatory spending programs. And he’s exactly right. The only thing noteworthy I got from Brownback was his observation that the Republican party wins when it runs on ideas; though that’s not a thought unique to him. Tommy Thompson showed some gumption when he said that a private business should be allowed to fire someone for being gay if they objected to it. This is of course the correct position in terms of what the founding fathers sought with regard to the role of government, though it’s certainly not the politically correct position.

There’s no doubt much more that could be said about this debate, but I’m going to leave it at that for now. I will go ahead and predict that, when covering the next debate, I’ll find a new candidate of significant stature added to the list of wanna-be president; one who will likely steal the show.

Update II: RCP has a good roundup of debate blogging.