My Impressions From The Republican Debate

Here are my impressions from the Republican primary debate last night. Take them for what they're worth, and remember what you paid for them. ;)

Top-Tier Candidates
Fmr. NY City Mayer Rudy Giuliani: He was okay, but not stellar, taking some punches from other candidates. He's obviously got a great track record for security and getting things done, but questions remain about his social policies, and that could hurt him with the base (although it may help draw voters away from the Democrat nominee in the general election).

Fmr. Mass. Governor Mitt Romney: Also okay, but not stellar. He looks the part and sounds the part, but there's this nagging thing about him that makes me cautious. He was a Republican governor in a very Democrat state, so he clearly can work with both sides. He has all the right answers, but some of them have come in just the last couple of years, and I have an inherent distrust for sudden (or recent) changes by politicians.

Senator John McCain: Probably looked the best of the big three. Had some good applause lines and made some very good points: strong on the War on Terror and national security, and probably has the best federal-level experience. Still: amnesty, amnesty, amnesty; and: McCain-Feingold campaign finance 'reform'. Also, the MSM seems to like him, so there's two big strikes right there.

Other Candidates
Congressman Duncan Hunter: He had some good answers and had a pretty good delivery. I'd like to see more about him in the next couple months, because I think he's a more serious contender than the MSM portrays.

Fmr. Ark. Governor Mike Huckabee: I actually liked Huckabee the best last night. He seemed the most genuine and struck me as the most authentic conservative. Had some great answers, and looked at ease with the debate. I'd like to see more of him, too. He took Ron Paul to task for several comments, which was fun to watch.

Congressman Ron Paul: Where did this guy come from? What a nutjob. He's totally anti-war, and he reveals his total lack of understanding about Islamic fundamentalism: he would not only withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq immediately (consequences be damned), but from the entire Middle East! He would also eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, and other government organizations. While I'm definitely in favor of limiting the size of government, that's a completely insane way to do it. I shudder to say it, but I think I'd rather have Hillary than this guy.

Congressman Tom Tancredo: He's definitely the strongest on illegal immigration, but he appears to be a bit weak in other areas. The thing that struck me most about Tancredo was the verbal garbage - he was the least polished of the group, and stumbled over some of his own answers.

Senator Sam Brownback: Strong on family values and decent on national security, but seems a bit out of touch with the world. He's an amnesty proponent, and was caught waffling when it was obvious he would lose. I don't trust him to stand his ground on tough issues.

All in all, it was an interesting debate. I was disappointed with several of the candidates who ragged on Fred Thompson for going on Leno to announce his candidacy rather than debating in New Hampshire (seemed like a cheap shot since Thompson wasn't there to defend himself), but I suppose that was to be expected. I personally appreciated it when any of the candidates complimented each other, and when they turned the whacking stick to the Democrats - after all, that's the true adversary in this process, right? I liked to see them keep their eyes on the larger prize. It's clear that the front-runners are just that because they are the most experienced and polished candidates. However, I think Hunter and Huckabee could come on strong with a few more good performances. I'd love to see the field get narrowed down to about 3-4 candidates and give them an open debate forum where there are no time limits, canned questions, or moderators. It would be a true test of policy defense and character, and I think it would be revealing.

Another interesting election tidbit to keep in mind is that Governors become Presidents.

S.T. Karnick wrote on NRO a couple weeks ago:

Just consider the following: George W. Bush: Governor of Texas. Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas. Ronald Reagan, California; Jimmy Carter, Georgia; Franklin Roosevelt, New York; Calvin Coolidge, Massachusetts; Warren G. Harding (Lt. Governor of Ohio before serving as a U.S. Senator but missing over two thirds of the roll-call votes during his tenure and hence leaving little paper trail); Woodrow Wilson (New Jersey); William Howard Taft (governor-general of the Philippines); Theodore Roosevelt (New York). Governors win, and when it’s a governor running against a U.S. senator or even vice president or president, the governor wins.

Why?

The reasons governors beat national politicians are probably fairly simple. They have accomplishments they can cite, have served as CEO of a large government organization (as the U.S. presidency is), and, most importantly, they don’t have a voting record on important and controversial national issues.

Interesting food for thought. This theory would give Romney and Huckabee an edge.

Fred Thompson is now officially in the race, too. Things should start heating up as the primary season draws to within just a few months.

There's my two cents.