This was the first debate I've watched so far. I really haven't been that interested, and I suspected the debates would not be very substantial, so I have avoided them. Last night, however, there was nothing on TV, and I didn't feel like reading.
I was pleasantly suprised at the substance. I don't know if the others have been as substantive, but the questions and answers seemed better than what I had gleaned from accounts of the previous debates, but this may be because the coverage has been so bad.
A couple thoughts:
Mitt Romney is not impressive. He lived down to his plastic reputation. He says nothing that appeals to me.
Rudy was pretty good. He did a good job of handling the "are you a conservative" question, but I don't know if I trust him on anything but terrorism. He was a zealous prosecutor, and I fear an even more zealous, overly-powerful justice department than we already have.
McCain: I don't know what to think about the guy. I respect him for his heartfelt patriotism, but I can't get past his anti-constitutional position on campaign finance/1st Amendment and immigration silliness (although he claims to have gotten serious). He didn't perform all that well, but looks to have some momentum as a default/he can win candidate.
Huckabee: The guy is a natural politician. I don't see how you can't help but like him (K-Lo at NRO seems to be able to hate the man though, so perhaps some people can help it). I thought he handled the religious questions very well. He seems like a decent, respectable man, but I fear another round of "compassionate conservatism". Let's not reconcile ourselves to big government just yet please.
Thompson finally showed that he might actually want the job which is good, because although I wasn't excited about any of these guys, he's my candidate. I think he's the closest thing to a movement/fusionist conservative in the group. Will he be around by the time we get to vote in Ohio? I hope so.
Ron Paul: In the back of my mind the kook alarm is going off. However, if we could have two presidents and put one in charge of domestic policy and one in charge of foreign policy, I might give him the domestic policy job and Rudy the foreign policy job. Since, we don't do that, I think Fred again is the fusionist (conservative/libertarian mix) candidate. The focus group after the debate liked Fred, so maybe he will win SC as he probably needs to do. The focus group, though, was way too hard on Paul. I thought he did fairly well in the debate. He did especially well with answering the "are you a Republican/can you appeal to conservative/Republican voters" question. In many ways he is more conservative/Republican than the rest--limited government, less political engagement with the Middle East, anti-tax and spend. However, in some ways he is obviously radical which is, needless to say, very unconservative. Limited government would be wonderful, but limited government we don't have and cannot overnight. There is little of Edmund Burke in Paul, and no willingness to compromise to move the country back to its limited gov't roots. It seems like an all or nothing approach with him, and that is bad politics.
All in all I did not feel like I wasted my time watching. I am much more impressed with the candidates than I thought I would be (setting the bar low here of course) with the exception of Romney. He seems to have much of the party machinery backing him which, judging by my limited exposure to him, is unfortunate. He does not impress me, and I am disappointed that NR came out and endorsed him. I suspect this was the doing of Rich Lowry, since he's the man in charge. I would've preferred Rush's approach to stay out of endorsements.
