A lot can be said by the way we carry ourselves. I ran across some pictures of some candidates, and was wanting to get your feedback. Now, a picture only gives a glimpse into the person, whereas a video tells much more, but as for pics, what do you think of these:

(more…)

Rick Warren appeared on Fox News and called the Obama Camp’s claims of cheating on the part of Sen. McCain “bogus”:

You’d think the Obama campaign would be smart enough to understand that impugning the intergrity of Rev. Warren’s forum is only going to magnify the impact of Obama’s poor performance on Saturday night.

Have at it.

Rasmussen Tracking:

2/22: Obama +3
2/23: Obama +1
2/24: Obama +5
2/25: Obama +3
2/26: Obama +3
2/27: Obama +4
2/28: Obama +9 (first full sample of post-debate viewers)

As the Dutch like to say*: Put a fork in her, she’s done.

*Important Legal Disclaimer: Reference is purely for entertainment purposes only, as some people find random non-sequiters amusing. Dutch people may or may not be known for saying this, so you should not put this in any paper, project, publication, e-mail, memorandum, or other means of communication. Also, HRC may not actually be done, as all polls have error margins and may or may not draw from a representative sampling that can adequately explain what is occurring on a state level. This site is for entertainment purposes, and is not responsible for any losses from Intrade. We will, however, accept responsibility for any winnings.**

**Important Legal Disclaimer: Statement is purely for entertainment purposes only. Race42008 does not condone gambling, and to the extent that Intrade constitutes gambling*** it will not actually accept responsibility for any winnings.

*** I would actually argue that it does not constitute gambling, since it is zero-sum and there is no vig. This opinion is mine alone, and does necessarily represent the views of others on this site, or of Kavon Nikrad.

Can you tell what I’ve spent my morning working on?

Note that in rolling samples, a sharp upturn for one candidate means that there is a really bad sample for the last candidate on the last day tested (here, last night). Given how the debate went for Clinton last night, I would guess this abnormal sample isn’t just the result of the vagaries of polling.

The Commission on Presidential Debates has released the final schedule for the debates between McCain and Clinton/Obama this fall. Here it is:

• Debate #1: Friday, Sept. 26 at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS. Focus: Domestic issues.
• Debate #2: Tuesday, Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. Focus: Town-hall style, taking questions from audience.
• Debate #3: Wednesday, Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. Focus: Foreign policy issues.

Additionally, here’s the Vice Presidential Debate info:

• VP Debate: Thursday, Oct 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Focus: domestic and foreign policy issues.

All the debates are 90 minutes long and begin at 9:00 pm Eastern time.

The Presidential debates will have a different look and format than previous years as well. Gone are the podiums and blinking lights. Instead, this year the candidates will be sitting together at the same table as the moderator.

Also gone is the timed answer and rebuttal format. Instead, the first and third debates will be organized into ten-minute “issue segments” during which the candidates will have a chance to answer and then talk back and forth with the moderator and directly with one another.

To be eligible to participate in the debates, a candidate has to be on the ballot in enough states to make it mathematically possible for him or her to reach 270 electoral votes and get at least 15% in a national poll.

Almost forgot. For anyone who wants to discuss the Mano e womano showdown on the Dems side, feel free to discuss here.

Me? I’m watching UTC basketball.

In the past, I’ve tried to give Anderson Cooper the benefit of the doubt, but this is two debates that he’s moderated where he’s done an absolutely terrible job.

As I’ve repeatedly reminded our readers here, I don’t have a horse in the race anymore, and I have have been waiting for one of the candidates to win me over. I hoped for a moment that “wows” me. Tonight didn’t seal the deal, but tonight did clarify a few things for me.

A couple of months ago, I thought that if Fred Thompson were to drop out, McCain would be a good alternative that I could be happy with. Since late November, however, I have cooled on McCain. Tonight, he really turned me off. He did not come across as presidential material, to put it mildly. Frankly, his performance tonight reminded me of all the reasons I didn’t support him in the first place. It was an embarrassing performance. There were times he almost turned it around, but in the end, he failed to do so.

Mitt Romney came very close to having a “wow” moment. He showed a command of the issues, and used talking points that are very close to my heart. Romney’s biggest problem tonight was that he let himself get defensive, instead of rising above McCain’s constant attacks. At one point, it looked as if he had delivered a knockout punch, but he couldn’t seal the deal. When talking about leadership, Romney sounded like the pragmatist he is, and that has been one of his biggest obstacles throughout the entire campaign. He must show an understanding of true movement conservatism, as well as his knack for problem solving to inspire the GOP thinkers. However… overall, Romney clearly comes out of this debate looking a lot better than McCain, and much more presidential. He gave a near great performance.

One of my biggest problems with the whole debate was that Cooper seemed to be making an effort to minimalize Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee rebounded brilliantly from his prior performances, when he was given the opportunity. Whether you agree with him or not, the bickering on the stage made him look very good. His problem is that whenever he speaks, he doesn’t cut himself off. His effective talking points are wiped out because he tends to go on and on, and when he does this, he strays into liberal territory.

The way Ron Paul was treated tonight was pathetic. Cooper repeatedly cut him off, and it was pathetic. Paul gave some of the best responses tonight, especially on the question about Reagan’s endorsement. After McCain and Romney argued over who Reagan would endorse, Paul sounded humble, speaking with a grace that he has not been known for. When he said “I’m not sure,” I knew I had heard something remarkable… someone giving an honest, humble, and truthful opinion, and he sounded like a leader while doing it.

Comment here.

What They’re Saying … About Mayor Giuliani (debate reaction)

ABC’s Rick Klein said Mayor Giuliani’s Question on the Catastrophic Fund was “good political positioning, and Rudy’s best moment of the night.” (Rick Klein, “Live Blogging During GOP Debate,” ABC’s “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-5.html, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “In case you’re wondering, the lead for the Florida papers tomorrow will be this Giuliani question on the castrophic insurance proposal to save Florida on this front.” (Chuck Todd, NBC News’ First Read Blog, “The Florida Debate Lead,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Todd said Giuliani “certainly made an attempt to appeal directly to Floridians. He did a good job showing them he’s learned their issues …” (Chuck Todd, NBC News’ First Read Blog, “Who Won? Who Lost? Debate Takeaway,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Todd: “Giuliani goes back to an old stand by and it seemed effective; he attacked Clinton on being on both sides of the Iraq issue; Attacking Clinton probably scored well with the GOP dial-testers.” (Chuck Todd, NBC News’ First Read Blog, “Giuliani Uses Clinton Barb To Defend Iraq,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

NBC News’ Domenico Montanaro: “Rudy asked about catastrophic insurance in a way that made him sound like he is a native Floridian or that his own house might be in danger.” (Domenico Montanaro, NBC News’ First Read Blog, “Rudy’s Question,” http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/24/606992.aspx, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin: Rudy got “best of economic question.” (Jonathan Martin, Politico Blog, “McCain, Rudy get best of economic question,” www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

NRO’s Rich Lowry: “Good Rudy answer on the drags on the economy.” (Rich Lowry, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “We’re Doing All Four Of Those Things,” corner.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

NRO’s Michael Graham: “Rudy has a real plan” for the economy. (Michael Graham, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Why was this debate so bad?,” corner.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Graham: “The war question revealed the key difference … Guiliani is always looking for the chance to fight Democrats.” (Michael Graham, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “The War Question Revealed The Key Difference Between Mccain And Giuliani,” corner.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

NRO’s Jim Geraghty: Russert asked “Will you say the war was a good idea, it was worth the price in blood and treasure, and will we leave? … The right answer: ‘If it was such a bad idea, why did you vote for the war?’ Hey, as I type that, Giuliani gives more or less that answer. Bravo, Mr. Mayor.” (Jim Geraghty, National Review Online, “The Debate Shifts To Iraq, Audience Wakes Up,” campaignspot.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “‘I’m for it not because of polls, but because America is in a war,’ Giuliani says, squeezing in a hit on Clinton. His best line of the night.” (Rick Klein, “Live Blogging During GOP Debate,” ABC’s “Political Radar” Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-5.html, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

ABC News’ Jake Tapper: “Good moment for Rudy” discussing Iraq. (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar Blog, Live Blogging During GOP Debate,” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-5.html, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Tapper: “[C]ontrasting with Hillary Clinton, he says he was for the war when 6 out of 10 approved of it, and is still backing it even thought 6 out of 10 oppose it. Sounded strong.” (Rick Klein, ABC News’ Political Radar Blog, “Live Blogging During GOP Debate,” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-5.html, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

National Review’s Mark R. Levin: “Great answer by Rudy re Hillary Clinton and polls and war.” (Mark R. Levin, “War,” The National Review’s “The Corner” Blog, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzUzZDQ2YTQwYTNlMzFkMDBiZTMzNjU2ZjllYTI3ZWQ=, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “A strong answer by Rudy, challenging the question, and noting that Clinton’s positition [sic] on Iraq changed with the winds, but that his did not.” (Philip Klein, “Rudy Won’t Be Pushed Around By Polls,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10974, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

Klein: “Rudy Won’t Be Pushed Around By Polls …” (Philip Klein, “Rudy Won’t Be Pushed Around By Polls,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10974, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

Klein: “Giuliani gave excellent answers …” (Philip Klein, “Quick Debate Reaction,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10996, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes: Giuliani’s “answer on Tim Russert’s question about whether the war in Iraq was worth it was the best of the group.” (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard’s Campaign Standard Blog, “Hayes: The Nice Debate,” www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Hayes: Giuliani’s “answer on The New York Times editorial was simply outstanding. He is smart to label himself a ‘conservative Republican.’” (Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard’s Campaign Standard Blog, “Hayes: The Nice Debate,” www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Townhall.com’s Matt Lewis: “Rudy takes-down the NY Times. Well done.” (Matt Lewis, Townhall.com’s Blog, “GOP Debate …,” http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/0d5b26b8-d73b-4d91-b421-377b72e55b15, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Lewis: “Rudy Giuliani is right; we need to start building nuclear plants … yesterday.” (Matt Lewis, Townhall.com’s Blog, “GOP Debate …,” http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/0d5b26b8-d73b-4d91-b421-377b72e55b15, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

The American Spectator’s Wlady: “Rudy’s bona fides as a NY Yankee fan serves him well as he invokes the NY Giants’ drive to the Super Bowl as evidence he can come back…” (Wlady, “Sports To The Rescue,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10987, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

Politico’s Jonathan Martin said Giuliani “deftly defended himself” against The New York Times editorial, “noting that the liberal editorial page wouldn’t support the policies of a ‘conservative Republican.’” (Jonathan Martin, Politico Blog, “McCain, Rudy get best of economic question,” www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

NRO’s Jonah Goldberg: “On what issues, exactly, was the New York Times editorial board right and Rudy Giuliani wrong when it came to New York City?” (Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Just Curious,” corner.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Goldberg: “It’s possible there were a couple items over 8 years on bond issues or some such where Rudy was wrong and the Times was right, but on a major issue during his mayoralty, I can’t think of one.” (Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Just Curious,” corner.nationalreview.com, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

The American Spectator’s John Tabin: “Rudy’s asked about the Times slamming him in their McCain endorsement. Fighting with the New York Times editorial page obviously brings a smile to Giuliani’s face.” (John Tabin, “Giuliani Vs. The NYT,” The American Spectator’s “AmSpecBlog,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=10993, 1/24/08, Accessed 1/24/08)

Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey: “[Giuliani] did do a fine job … He looked very cool and confident and probably gave the most robust answers to the questions asked.” (Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters Blog, “Florida Debate: Romney Scores, Rudy Close Behind,” http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016749.php, 1/24/08, Accessed: 1/24/08)

Continued here.

This is a biggie.

This will be the first debate where I am going in without having already made up my mind over who I support. In earlier debates this season before Thompson got in the race, I watched the candidates, but I still saw them through blinders. Every other year I’ve been involved in the process, I’d already committed to a candidate.

So this could be a first for me. If I watch, it will also be the first time that I won’t likely listen to any of the pundits, talking heads, or those types of people. I want to be able to judge the candidates with no outside influence.

Every candidate has a unique opportunity tonight. Super Tuesday is only weeks away, and all of a sudden, there is a huge percentage of voters that have been left without a candidate. Many of them are skeptical, and tonight one candidate has the chance to really step up and take command of the race.

Here is what I would personally tell each candidate they need to do tonight, if I were advising them on how to appeal to the supporters of Fred Thompson like myself, who have been left without a candidate they are enthusiastic about:

To Rudy Giuliani: First of all, you need to prove that you’re alive and can actually win the nomination. A lot of Thompson supporters, like myself, are going to be very wary of jumping on another bandwagon that is having to fight against momentum carried over from other states. One of my biggest problems with your campaign is that you have focused exclusively on blue states. It’s like your trying to win the GOP primary by relying on moderates. You haven’t done anything to appeal to the rural voters like myself. I like you, but “my feelings are hurt.” You’ve got a lot of strong proposals, so talk about them with confidence. I don’t care what Steve Forbes or George Will thinks about your ideas. I want to know what you think about them, and want to hear YOU explain why they are best for someone like myself. Drop the namechecking, and speak for yourself.

To Mitt Romney: You need to defend yourself and show that you have the backbone to fight. You’ve put a lot of effort into reaching out to Thompson voters, and I’m very impressed. None of the other candidates have reached out like you have, and it won’t go unnoticed. You always seem to be the target at debates, so it’s time to put the others under the microscope. It would also be wise to drop the Al Gorish “I love the elderly act.”

To John McCain: OK, I know you supported the surge. Find something else to talk about. If I had not spent the last eight months in research, I wouldn’t have the first clue that you had any other ideas. I still don’t know much about any of your other policies. You’ve become a three issue candidate in the debates: spending, the war, and global warming… and I think you’re wrong on that last one. Tell me something different. You say you have “learned your lesson” about securing the borders, but then you go on about how it actually has to do with people trusting politicians. I don’t care about the politicians. How are you going to secure the border?

To Mike Huckabee: Dude… you’ve got a lot of work to do. It’s not hopeless, but give me one reason I should support you, besides the fact that you’re a southerner and I tend to give my brothers and sisters down here the benefit of the doubt (with the exception of Trent Lott). I don’t want to have to buy Neil Boortz’s book to understand the FAIR tax better. I am skeptical, and want YOU to convince me otherwise. Actually, there are a whole host of issues that you need to follow that advice on, and I don’t have enough time to list them all. I don’t want to hear promises that are nothing more than talking points. The HLA and FMA aren’t going to pass, so talk about something else. Also, you’d score a lot of brownie points by leaving out the cute analogies, or any Biblical references that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

To Ron Paul: There’s a lot to like about you. If you could somehow finish a statement without going overboard on some CFR type conspiracy theory, I’d be happy to listen. You’ve got one huge disadvantage in winning me over, so you need to calm a lot of nervous folks out there.

TO ALL THE CANDIDATES:

Things I don’t want to hear about during this debate:

• Ronald Reagan namechecks
• George Will’s opinion of how conservative you are
• Sentences that begin or end with “My friends”
• I supported the surge first
• I saved the Olympics
• Moses parting of the Red Sea
• North American Union
• I’m the only one who can beat Hillary

Fred Thompson said something that really struck a lot of us during the last debate. He was the only candidate who brought up the “fight for the soul of the Republican Party.” I hope that he was not the only one who recognized the struggle, because it is very real.

How will each of you save the GOP from lurching to the left?

You missed a golden opportunity in the first New Hampshire debate two weeks ago. When all the candidates were specifically asked, only Thompson showed an understanding of the philosophy principle question. Nobody else seemed to grasp what it means to be a conservative of conscience. It doesn’t mean strong families, or your 12 point plan. Show me that you understand the meaning of governing conservatively.

On second thought, maybe there’s a good game on the tube tonight…

Hugh Hewitt:

Fred had a great night, Mitt a good one and Rudy did fine as well.

Let’s continue here.

Here is the official thread.

UPDATE: And for those who love to accuse me of coming up with these things myself, this story had already been picked up by Michelle Malkin, The Campaign Spot at NRO, Bryan at Hot Air, PPP, hillbillypolitics, wizbangpolitics, thebuffalobeast. They all picked it up before I did.

I’m not blaming the campaigns, but I think, as Malkin says, the blame belongs on Luntz:

Yep. I think Frank Luntz, not any of the campaigns, is the one who needs to answer the questions about who Mr. Undecided is–and how he managed to end up in both focus groups. Transparency about how all of the people in the room ended up there would be wise.

And that would be before the second one was found.

I was hoping to have a vacation today since we’re not competing in NH, but I guess not. I’m back with my trusty still photographs!

Person #2 who attended Luntz’s event both times:

UPDATE: Here’s the first person at both debates as pointed out earlier and by Michelle Malkin:

Photos of 1st man found here (beware if language sensitive, it’s a Paul forum)

It’s always hard to tell how various incidents will play in the press and among the broader public. For instance, I thought Huckabee’s ad stunt would end his campaign. It seems to have helped him. But, I really think Mitt Romney has come into his own over the last few days. In particular, I thought he was fantastic tonight. Yes, I’m a Romney supporter, so I’m probably expected to say something like that. But, before tonight, I thought Romney had only won one debate, and it wasn’t the first debate where everyone praised his performance (I gave that to Huckabee). In fact, before last night (another debate where Mitt impressed me tremendously) I would have told you that Romney was the second weakest debater in the bunch, after only McCain, who I never like in these formats.

But, something has happened over the last 48 hours or so. Absent is the overly kinetic Romney, with his awful jokes, and awkward smile. On just style alone, I think he’s bowled over even the usually engaging Huckabee, two nights in a row. There’s a sense that he’s finally relaxed- as though, with Iowa in the past, and his campaign nearly on the brink of collapse, he’s ditched the focus groups, and the caution, and the flighty nervousness. But, beyond style, Romney has shown a staggering command of issues and details. He continually projects competence and seriousness, with well-thought out responses to tough questions. Last night, Romney bore a brutal assault amazingly well, but tonight he actually won, because he not only seemed like the grown-up in the room, but the other candidates took a respite from their vicious anti-Romney glee. Maybe this moves enough NH voters to give Mitt the victory. Maybe it doesn’t. But, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, regardless of what happens in NH, Mitt doesn’t go as quietly into the night as some voters hope.

Note: I also thought Fred and Rudy had fine nights. Huck was borderline awful, with his continual evasiveness. I liked McCain alot more then I did last night, but he just doesn’t do it for me in debates.

Seems like they had the focus groups stacked, no surprise. Let me clarify, those folks aren’t going to like Giuliani or Fred since they have ignored their state. I’m going to keep this shorter than last night.

Mitt Romney was very good. Fred and Rudy were both good, but didn’t get as much face time. John McCain was terrible for the first 65 minutes of the debate, but really did well when they asked him about his age. Huckabee didn’t have a good night.

Romney did what he had to do tonight. Rudy was solid on most of the issues. Fred was Fred, and he’s setting himself up for South Carolina. His closing statement was weaker than the rest of his answers. McCain seemed way off of his game for the most part. Huckabee was not strong tonight.

Not that great of a debate, except that Romney did well, for a lot of the time. Fox News really doesn’t like Fred and it shows, so thank the Lord Bill Kristol is there to take up for him.

Update: For what it’s worth, Geraghty loved Fred tonight.

Keep it going here

Let’s get it on…

8 PM Fox News (or you can watch the slugfest from last night on CNN)

From the Spectator:

Drudge is reporting that CNN has decided to rerun last night’s Republican debate tonight at the same time FOX News broadcasts its Ron Paul-less Duncan Hunter-less debate. Should be fun to compare the ratings tomorrow.

Don’t think that this means anything beyond what it does (how’s that for a Berra-esque statement?), but here’s how some pundits and bloggers are describing the debate performances of Mitt and John last night:

“At certain moments it had the effect of making Romney look more sympathetic, at others it made him look like the only adult on stage, and at others it made him look like he must be the front-runner, since people were so determined to take him down a peg. McCain in particular seemed to go too far, looking and sounding downright snide at times.” - Noam Scheiber, The New Republic

“All of the animosity that McCain has toward Mitt Romney is coming out tonight. Is he going too far?” -Philip Klein, The American Spectator

“Moron Moment for McCain … and why some of us will NEVER support him. Cheap shot at Romney (candidate of change) as a set up for saying what a really fine guy Obama is.” -Andy McCarthy, National Review

“McCain snidely attacks Romney: ‘You are the candidate of change.’ McCain cackles.” -Michelle Malkin

“If you were looking for substance across the board on issues, I think Romney was the clear winner in tonight’s debate. McCain’s well-known temperament problems lingered barely below the surface much of the evening, especially when someone dared disagree with him. Except of course, for his hugs for Hillary and slaps on the back for Fred. This is a change election and old hands from the Senate will not get it done.” -Dan Riehl, Riehl World View

“I thought that Mitt Romney won the debate… I really felt fundamentally Romney really made the field.” -Dick Morris

“Mitt Romney is the most impressive performer this evening, striking a judicious tone of urgency and fluency.” -John Podhoretz

“Romney showed a steadiness under fire, sounded like a guy who knows what he’s talking about on a number of issues, and introduced more of his biography than he has at debates. I thought Romney’s performance was a good start to a weekend of debates where he had to do well – if he does very well tomorrow night, kicking it up a notch, he might show he’s a turnaround artist yet in this primary process.” -Kathryn Jean Lopez

Just because this is what the pundits or bloggers feel, though, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how the voters will feel. After all, there were over 60 of the most well-known and respected pundit/bloggers who are vehemently anti-Huck, and he still ended up winning Iowa.

But if this is the way McCain wants to play the game, I invite him to continue shooting himself in the foot.

Disclaimer: everyone knows that I’m a Thompson guy, and I see things through Fred glasses.

The pundits are pretty clueless as to how voters will react, and I’m probably as clueless as they are. So… here is how I, and only myself, thought things went tonight. The pundits are ALL over the place in their rankings, so we can’t take much from their analysis.

Overall, I liked this debate a lot. First, I think the format Fox uses is completely counterproductive. The candidates come off like game show contestants. CNN is guilty of that as well. I hate audience participation even more. When there are applause lines and booing and cheering, it cheapens the atmosphere and forces candidates to play to the audience. The men on the stage are gunning for the presidency, not trying to win Wheel of Fortune. They don’t stand there and cheer, “Come on big money!” while the wheel is spinning. This is serious and should be about policy, and not “what Jesus would do.” Overall, I thought ABC did an excellent job. The format was great and I am a fan of the “old news guys,” and Charlie Gibson is about the last one left (Yes, I could be the president of the Tom Brokaw Fan Club). ABC should be congratulated for the class with which they handled things tonight… but what do I know, I didn’t think the Des Moines debate was that bad.

I learned quite a bit from the candidates, and that says something because I am pretty well versed in information about each candidate. I was impressed, angered, engaged, and interested by the answers, the responses, and the temperament of the candidates.

Mitt Romney did well tonight, considering how he much he was hit. He was excellent at times. Among the candidates, he is the most energetic, and the most detailed. Romney is the one candidate (besides my guy) who has actually grown a bit on me. I’m no Romneybot, but for what it’s worth, he is campaigning on a platform that, in most instances, I agree with (yes, I know it’s debatable how long he’s actually held those positions). I still have some problems with him, but he is doing what he has to do. His weak points were obviously the “I like mandates” moment and his healthcare policy, which I am suspicious of, but other than that, he had a good night. He still had his moments where he overdid it. For example, the legal immigrant thing was unwarranted and dumb, and he came across as a panderer. He did especially well in areas where he excels. I don’t know if he was able to connect with the average voter because of his style, but leaving my bias out of it, I thought he did well.

Rudy Giuliani had a good night. I like Rudy, and he made some strong points tonight. I want to impose a ban on how many times Rudy uses the term “Reagan” in all future appearances. When he tried to connect Reagan and immigration, he didn’t do a very convincing job. Rudy’s problem is that he hasn’t stood out in the last few months, and it is hurting him. Rudy can win the nomination, there is a lot about him that I like, and he needs to touch on the topics that can win conservative voters. At times, he sounded like Rudy the Hero on foreign policy, but at other times, he sounded like George Herbert Walker Bush. He needs to be a little more consistent

John McCain, in many ways, had a good night. McCain was as lively as I’ve seen him in ages, and seemed to be having a blast. However, there were times where he left me scratching my head. Immigration is his weak point. He can try and limit the damage, but there really isn’t much he can say that makes it any better, and the way he tried to defend his position tonight was illogical. However, one huge blunder he made was that he crossed the line with his low blow at Mitt Romney. He showed signs of the famous McCain temper, and more than once, reminded conservatives of why they are so weary of him. On the war, there is no one better. When it comes to matters of foreign policy, he is at the top of his game, and tonight was no different. However, his high points were brought down a little by his attacks on Romney. Romney deserved some of the criticism because he has run ads that go after his opponents on policy, but McCain went below the belt, and I was disappointed in him.

Big Fred… Tonight was a fun night to be a Fred Thompson supporter. He was focused, clear, and reminded his supporters of why we love the guy. He came across as the old country lawyer that he is. I couldn’t find one line where he misfired. Thompson’s problem is that he is the type of candidate who really excels in a two-person debate. With a crowded stage, he can at times sit back and let the others talk. When it comes to substance, he is pretty close to faultless. He understands the issues as well as anyone on the stage. One clear advantage he has over his opponents is that no one can attack his conservatism. He’s the most conservative guy on the stage and they know it. When Thompson goes after one of his opponents, He also has gravitas, however, he needs to use them more. He’s an intimidating presence on a stage, and at times, he lets himself be taken out of the conversation, but when he’s on, he’s on. Overall, Fred had a good showing.

Ron Paul showed why, despite all of his disagreements with most of the party, he belongs on the same stage as the rest of the GOP contenders. First of all, he didn’t come across as unhinged. In this setting, he really excelled because he showed he was able to have a calm discussion without sounding like someone who is completely unreasonable. He had passion, but he also showed some humility. He sounded like a candidate for President of the United States. One thing that I have found distasteful is how some of the other candidates seem to be jumping at any chance to criticize his views. In my opinion, he’s wrong on many things, but there are times when he actually comes across a lot saner than some of the other candidates. Only Thompson and Paul got the question on principles right. Dr. Paul is a good man, and proof that the GOP can still be a party of the big tent.

Mike Huckabee had some good moments, and he landed a tough blow on Romney at one point. I’m always a lot tougher on Huckabee than I am with the other candidates, but he has a lot more to prove to me than the others. He’s always great on style, but on substance, I will let Mark Hemingway at NRO sum it up:

A while back, I watched a YouTube video of Mike Huckabee talking about “Vertical America” for 27 minutes. I still have no idea what it means.

Huckabee has to have more substance and details to win over his critics like myself. Mitt Romney has substance. Rudy Giuliani has substance. John McCain has substance. Ron Paul has substance. My guy has substance. Huckabee has to do more than sign a tax pledge, support the Fair tax, and oppose abortion to win me over (and I’m not a fair tax guy). He’s not proven that he has what it’s going to take yet, and he must make that case conclusively for me to be comfortable with him.

My highlight of the night was obviously the question about principles. In fact, I posted that exact quote from President Bush here on the front page of R4′08 when he originally made it. Fred nailed the principles question out of the park. The other candidates didn’t list the principles that would guide their decision making process. McCain talked about the war, Romney gave a stump speech, and Giuliani talked about the goals he laid out for a Giuliani administration, and a lot about Ronald Reagan. Reagan wasn’t the philosophy… Reagan was guided by the philosophy. Those aren’t principles; those are positions or administrative goals. Thompson and Paul got it, although I thought Dr. Paul lost track of his thoughts toward the end of the answer when he started discussing foreign policy. Those principles are what define that candidates type of conservatism, and on that point, they need to make the case to me a lot better than they did. It’s not about issues, but about the philosophy that guides you to decide in a certain manner. Thompson has it. Paul has it. The others missed out.

Overall, I’d say it was a good night for Thompson, Romney, and Ron Paul (he didn’t do anything to hurt himself among his supporters). Rudy had a good night. John McCain had a good night, and probably didn’t do anything to dissuade his core of support. Huckabee had a good night, since I don’t think he made any gaffes that will damage him and came away without being jumped on. In the end, it was a great night for the party.

I actually wanted all of both the Republican and Democrat debates tonight and I have formulated my assessment in a fairly unbiased manor. I am a Huckabee supporter, and I felt that tonight was not his best performance. I also felt that Rudy and Fred were the only ones to come out looking better than when they went in.

• Rudy: I thought that Rudy did an excellent job in answering his question from George Bush. He did kinda avoided the basis of the question, but he brought up his book ‘Leadership’, and stated some of his vision for his presidency which I think he has been lacking. He did take some jabs, and he threw some, but in general stayed above the fray. B+. foreignpolicy.com graded the performance as well - They gave Rudy an A.
• Mike: I thought that Mike could have interrupted more often - He has great ideas, and can connect with the audience. He should have capitalized on this more. He had an excellent response on the GWB question. foreignpolicy.com gave Mike a B+. I’m not that nice tonight - I felt he earned a C+ . He should have stayed positive.
• Mitt: Looked presidential. He took several punches tonight. He did show his own mean streak on this one, but he held it in for the most part. I bet he could spend some serious money in a therapist chair because the evil eye he gave to some candidates could pierce iron. He does not like Huckabee. He tried to maintain composure under extreme pressure and he succeeded . I bet the the NH voters will respect him for this. He did completely avoid the GWB question- why? B-. foreignpolicy.com gave Mitt a C-.
• Ron: What can I say? I want to agree with him - I would love to increase our dollar’s value, but will we return to the gold standard? Will we abolish the Dept of Education? Will we really abolish the IRS? He got a lot of time tonight. He got to speak his mind, and people finally got a chance to hear his positions. I bet this wont help him in this race. He is kinda like that cousin that we all have and never want to tell anyone about. I give him a D. foreignpolicy.com gave him a D-.
• Fred: This was an excellent debate for Fred. I saw Authur Branch tonight. This is what I wanted Fred to be 4 months ago. Where the heck was he then? He was witty and sharp. I loved it when he “clarified” Ron Paul’s positions. He was the candidate that I wanted him to be. I felt he came out the best of all the candidates tonight. I give Fred an A-. foreignpolicy.com gave him a B-.
• John: McCain looked confident tonight. Almost too confident. He got cocky really quick and smug. I think that this might play well with some, but I thought it was annoying. He did get some amazing zingers in to the fight and they hit with pinpoint accuracy. He took some heat (as expected) and I felt the WMUR political reporter held his feet to the fire. He gets a B-. foreignpolicy.com give him an A-.

Now on the Democrats:

I am scared to death of this election. I was listening to these people discuss nuclear proliferation, preemptive invasion and health care reform and I though to myself that they must be resonating to several groups tonight. I cant say if I ever heard a democrats sound so smooth. This was not Obama’s night. I was surprised. I thought Edwards owned the debate. Hillary held her own.

• Hillary: She needed to regain her footing. She is slipping the polls and she needed to show herself as relevant. I think she did that and more. She brought some much needed clarity to the debate with her return to experience piece. She has been savaged as unlikeable - I feel that she got some of this behind her tonight. I give her an B+. foreignpolicy.com gave her an A.
• Bill: Why is Bill here? I’m not sure he added anything to the debate except his resume. D. foreignpolicy.com gave him a B-.
• Barak: This has not Barak’s best performance. He smugly replied to Hillary “You are likable enough” - What does that mean? the crowd groaned at that one. He got no zingers in. He found himself saying “I agree with John” or “I agree with everyone up here”. The audience doesn’t want to hear that even if you do agree. I gave him a C+. foreignpolicy.com gave him an A-.
• John: This was John’s time to shine, shine he did. He took virtually no shots and he got in some great (to the Democrat audience) stories about his Dad and grandmother and some much needed airtime. I felt he connected with his target. I give him an A. foreighpolicy.com gave him a B.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7600

Tonight’s debate in New Hampshire was a timely reminder of the imperfections of our field and of the troubles we will face this fall, especially against a Democrat with the ability to bring new voters into politics like Barack Obama.

I liked Rudy’s strength, energy, and policy acumen. I just wish he would approach this election as if he actually wanted to be president with every fiber of his being, instead of like the smart but lazy college kid who doesn’t crack the books open until finals.

I liked McCain’s honesty, gravitas, and mainstream appeal. I just wish he would stop reminding me of his age by constantly seeming tired and listless. I know you’ve been campaigning 15 hours a day, Senator, but could you at least down a Red Bull before coming on stage?

I liked Fred’s wit, temperament, and conservative philosophy. I just wish he wasn’t the candidate with the faults of McCain and Rudy combined, one who comes across as old and tired and who lacks the fire in the belly to beat Obama in the fall.

I liked Romney’s mastery of policy and pragmatic conservative approach to economics. I just wish he hadn’t changed his positions on issue after issue to appeal to the so-cons, only to be hoisted by his own petard after a true believer got into the race. Why couldn’t Romney have remained the Northeastern, good-government Republican that I could have voted for?

I liked Huckabee’s policy inventiveness and his ability to communicate his message to regular people. I just wish he would stop reminding me that he’s got the instincts of a liberal and is basically not a conservative on any issue.

I like Paul’s respect for the Constitution. I just wish he wasn’t stark raving mad.

If we could unite Paul’s constitutionalism and Fred’s conservative philosophy with Rudy’s strength, Romney’s smarts, McCain’s gravitas, and Huck’s soul, we’d have the perfect candidate to go up against Obama in November. But we can’t, so we don’t. This debate convinced me that there is no frontrunner in the race for the GOP nod. Whoever wins the nomination will stumble into it simply due to the contours of the primary calendar. The idea that any of these guys will be able to unite the GOP and rally independents against Obama in November seems tough to swallow. I want to believe, but I’m having a hard time doing so. But maybe I’m wrong. Only time will tell.

Fire away.

There’s like a debate or something tonight….

Sorry to everyone, but I think this one is too funny to not share with you guys…