The GOP Debate: Thoughts....

On points, Fred Thompson won the debate.

Every answer was thoughtful and well-crafted; his tone matched the tone of the question; he wisely refrained from interjecting in the back and forth squabbling. He very deftly reminded viewers that he served on key Senate national security panels and is bringing his experience to bear. Even his insults were subtly and gently constructed In some ways, Thompson did McCain’s bidding. You skeptical readers can tell me that if Thompson had finished a solid fourth in Iowa, I might not be writing about Thompson at all, that said, he's still a candidate, and his performance tonight tells me his mind is not elsewhere.

Romney sounded like a hose, unbent, finally released after months of building up pressure… his vast intellectual energy gushes forth… but he sounded almost too unfocused… the water, to continue the metaphor, sprayed everywhere. He was backed into a corner on mandates in health care by Fred Thompson. He gave strong answers on energy independence toward the end. He was a target all night, though, for everyone.

In this chess game, every move against Romney helps John McCain, so McCain, who debated evenly, solidly, if not spectacularly, probably gets the biggest juice out of the debate.

Mike Huckabee did little to stick out, which seemed to be deliberate. Same with Rudy Giuliani.

Comments

I'm not sure if I watched the same debate as everyone else, but I thought that the anti-Romney attacks were so childish and so obviously full of hatred that they can only help Romney and hurt the other candidates. He just seemed to be in another league than the other candidates.

Posted by Dabuek | January 5, 2008 9:00 PM

Do any of the candidates like Romney?

Also, did anyone notice the bear hug between Edwards and McCain in the post debate photo op?

Posted by Logan | January 5, 2008 9:02 PM

Disclaimer: I'm for Mitt.

However, I think that the attacks that we just watched were ridiculous, rude, and unbecoming of candidates for President of the United States. Mitt Romney was answering questions and outlining his positions, as was Ron Paul, and not engaging in personal attacks. This cannot be said for Huckabee and McCain and to a lesser extent Rudy. Fred Thompson seems amused by the hypocritical views of all the candidates, and his jokes seem in good nature. The other jokes on Mitt seemed to be mean-spirited.

I think that to the voters of NH, Senator McCain, the frontrunner, came across as trying to make fun of Govenor Romney rather than offer any positive ideas to help influence the future of this country. I think he will appear mean, and I ultimately think this debate helps Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. This election should be about issues.

And for the debate format? The best I have watched-ever.

Posted by Alex | January 5, 2008 9:11 PM

Romney dominated. He outsines his competition so completely it's ridiculous that Republicans would consider anyone else. Go Mitt!

Posted by Rocko | January 5, 2008 9:12 PM

Thompson did well, but Mitt won. He was attacked on all sides, and McCain's attacks had were personal and not on the issues. Mitt knows the issues better than anyone, he was ridiculously specific. My wife, who is not into politics at all agreed (she also thought Huck was terrible). Mitt and Fred did well, the rest were sub-par.

Posted by Swint | January 5, 2008 9:22 PM

Fred Thompson needed a home run and tonight he got it! I finally saw on TV the man I have met, spoken with and had some fun with. What you see is what you get. He is no different across a lunch table than on that debate...at the end of the day it is Fred Thompson I want at the negotiating table, and, as a WCU student wrote, "he is the candidate I would most like to sit down and share a beer with." This is a last man standing RNC convention and I have a good feeling that Fred will be that man.

Posted by judy | January 5, 2008 9:28 PM

I consistently watch the different debates then the chattering class. Mitt showed he could communicate as an adult--he presented the most substantive and clear answers. He was the most unstilted.

Mitt Romney was in his best element. He proved why he was recognized as a Baker Scholar. He read the case, he presented facts, and he recognized strong recommendations.

Now, Marc, you can slap some fabricated insult to Romney. He won the debate. He may not have appealled to John Pickuptruck. He ain't the guy to go drink a beer with and he ain't the jerky admirals son that goofs off in the officer lounge--never get past mid-level officer or cheap multidecade politican.

The cheap labels make no contribution and they get no recognition of contribution. Marc go back to Harvard and sit in the MBA or Law rooms.

Republicans will lose this election. I am fine with voting for Romney, Obama or Clinton. The best, most qualified people in the race. And Romney won the debate.

Posted by mikeVA | January 5, 2008 9:33 PM

Mitt showed tonight his grace and steel under pressure. He stayed on course. His questioning of McCain, especially over the details of the Z Visa uncovered McCain's short temper and childish mean streak.

Mitt also knows we are fighting jihadist Islam.

Mitt and Fred would be a great pair.

Posted by Andrew | January 5, 2008 9:36 PM

Disclaimer- I am 100 pro-Fred, but some of McCain's snide remarks against Mitt were uncalled for and untoward. Mitt backed him into a corner on Amnesty, and rightly so. Fred backed both Mitt and Rudy into corners with regards to healthcare mandates and immigration, and he wins the debate by using the fewest words, but making the most salient, unassailable points.

McCain looked unpresidential with his remarks, and I find it unsurprising that he gushed for Barrack Obama, but he reserved his venom for Mitt.

Posted by Vince | January 5, 2008 9:38 PM

Fred wins becuase he doesn't have to remember what he said last time he was asked the same question.

Solid, Consistent, Conservative and most of all tells us what we need to hear not what we want to hear (e.g. like build a refinery, drill for oil here, SS needs a 20 plan to keep it from collapsing or all our kids being slaves to it)

Nice Show Fred and even George Stephanpolous said so !

Posted by Steve in FL | January 5, 2008 9:46 PM

McCain shall go right back to the Senate. He exposed himself as just a good 'ol boy tonight - the country clubber. Hugs all around for his Dem pals!

He is not a serious candidate - this is a massive ego stroke until he decides to return to his senate seat.

It is disappointing to see this hero, a real damn hero, act like this.

The one fantasy team that would win the White House would be Obama/McCain - thank God that won't happen

Mitt and Fred are the team to take on the Democrat Duo when nominated.

Posted by Andrew | January 5, 2008 9:49 PM

Wow, everyone that has posted so far must have rose coloered glasses on (or at least already supporting Mitt Romney). John McCain was finally able to respond to all the alright lies that Mitt has been broadcasting here in New Hampshire the past 6 months. McCain was right, "Romney is the candidate of change". He is a flip-flopper...check out all the videos of him on youtube. Come on...he is a sleazy used car salesman...slick and tells half-truths.

As per the debate,

Thompson did a superb job and will make a last stand in South Carolina...promptly drop out and support Sen John McCain.

Huckabee did exactly what he needed to do, performed very well and communicated the best of any candidate. He will place 3rd or 4th in NH and be in great shape for South Carolina.

Guiliani came across well, but did not improve his standing at all in the near future.

Dr. No, I mean Ron Paul did usual job of saying nothing substantive and took up valuable air time...thank God he won't be on th stage with the other candidates tomorrow :)

Romney was his usual smooth self until everyone played pile on and backed up McCain. None of the other candidates like him for the simple reason that he is a fake, say anything to get elected, Ambercrombie and Fitch wearing pretty boy.

I'm glad they threw mud...non of the "attacks" were false, they made valid points. Mitt has changed his poisitions to become the nominee.

More to come tomorrow!!!

Posted by Mike | January 5, 2008 9:50 PM

Thompson WON THIS DEBATE! He did give smart, intelligence honest answers!

Here was my view..I came in late but this is where I came in on..

Huckabee was the one ATTACKING Romney this debate and Romney did the classy thing and told him this is not a debate to attack each other.. we are just expressing our own policies... GOOD FOR YOU ROMNEY.. put this Huckalair in his place when he says he NEVER attacks anyone!

Health care

Romney demands states get a health care policy or they get cut off of federal help to the states that is not mandating health care..and then he said that is not mandating health care? Thompson questions him stating you should not force people to do what they don't want to do..if we force people to buy health care then are we still a free country of choice??

Thompson is a true federalist.. leave it to the states and not penalize what each states people want..

Thompson said open up the market on health care and make insurance more competitive and then the cost will lower and people could afford it..which is true..and then Romney said the market would work after Thompson questioned him on forcing people to buy health care that just don't want it.. wait a minute..

and all Huckster ranted on about was how ill people were but never gave an answer on how to fix it ..AS USUAL!

But Thompson and McCain were the two with the right answers on health care.. IMO..


Illegals

Giuliani wants to give amnesty and a tamper proof Id card to ones that want to come forward.. after they pay a fine, learn to speak english..

McCain.. wants to pretty much to do the same.. which turns out to be AMNESTY!

Romney argues with McCain that you need to send them home first then they attack each other..

Romney says to twelve million people they

Giuliani attacks Romney.. I AM KEEPING TRACK ON WHO IS REALLY THE ATTACKERS.. so far Huck, McCain and Giuliani ARE THE ATTACKERS.. wait I thought they said they

Thompson says even paying a penalty to stay in the country is amnesty Giuliani says it is not ..AND IT IS!

Thompson says no.. they need to go back home and enter the right way.. and assisted employers to verify illegals or not and stop giving illegals jobs and stop sanctuary cities! He did say as Giuliani did..

Giuliani says criminal illegals got their names turned in Thompson said what about the other illegals?? of course Giuliani makes excuses ..

Thompson says we in the senate went to court and sued Giuliani on his sanctuary city and Giuliani LOST.. and the bill Thompson and the senate passed stood..

Huckabee says Thompson is right that people get to the back of the line.. of course Thompson is RIGHT! Huck lied.. he said 120 days all illegals out before and what happened?? he did not like his own idea this time??

Paul get rid of incentives welfare and such as Thompson.. to stop them from getting jobs and they will go home.. Romney, Huck, McCain, Giuliani wants to give amnesty to all the actually 20 - 30 million that are here not 12 million..

Thompson and Paul got Illegal problem right..

so far Thompson got foreign policy right, health care, and illegal problem right, where all the rest messed up on at least one of these issues..

what's wrong with Obama?

what is wrong with Obama? Thompson again gave the best answer.. he wants all liberal views that will not help our country in charge but hurt it in all issues.. Thompson said we need to stop involving federal government so much and put back to the states and follow the constitution..

Giuliani said Obama is not enough experienced we don't want the POTUS to get ON THE JOB TRAINING..

so far Thompson and Giuliani gave the best answerers..

Huckabee is memorizing.. hummm giving more of a campaign speech.. what a fool.. he is complementing Obama a bit tooo much..

Paul compliments Obama on his attracting young people instead of his faults??
says he is too much into welfare state instead of free markets.. that's better Paul..


Oil and PROFITS


Paul says it is the inflation.. as he did earlier on health care.. it's the inflation.. talked about the dollar as he did on health care...

McCain reduce Independence on oil.. alternative energy..

Thompson don't punish the profits of a company.. do energy Independence alternative energy as McCain said and drill our own oil! we haven't built a refinery in 30 years and go nuclear.. Giuliani agreed with Thompson

Huckabee here we go again.. thinks we can be completely energy independent in 10 years THIS MAN IS CLUELESS!! FRED says no you are promising something that is not real we will not achieve that in 10 years.. Thompson is the only one with common sense! period!

Romney agrees with Thompson we can't do this in 10 years as Thompson said! and agrees with Thompson and McCain.. on what we need to do to be energy efficient..



So far Thompson is batting 100% great answers.. and again the talker after wards only mentions Romney and McCain when they were both as with Giuliani for amnesty..and Huckabee would give it too.. Paul and Thompson are the only two against amnesty!

sorry McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul.. you all messed up on some issues. Thompson got them all right.

Posted by Arlette Nelson | January 5, 2008 9:50 PM

Romney had a very good night. He was specific in his answers and proposals. He did not stoop to the playground tit for tat that was evidenced by others who went after him. Huckabee appeared to speak in generalities that were rather circular. McCain did well but was not the dominant figure. Rudy and Fred also had good ideas but did not come across as having the full package. Romney had a good night.

Posted by Sam | January 5, 2008 9:52 PM

Jan 5th, 2008 by Ted Pibil
Many of you may have heard the supposed news report that, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, that, if Fred Thompson did poorly, he would drop out of the race and endorse Senator John McCain. The Thompson team vehemently denied the report and other reports questioned the integrity of the report.

Now Robert Novak is reporting that the source of the rumor, in fact, came from the Mitt Romney campaign to cause strife between Thompson and McCain. This discovery points out two facts that we have known for a long time: 1) the Romney campaign is filled with some of the sleaziest operatives, and 2) that Politico is clearly anti-Thompson and has no journalistic integrity.

Posted by brian | January 5, 2008 9:57 PM

How can anyone want that nasty, petty, little, vindictive John McCain representing the Republican party?

The same Republican party to which he has been most unfaithful these past 4 or 5 years.

It appears the GOP has a death wish this year.

Posted by Carolina | January 5, 2008 9:57 PM

The debate format was a winner. The first few conversations were excellent. And only one participant was a standard deviation or more out of their league.

And of course, the post debate chattering class loses. Marc wanted an hour of bar and officer lounge. No, I appreciate a few of the participants avoiding the parent/child cheap labels. Adult conversation could easily have slipped into pointing at John McCain's age, his double-talk, and his 32 lobbyists parading as "bundlers".

Posted by mikeVA | January 5, 2008 9:58 PM

Arlette,

that is perhaps the best recap of a debate I have ever read. I agree with you in your analysis 100%. Thompson did show something tonight that no one else on the stage showed: that was a true command over his own ideas.

That is no jab at flip floppers or any of the other personal attacks that are often thrown around. I feel that all the candidates (other than Paul) made some great points this evening. However, it was Fred that showed that he knows who he is and what he believes. One cannot fake that, and one cannot fit it into soundbites. I have grown to really appreciate and admire Fred's qualities. He, above all others tonight, seemed to me to be the candidate that I would be most comfortable and happy with as my president.

God bless America. It is so wonderful to live in a country where these debates can happen, and we can speak openly about them.

Posted by henry yates | January 5, 2008 10:04 PM

My disclaimer:I'm a Thompson supporter.I will however support a different Republican nominee with the exception of McInsane.He was his usual blustering brainless bully self.He is a mindless warmonger,impatient with free speech,useless and mendacious on illegal infiltration...that is "immigration"and frankly a tired angry old man.I not sure if he has trouble thinking or listening or both.

Posted by Leo | January 5, 2008 10:09 PM

McCAIN said earlier today “differences will be aired in a positive and respectful manner”?

I was shocked at his impolite, negative attacks tonight and his unwillingness to speak of the details of his immigration plan.

Let’s hear the details John. Don’t replace them with personal attacks.

McCain is a typical Washington politician. Anyone who's been there that long needs to go with a kick in the pants.

Posted by slarry | January 5, 2008 10:12 PM

I was extremely excited by Fred Thompson tonight. He was the only candidate up there that had a grasp of what they believed in, did not falter, and did not get overly excited about petty arguing. He was strong, steadfast and simply put... he made sense when he spoke. I would really like to see a "surge" by Fred going into South Carolina, considering he's not campaigning in NH.

Posted by Mike | January 5, 2008 10:17 PM

Fred Thompson is my candidate. That being said, I think most of the shots at Mitt Romney we're childish and I thought he held up well to those, considering the onslaught.

Posted by Mark | January 5, 2008 10:23 PM

Fred Thompson again the only Adult in the room Flip Flopney looked like he was going to cry every time someone confronted him what a little spoiled yuppie ! I can't imagine such a child sitting across the table from our enemies give me a break. If the guy was poor we would not even be talking about him Mitt Romney is not Presidential end of story ! Go Fred kick some Rino @$$ Fred Thompson the true Conservative ask Rush!!

Posted by delburd | January 5, 2008 10:24 PM

McCain looked "childish".....

to those of you who don't live in NH and have not been barraged with countless attack ads against him by Romney.

Act 2 Scene 1

[In a Final Act of Desperation]

Romney puts on his whiny, wimpy, victim charade.

And we see right through it.

End Scene

Posted by RothNRA | January 5, 2008 10:25 PM

ARLENE'I AM A FIVE STAR RATED TEACHER, COUNSELOR AND CLAIRVOYANT. I DO MY WORK THROUGH POSITIVE THINKING TECHNIQUES AND TEACH VISUALIZATION THROUGH POSITIVE PRAYER'Nelson, What does special powers tell you about the Super Bowl?....Hey Henry Yates...click under her name..maybe she can find you a female?

Posted by Mutumbo Willie | January 5, 2008 10:26 PM

McCain lost to Bush in 2000 because when he's pushed he responds angrily, not intelligently. He's showing it again now against Romney. The pundits seem to like the "gotcha" lines, but real people watching the debate to actually learn which candidates are presidential timber will see it for what it is -- poor character.

Posted by Scott | January 5, 2008 10:27 PM

As a dispassionate viewer, I thought Thompson won the night with Giuliani coming in second. Thompson won for being concise and authoritative and Giuliani did well with his command of the issues and glibness.

I thought Romney looked lame and ridiculous with his complaints about "personal attacks" - no one was dissing his mom or his haircut they were talking about how he changed his fundamental positions on many issues. I was thinking "C'mon Mitt tell us why they are wrong". He seemed like he had no answer. He did well with health care, though. He offered real experience in dealing with the issue and a seemingly effective alternative to just more direct government care.

Mccain gained some points with his foreign policy answers and also did well with his defense of his immigration policy but lost a few for his immature and Edwards-like characterization of the entire pharmaceutical industry. He should have taken the opportunity to point out that he polls best against all the Democratic candidates during the "Obama" question.

My 2 cents.

Posted by M. Laslo | January 5, 2008 10:28 PM

Today I became a Fred guy. I don't know if it's too late though.

McCain is still a hero to me.

Rudy is pretty sensible.

Romney is still a douchebag.

Posted by RothNRA | January 5, 2008 10:32 PM

Fred wins on points and principles. I particularly liked his prosecutorial style towards the end, where he asked candidates - mainly Romney -- if they stood by their previously stated positions, and then watched them squirm as they tried to explain.

Conservatives will wish to support Romney because he says all the right things. The problem is that Romney says them because he has memorized them. He'll say different things when that is of use to him. Romney says that the attacks against him are unfair and "personal". Well, they may be personal - but tonight showed why they are fair.

As for McCain, no one questions that he is an American hero. However, he fibbed all night about the positions he took on illegal immigration. His record shows that, once elected, he will trim his sails (except, to his credit, on national security issues) whenever media attention and "strange new respect" beckons.

The failure of the Republican Congress was, in part, due to corruption and high government spending - McCain is right about that. It was, however, also due to sellouts to the Democrats on judges, stem cell research, interogations, and immigration by the likes of McCain, Chafee, and McCain's buddy Lindsay Graham. Republicans need to remember that.

Huckabee was wise to stand down while the real men talked. Giulini is, to use a New Yorkism, a mensch. However, as good as that is, he may not be the mensch for most Republicans.

Fred may well be out in a week or two. But if he loses, we lose -- count on it.

Dan

Posted by Dan Dickinson | January 5, 2008 10:32 PM

MUTUMBO WILLIE AXES; WARES THE WHITE WOMEN???

Posted by Mutumbo Willie | January 5, 2008 10:34 PM

Romney is a sleaze bag and has violated intra party ethics by snidely attacking all the other candidates on the airwaves. By creating such an atmosphere, Romney is doing real damage to the GOP by making us look disorganized on national television.

And don't tell me it's anyone's fault but Mitt's, when ALL the other candidates don't like you and YOU AREN'T EVEN THE FRONT RUNNER there's a logical explanation- That everyone else at the debate table is just a big meanie isn't logical.

The candidates were so busy loathing Mitt Romney that they didn't have anything bad to say about Obama. Thank goodness Ron Paul was on the stage to give the rest of the Republican pack some clarity.

I can't wait for Romney to be out of this race so that the GOP can get back to winning presidencies instead of just retaliating against Romney's attack ads.

I mean, can you imagine what happens if Romney gets the nomination? A large chunk of us strongly supporting different candidates won't even have the stomach to vote for him against Obama come November. I know I wouldn't.

Posted by Justin | January 5, 2008 10:35 PM

Agreed. Fred looked like a great VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate tonight. I'd very much like to see a Romney/Thompson ticket.

Posted by Allan Jones | January 5, 2008 10:38 PM

Romney handled the relentless attacks with even-handed class, which I think gives him a post-debate bounce.

Posted by Mark | January 5, 2008 10:39 PM

Mitt looked like a preppy smart aleck who'd been making fun of the good old boys and then accidentally picked their pub to show up in. He is toast. The public is looking for men and women made of dust, not perfect, but certainly not plastic. We could debate his ideas, but they are as pliable as the man. If Mitt will stick to conservative principles for 10 years or so, he could come back and run again.

Posted by TrueHawk | January 5, 2008 10:39 PM

After tonight it is definately clear that Thompson is the one and only true conservative.

Posted by David | January 5, 2008 10:41 PM

After Novak's report about whose campaign was at least partly behind that false "Thompson's about to drop out" story, Romney has absolutely no standing to complain about attacks.

Posted by Gina | January 5, 2008 10:44 PM

Agreed. Fred looked like a great VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate tonight. I'd very much like to see a Romney/Thompson ticket.

Posted by Allan Jones | January 5, 2008 10:54 PM

All things considered, I wish that National Review would reconsider its choice to support Romney. This is the generation when Republicans must make their stand for Federalism. We know that it is not being taught in the public schools. It is only a matter of time before the collective national memory has forgotten why this "Great Experiment", The United States, has survived. We must remember that we have been given a Republic as long as we can keep it (nod to B. Franklin). Fred Thompson has demonstrated, AGAIN, that he is the only candidate that truly understands these principles. I ask all Americans to consider the POTUS oath of office,"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." We must elect someone who would rather die than violate this oath. I believe that Thompson is such a man.

Posted by Zach | January 5, 2008 11:06 PM

Senator Thompson won this debate just like he did the last one. What impresses me most is factcheck.org always finds errors or lies(?) from the other candidates but not from Fred Thompson. As for it being too late...the race is wide open. Todays Rasmussen poll shows 5 point difference in all the Republican candidates (except Paul thankgoodness)with a error rate of up to 4% so it is a wide open race. Fred Thompson is rising dispite the media putting him down. Did you notice in the debate, Charlie Gibson cut Fred off 3 times when Fred was making great points, while he let the others go on and on. He knew Fred was winning it and it just killed him. The liberal media know that Fred Thompson is the only candidate that can defeat any Democrat! They cannot find any skeletons in his long political career so they make up stuff...no fire... no chance to win...lazy..not enough money. The more the American people get to see Fred, the more they will not believe the media's lies! He was the only presidential acting person in the debate tonight and it really showed in the great forum they used!

Posted by S Benn | January 5, 2008 11:28 PM

McCain's gibes against Romney are sophomoric and offputting. I think he needs to grow up.

Romney was okay, but he struck me as someone who says things because he thinks they're what he's expected to say. He was a lot better late in the debate, though.

Huckabee is platitudinous, but I honestly don't really see his positions. He says a lot of things, but he doesn't seem to mean much.

Giuliani's redefinition of amnesty is just amazing. Does he really think we're that dumb? It's not amnesty when there is a penalty?? And the constant referencing of Ronald Reagan is just weird. We all know he's no Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul is done for.

I think Fred was great, but I just wish he had just a little more pizzazz. If people were less impressed with packaging, Fred should be leading all the polls right now. I agree with practically all of his positions. I do wish him well.

Posted by Anna | January 5, 2008 11:33 PM

Fred is "head and shoulders" (no pun intended) above the other candidates. He says what he believes and is cool headed, something we all want next to that button. We should pray that the cream will rise to the top so all can see the MAN he is and the MAN who wants what is best for his country and who accepted the calling of his country in this most crucial time.

Posted by Sandra | January 5, 2008 11:39 PM

[Disclosure: I am a Romney supporter]

Romney was ganged up on, and gave much worse than he got. McCain looked ridiculous getting in a cheap shot, and then giggling about it. Thompson was vague, meandering and soporific. Huckabee was his glib, lightweight self. Giuliani was okay.

Posted by Plutarch | January 5, 2008 11:40 PM

I think what came through in the debate is that Mitt is finally reaping the fruits of his negative campaigning. It is obvious that his opponents have no respect for him and even loathe the guy. I don't live in NH but can only imagine what must be going on up there. As the Mitt Train derails, Mitt will have no one to blame but himself. His substantive changes on so many issues places him in a terrible moral position to attack his opponents for flip flopping. Remember the old saying about "glass houses?" All politicians must deal with hypocrisy but Mitt seems to believe that if one buys enough ad time the obvious hypocrisy will elude the electorate. Remember the illegal workers at Mitt's mansion? If the issue were so important to Mitt and his strategy then he really should have made certain that not a single illegal ever stepped foot in the mansion. Mitt has the skill to articulate his positions well and I wish he had stuck to important positions in his past. He did not, and I'm afraid that if he were to be the nominee the lack of consistency would be his Achille's heel used by the democratic candidate to utterly destroy what little credibility he may still have.

Posted by nathan | January 5, 2008 11:42 PM

Zack,

Thank you for that posting. I am unable to saying anything else.

Maren

Posted by Maren | January 5, 2008 11:49 PM

Honestly, I have seen elections before where all the candidates go after one guy. But the pure and utter disdain for Romney should tell everyone something; Mitt Romney is a jerk. Whether for his pandering, his attacks, his lies, etc., he is EXTREMELY disliked by all of the other candidates, and that shown through tonight. I thought McCain did very well, as most of the pundits have agreed, although Thompson, although resigned to be out soon, seemed to be on top of the issues. I also thought it was interesting to see Rudy and Thompson both come to McCain's aid on the immigration fraucus. But again, I think that the candidates were trying to send a message about Romney tonight, and thankfully by the looks of the polls, it was catching on even before the debate.

Posted by Publius | January 5, 2008 11:57 PM

I am a Thompson supporter and evangelical Christian. I will never vote for Mike Huckabee, even if he is running against Hillary and she starts to grow red horns. He does not even acknowledge his record, much less stand on it. He is a massive tax increaser, and soft on illegal immigration. He strikes me as a vindictive guy, but what really galls me is his wrapping himself in theological language in an attempt to connect with the Christian voter.

RE: the debate--I thought McCain looked nasty toward Romney.

Fred Thompson is authentic and real. In addition, he happens to be the most mainstream conservative in the race. Here's hoping he can do well in SC.

Posted by Ted Loeffler | January 6, 2008 12:02 AM

The chickens have come home to roost for Mitt. He somehow believes that he can trash his opponents without taking any flak for his own vacillations on important policy positions. Nate is right about the whole glass houses thing.

Posted by jason | January 6, 2008 12:02 AM

I keep hearing everyone say that Romney is personally attacking other candadites; can I have an example.

Posted by Taylor | January 6, 2008 12:10 AM

As someone who lives nowhere near NH or IA I have to read between the lines at the debate tonight. The fact that so many of Romney's primary opponents seem to detest him struck me. This is especially striking since I would expect this for a frontrunner. Romney lost Iowa and has been lagging in New Hampshire. Why didn't they display their contempt for McCain? Isn't McCain the frontrunner? Guiliani is apparently still the frontrunner nationally yet I saw none of his opponents go after him. There must be something more about Romney that is not good. I get the impression that if Romney is the nominee he would have very little support that he would desperately need to defeat his democratic rival. Whatever Romney did to get so many of his primary rivals to have so little respect for him may cost him dearly. Someone commented that maybe Romney is a "jerk" and I am left to wonder that it may be true given what happened.

Posted by john | January 6, 2008 12:15 AM

My analysis of debate deduced Romney having won the debate on points, but certainly it was no lnockout. Thompson and Paul accorded themselves reasonably well, excepting Thompson's barbs directed towards Romney. As for these incessant attacks, the remaining candidates looked sophmoric and their responses to questions were amgiguous at best. Romney and Paul made the greatest attempts to clarify positions with Thompson providing acute, but overly general, responses. Again, Romney wins on points earned by his arguments and his ability to withstand excessively childish behavior exhibited by his opponents, which was entirely directed towards him in an unnecessarily personal nature.

Posted by Gregory Wood | January 6, 2008 12:15 AM

>> his vast intellectual energy gushes forth

Marc, can you think straigh about Romney? Romney and intellectual energy? Romney is the most intellectually doshonest politician ever.

Clearly, with all the bickering among them it is Democratic party and Obama who won the republican debate.

Posted by Alexie | January 6, 2008 12:17 AM

Mitt is very good with the "powerpoint" presentation style to get his points across. The problem is that he has absolutely zero credibility in my book. At one point the moderator meticulously pointed out a policy change for each of the candidates. When he got to Romney he just said something to the effect that the flip flops were too numerous to count for Romney. The moderator merely articulated what many of us believe. Mitt sounds great when articulating his positions but is a complete "dud" when it comes to executing. The real question is "What does Mitt really believe?"

Posted by nick s. | January 6, 2008 12:24 AM

Gregory, Romney won the debate on points? What the heck are you talking about? What points? This is not a real debate, ya know.
If you go on points, Romney lost on plastics alone. This is my point structure, don'tcha know.
Seriously, Romney has had better outings and I've seen them. Fred is the turtle but he is a consistent turtle and he doesn't engage in little boy fights.
Nice that someone noticed.

Posted by thatcher | January 6, 2008 12:30 AM

Wow, Mitt got attacked big time. Not sure he fought back as hard as I would have liked but at least he had impeccable class in taking the crap. And that is what most of it was. Crap. McCain could only resort to being rude and nasty when he got cornered and was wrong on immigration. Huckabee showed he is dishonest by outright lying about Romney's position concerning the surge vs timed withdrawl. Yet he was the guy saying Mitt is dishonest in Iowa. I think those 2 guys looked very bad for that. I can't say anything bad about Thompson or his jabs at Romney or anyone for that matter. He won the debate in my view. I think this has a chance to help Mitt and hurt McCain and Huckabee as much as anything.

Posted by Divot | January 6, 2008 12:30 AM

Let me just say mccain is an immature idiot. Also I don't think it is negative when a candidate contrasts his position on issues against another candidates position.

Posted by Steve | January 6, 2008 12:41 AM

I didn't find Mitt's responses too compelling. He was on the defensive for sure but his lackluster performance didn't help him any. Some of you have described Romney as plastic in debates--I would have to agree. I got the feeling someone was pulling the cord on back of the Mitt doll to hear the drone of memorized material given to him by his handlers. Very weird guy although some of the attacks should have been toned down a bit.

Posted by harold | January 6, 2008 12:42 AM

Steve's comments are well taken. I don't see anything wrong with the candidates contrasting their position with the positions of Mitt Romney. Lack of consistency is exactly what they were trying to contrast. Mitt seems to have no objections to pointing out any lack of consistency in the positions of his opponents but his supporters cry foul when others point out Mitt's lack of consistency on many issues over the years and months.

Posted by Erik | January 6, 2008 12:48 AM

Mitt Romney could be a really good candidate if he spent another 8-10 years in another political office and stuck to his positions. His track record will hobble him with the democrats. Obama or Hillary will have an absolute field day with his flip flops. They will do to him what the Republicans so successfully did to John Kerry in 2004. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds but utter lack of consistency will become the hobgoblin of a losing presidential candidate. The other candidates at the debate repeatedly pointed out this critical weakness in a not-so-nice way.

Posted by Greg R. | January 6, 2008 12:54 AM

I didn't see the debate but I already have profound respect for Fred. I appreciate that he cares for the country and believes he can help lead but is not overly ambitious for the Title (hmmm ... what early President cared for his country but did not particularly want to be President?? Hmmm ... I think it's a guy they call the FATHER of our Nation ... help me out here y'all).

I will be deeply upset if Fred doesn't win the GOP nod. He is smart, witty, funny, SINCERE, factual, well spoken ... and he is the clear, consistent conservative.

Posted by Victor T | January 6, 2008 12:55 AM

My question is what people mean by attacks? Nobody attacked Mitt "personally" all night! All people did is point out that Mitt flip-flopps, a lot. I think it's important to point this out because in the GE, his flip-flopping will be brought out by the Dem. In that case, he will lost much of the independents, the same way John Kerry did in 2004. Sorry, but I want to vote for the only real adult on the stage that didn't get defenseful, and that was Fred Thompson. Thanks for the great article!

Posted by Ryan | January 6, 2008 12:55 AM

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about Romney's performance. He has enough money that he will buy the presidency despite what all of you may think. Wealth trumps all!

Posted by Carl | January 6, 2008 12:56 AM

After reading several comments I think many of you may be right about Fred Thompson. His demeanor is good but he will need to be more aggressive to go up against the dems.

Posted by Elvis | January 6, 2008 1:00 AM

Carl is either joking or out of his mind. No one can buy the presidency, maybe a lower office but too many people are watching.

Posted by M. Browne | January 6, 2008 1:02 AM

Attack ads attack ads attack ads. This is utter baloney by the way. have you seen these attack ads? they do nothing up point out where Romney is strong in relation to where McCain and Huckabee are weak. There is nothing factually incorrect with Romney's ads that I have ever seen. They are not mean spirited at all either. Recall some of the ads last year in Tennessee for example and then you are talking about attack ads. Besides, Romney is the only one with enough money that he can run any amount of ads he wants. All the rest of them would be doing the exact same thing if they could afford it. But they can't so they do what they can. Bellyache and bellyache hard. I have very little respect for either McCain or Huckabee regarding this. What they can't do with ads in response to Romney they do with mischaracterisations and their own fibs which they haven't been called on the carpet for. For example What is McCain but a flip flopper on immigration? And a flip flopper on numerous other issues the last 8 years except for the war. Where was McCain politically for the 4 years after Bush won in 2000? So antagonistic in his votes and rhetoric toward conservatives and conservative causes that he actually was considered for VP by Kerry and every one eyed him as the next person to jump to the democrats. This guy is the height of flip flopping and hypocrisy. And then he wants to act like he has been the solid conservative for the longest. What a blatant lie. Wake up people.

Huckabee is just as bad. Claiming to be a solid conservative and of solid character. Look at what he DID. Campaigned as a conservative then was attrocious on taxes, growing the government in his state, liberal on immigration, not keeping his campaign promises, numerous scandals, etc. Yet he wants to appear clean because he is a former baptist preacher. Only the guy AIN'T clean. Holy Mackerel you can't get more hypocritical than that folks.

The candidates are angry at Romney for actually pointing out their very very bad weaknesses. Lets be honest, McCain and Huckabee actually voted and governed against conservative causes NUMEROUS TIMES. They have absolutely terrible records in terms of what they actually DID. They are pissed that Romney is pointing it out. Romney on the other had has a track record of saying liberal leaning things and then on every single issue governing significantly more to the right than what was expected.

The worst thing for conservatives would be McCain followed by Huckabee. Yet that is one of th emore likely tickets we will have on the republican side it appears. Heaven help us.

Posted by Divot | January 6, 2008 1:04 AM

Mitt has a habit of embellishing things in a very strange way. He remembers his father marching with Dr. Martin Luther King and then says he "saw it in his mind." Then he tells us he is an avid hunter in support of gun rights when he has only been hunting twice in his life--once I suppose in his mind again. The last thing we need is a president who lacks the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. No wonder he has so little trouble accusing his opponents of flip flopping when he hasn't really flip flopped at all except in his mind. We need a president who is in touch with reality and not a plastic performer who had the misfortune of having his flip flopping highlighted tonight.

Posted by Bert | January 6, 2008 1:08 AM

And just one last thing, Hillary is the greatest flip flopper of all time. There is no doubt about it. How will Hillary be able to attack Mitt about flipping if Mitt will have more amunition with which to level her argument and show she is the queen of flipping? That is why i don't worry about Mitt vs Hillary onthe flipping issue. Or McCain vs Hillary(turns my stomach) on the flipping issue.

Posted by Divot | January 6, 2008 1:11 AM

I think Romney is almost certainly a fatally flawed candidate. McCain and some of the others have had hypocritical positions but, unfortunately, so has Romney. Maybe Fred Thompson is another option that is better. Time will tell.

Posted by Gil | January 6, 2008 1:13 AM

I agree, Fred Thompson did best tonight.

Posted by Melinda | January 6, 2008 1:20 AM

It is not very important to me who "won" the debate on points. All of the candidates made effective and less effective points. What matters most is who will consistently deliver on what is said. Romney's biggest problem is his own record. He completely lacks consistency. I was in Massachusetts in 1994 when he ran for Senate against Teddy Kennedy. The Romney I saw was completely different--not just on a few issues but on many many issues. I remember Mitt trying his best to disparage Ronald Reagan and other national Republican leaders. Later I hear him praising Ronald Reagan as his hero. In 1994, Mitt seemed liberal, but normal, for Massachusetts. Now Mitt just seems plain bizarre. Heaven only knows what he really believes about important issues. I wouldn't bet on anything he says. Had I placed bets in 1994 about his positions I would have lost my shirt since they have almost all changed diametrically.

Posted by alex | January 6, 2008 1:26 AM

Best debate yet. Great format and good moderation. Gave the opportunity to viewers to learn more about the candidates.

Mitt - came out on top. Specific in his ideas, knowledgeable, intelligent and showed a great deal of class and maturity in responding to the juvenile attacks. Presidential material.

Fred - did well. I have not been a Fred supporter so all I can say is I am glad he did not get his act together sooner or we'd be looking at a different race. He can be funny but can also exhibit a mean, biting edge which peeked through at times tonight.

McCain - showed his true colors as an angry, petty, vindicative man with a strong liberal streak. Please New Hampshire, send this guy packing. Not Oval Office material.

Huckabee - no substance. Watching his smarmy presentation where he says a lots of words and communicates nothing is beginning to grate on my nerves, not to mention his approval seeking glances towards McCain as Huck insults Mitt Romney. Low class. Sorry, but I can't stand this Republican version of Bill Clinton. He needs to go.

Rudy - solid as usual. Haven't seen much of him lately due to his big state strategy. My first reaction was "oh yeah, he's still running."

Ron Paul - you know, it's hard to give him any points when every last darn issue like healthcare or the economy gets pulled back to a rant on the war in Iraq. He does himself in.

Posted by Ann | January 6, 2008 1:33 AM

Fred Thompson is by far the most presidential. He is level headed, sincere, mature, wise, thoughtful, truly conservative, experienced, logical, patriotic, hard core Republican, intelligent, sensible, calm, witty, consistent, and yes, energetic. I judge a presidential candidate on these qualifications and more, not on his hairdo, looks, bank account, sound bites, 'performances,' 60 second ads or cheerleading capabilities. Lincoln and Washington would never have been elected under today's shallow expectations. And perhaps Fred won't either...sad

Posted by sunshine484848 | January 6, 2008 1:35 AM

McCain's nasty remarks,then laughing,seemed very childish and unbecoming. I will never ever every vote for him...besides he called me racist.

Posted by Alexis | January 6, 2008 1:35 AM

So send Fred some GD money!

Posted by peter blogdanovich | January 6, 2008 1:42 AM

I was asked this question tonight which to me is getting very old..and I gave my response below the question quote:

"I enjoy a number of Thompson's ideas, I think he is an intelligent man and pretty straight-forward BUT the man never seems in that good of health"


My Answer:
this is the part you just have to trust on his health for he is totally healthy and shows he can do well...you guys have to stop taking his no emotional attitude for ill health or laziness..for I would personally rather have a calm president that wasn't as emotional as all the rest over an overly anxious POTUS.. like the rest would be when it comes to trusting my child's life with important issues like foreign affairs when Thompson has proved with his record and his stances he is the most qualified..

he is a laid back guy that is quick on his feet and to be honest.. when I try to picture, Ron Paul, Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani or even Romney across the desk from Jim Yong Ill, Hu Jintao, Chevez (whom Michael Moore likes), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.. I FEAR! and so should you!!

for I would rather have a PRESIDENT sitting on the other side of the table of those guys with the ability to be able to intimidate those rouge leaders AS Thompson proved he could do.. the instead of having Huckabee or Romeny or even Giuliani even McCain and Obama and Edwards and Hillary ...


For Thompson did not stand down from any of his policies nor did he get attacked NOT ONCE by any of the other candidates for his policies.. as ALL the other candidates were attacked for theirs.. in fact every candidate up there kept saying " as Thompson would do" every one of them! THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ON WHO IS THE WINNER BIG TIME TONIGHT .. AND IT WAS PRESIDENT FRED DALTON THOMPSON..

Posted by Arlette Nelson | January 6, 2008 1:59 AM

Disclaimer: I'm for Fred

I thought Fred and Romney were clear winners tonight. McCain reminded us all how much of a jerk he is.

Romney took all the person cheap shots but didn't return in kind, but also didn't back down. He totally pinned Huckabee out of the gate, and McCain later on immigration. And for crying out loud, a flip-flopper changes his position MORE than once (hence the flop) and tries to take more than one side of an issue. That's not Mitt - he was Pro-abortion when campaigning for governor and looked America in the eye and said he was wrong. How many candidates are man enough to admit that? I respect him for it.

Fred gave strong answers on immigration, health care, and national security. He was consistent throughout the night (like he was consistent in the Senate).

Posted by ArkyTech | January 6, 2008 2:07 AM

I'm voting Democrat, so whatever opinions I have certainly aren't based on any bias toward any of the Republican candidates (I thought both debates were almost unwatchable).

Here's my take: Unfortunately, Giuliani looked the best in the debate.

Huckabee stayed almost perfectly neutral, which was a good move, since he isn't expected to do well in NH anyway, so he might as well stay out of the fray.

Romney was monopolizing time and seemed too on-edge and desparate.

McCain (who I was cheering for a bit because I picked him to win NH in my primary prediction pool) looked off-kilter, almost drunk, and was a disappointment.

Ron Paul was giving FAR too nuanced answers directed at his tiny fraction of enthusiastic supporters.

Thompson (who has no business being in the debates) perhaps "won" the debate with his simplicity and playing dumb. I thought he looked and sounded like the biggest fool out of the bunch by far.

If I was to say who I thought came off the best, I would say Giuliani. I REALLY dislike Giuliani and thought he was pretty much out of the race, but this showing might boost him a little bit nationally. Huck should still take SC, and maybe Florida. But we'll see...

Posted by Steve | January 6, 2008 2:55 AM

S. Benn (11:28): you nailed it. Thomson's answers always stand up to post-debate analysis; the others, not as much. And it could not be more obvious that MSM is terrified of him. As far as the talkingheads/chatteringfools are concerned: Thomson does not exist. That is their fevered hope. That he will disappear.

Fred 08!

Posted by fred08 | January 6, 2008 3:49 AM

PS: the fact that Democrat "Steve" posting directly above me said of Thomson: "has no business being in the debate" "biggest fool out of the bunch so far" etc. could not be better proof of the rightness of Thomson. A true conservative, speaking truthfully, freaks the shit out of Democrats, it can't be any other way, since we're dealing with diametrically opposite viewpoints. To restate my earlier comment: nobody seems to bug Dems worse than Thomson. What more does a conservative need to vote for him then?!

And if you're already playing electoral vote math, how about Guiliani as veep? Wouldn't that tip the scales?

Posted by fred08 | January 6, 2008 3:53 AM

Mr. Romney is the brightest and most presidential of the pack and will be an excellent leader in Washington if given the chance. The reason for the attacks against him is because the other candidates know that once he gets momentum he will secure the nomination. It looks like some of you watched the debate with obvious preconceived bigotry. I saw Thompson as a bit slow and generally less specific in his answers. We saw the un-presidential real McCain.

Having closely followed comments from the candidates themselves rather than the smears from others, I see both Huckabee and McCain as not being honorable in their deliberate exagerations and outright untruths over the past months. I have tried to follow the campaigns carefully with an open mind and I have no hesitancy in choosing Mr. Romney. I'm surprised at how many people fall for the same old tired mis-characterizations of him. If you are looking for something wrong you will find something whether it exists or not. Listen to the messages and specific plans and pick a true leader like Mr. Romney.

Posted by Tom | January 6, 2008 4:46 AM

Not much attention is paid to the fact that Fred
Thompson, has received millions of dollars in
acting fees over the years to project a wise, and
thoughtful public authority figure, in countless roles. Film and TV is an open talent market. Fred
rose to prominence because he is talented, and able
to ad-lib or follow the script. Given the same amount of exposure as the others, he would rise to
the top of the heap, because he has the leader thing down very well. You need a General? A Governor, an oil billionaire CEO, a District Attorney? or a President? Fred fills the bill. Having been a recent Senator, a Watergate council, and America's leading, on screen, government authority figure, and who actually is smart as hell...How can he lose the contest, in the long run?

Posted by Allan S. | January 6, 2008 6:25 AM

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served personally under both Presidents Carter and Reagan. Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com . I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Posted by Frederick Paxson | January 6, 2008 6:32 AM

Fred Thompson is our candidate! The MSM is terrified of him...that's why they ignore him.

Go Fred!

Posted by Troy | January 6, 2008 8:05 AM

Wow I have never seen such sophmoric behavior between adults. Did anyone notice that the only candidate that got shouted down by all the others? Is it that they are afraid of the only true conservative? RonPaul