Fox News Republican Debate

First of all, the most glaringly obvious thing about this debate is how superior it was to the MSNBC debate last week. This was probably the most insightful, probing, yet respectful debate I have seen. They did not pose a single question that was as irrelevant as perhaps ten of MSNBC's questions.

As far as the candidates, based on the two debates so far, Giuliani and Romney have clearly risen above the pack. McCain had a fine performance. But the positions he articulated and the answers he gave are simply not going to gain votes in a Republican primary. I've read that either Hunter or Huckabee should be considered first-tier candidates and while both are solid, neither have the record or message, let alone organization and money of the top tier. I don't want to diminish any of the other candidates though. The field as a whole has really been surprisingly impressive.

Ron Paul was simply destroyed in this debate. If he wants to argue that a non-inverventionist foreign policy is better for the U.S., then that is a reasonable position. I even voted for him on the Drudge Report poll last week just because I enjoyed hearing his economic libertarianism on the stage (although Romney won that debate). Even after he was given the opportunity to clarify that he blamed the terrorists for the attacks of 9/11 he declined to do so. The fact is that he now has, literally, no chance at the Republican nomination as opposed to a one in a million shot. I don't even see the point of inviting him to the next debate.

While we are considering limiting the field, there are other candidates that should be considered. Tancredo never belonged there in the first place. Thompson has a great record, but is simply not an insipiring persona or Presidential material. I liked Gilmore in the first debate and I'm not quite ready to say that he should not be invited to the debates, but he really needs to prove his place on that stage quickly. Brownback has given even performances in both debates... but has he really gained any supporters? Perhaps we could have a playoff round where Hunter, Brownback, Gilmore, and Thompson debate and the top two get included in the next debate with the Big Three.

Considering that isn't likely, at least we can be happy that we have a far superior field to those running for the Democratic nomination and keep in mind that the most important thing is not who wins the Republican nomination, but that they defeat the Democratic candidate in a year when the differences between the party are so stark.