Redstate

and Hunter showed they deserve to be heard more. We are seeing that money, endorsements, and organization rule the day.

Molon Labe!

Again it only May. It seems not everytime people Huckabee on a national stage(that is cablenews debates that most are not watching) he gets more kudos. It is way too early to count anyone out.

Huckabee has some advantages that will suit him. Right now there are a lot of Social conservatives I know looking at thim and Brownback. They are batting for those voters

Huckabee has a shot but he needs more money. THat being said Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are what are important now(FLorida is out there) and the organization these people are doing. I think we will have a clear picture come Septemeber

but follwed closely by Huckabee and Romney.

but I think we all won tonight - and did in the silly first debate too - by the manifest evidence that our stable of horses is infinitely stronger than the ridiculous collection of nags (sic) into whose mouths the Dems are desperately hoping the public doesn't look too closely.

No one "won" this debate. Giuliani did the best, but I didn't think he was that impressive except for his rebuke of Ron Paul. Likewise, Huckabee's best line was that Congress spends money like John Edwards in a beauty parlor. Was Romney at the debate? He didn't seem to get much face time.

As a Romney supporter I have to say that I'm sad to say it - but I really think we need Fred Thompson in this race. If he doesn't enter...I just don't know. I'll have to vote for Romney, but there are some important issues that there are uncomfortable fissures for me. Fred Thompson is saying all the right things, on the other hand.

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson.

I have heard that Huckabee is moderate on tax/economic matters; is this true?

I felt bad for Tommy Thompson. Such a successful governor for so many years. Highly accomplished man. But he looked like he just didn't belong up there.

What about this scenario: Bloomberg runs, and siphons off votes from both parties. The Democrat finishes third. No one gets a majority in the electoral college, so the House decides the winner. Would the Democrat-controlled House pick the third-place finisher??

Thank you Erick for this blog post. Huckabee should be in the top tier. Why do you say that he should be running for Senate instead?? Because of his softer immigration stance or because of his Bush-like big government conservatism?? While he may not be perfect on these two issues, as long as he takes acceptable stances on these issues, I think that we have a winner in Huckabee. He has a solid grasp on the War On Terror, he is perfectly in tune with social conservatives (the most pro-life of the bunch), and he has a squeaky clean record that appeals to Independents and conservative Democrats. He is also very likeable and charismatic.

Huckabee would absolutely crush Hillary, Obama, Gore, or Edwards. He has the skills.

I had never heard Mike Huckabee speak until these first two debates and after the first debate I donated to a campaign (his, of course) for the first time in my life.

I could support the heck out of a F. Thompson - Giuliani ticket.

McCain-Kennedy couldn't win a debate if an illegal alien smacked them both in the face.

Rudy and Mitt are RINO's! John McCain is on a path to being one. How can anyone here really think they won tonight?

Rudy had one moment of truth- Response to Paul

McCain's moment- feelings on torture

Romney? I'm still looking for it.

None of these three guys deserve the conservative vote.

Wait. wait. wait.

Thank you Sean Hannity. I learned tonight that South Carolin has the highest consentration of Southern Baptists in the U.S.A. and that Huckabee is a Baptist minister. (I also learned from Hannity that Southren Baptists offically list Mormanism as cult) Wouldn't that be like having a debate in Utah and declaring Romney the winner because he looked comfortable and the crowd was behind him.

Huckabee did good, no doubt, but I couldnt help but feel he was playing in front of the home town team. Can he do that in Nevada? New Hampshire? Iowa? Michigan?

I think the top tier candidates remain in the top three. Giuliani, McCain and Romney handled themselves well. There was no clear winner, but I would have to say Giuliani had the overall best performance for the evening.

There were some great one liners…Huckabee and Edwards hair cut…McCain as a former drunken sailor….Tancredo on the road to Damascus…etc.

Huckabee was also the “most improved” from my perspective, short, crisp and direct answers that served him well.

Gilmore disappointed and Thompson seemed to just “be there”.

Saulius "Saul" Anuzis
Chairman
Michigan Republican Party

that won. Rudy was not very good outside of his depantsing of Ron Paul. McCain's most memorable lines were that he's against torture in a ticking time-bomb scenario and he's bi-partisan. Romney was over shadowed. Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore and Brownback need to bow out. Tommy Thompson should have bowed out after the last debate (he's like Newt but without the ability to articulate).

I've seen it said about Huckabee around RedState a couple of times tonight: Huckabee impressed some of our non-political spouses (my wife was impressed by him in the last debate). I am a FredHead, but I am hoping that if he wins the nomination, he chooses Huckabee for a running mate.

___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Or Huckabee / Thompson would be fine with me, in any order.

F. Thompson / Giuliani ticket. Wins. Election.

We have media created canidates.

Kennedy-McCain : Not only would I refuse to vote for McCain, but seeing him up their just makes me angry. By far the weakest GOp canidate, and the canidate that would split the GOP in half if he manages to trick voters into voting for him. Why does this site keep giving him any credit whatsoever....

Guliani- another fake canidate who doesn't even pretend to be conservative. He just goes outright and supports illegal immigration and abortions, and then starts jabbering about terrorism.

Romney- at least he pretend to be conservative, and is miles ahead of Guliaini and McCain. At least I could vote for this guy if he was who we end up.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

The big winner tonight was Fred Thompson. Thompson's most immediate opponents are John McCain and Mitt Romney, as they are both trying to be the anti Giuliani. McCain didn't do much in the debate tonight. And although Romney won the post debate poll, that doesn't mean much either. Giuliani continued his pro choice mantra which wil only hurt him more and more as the campaign goes on.

The nomination is Fred Thompson's to lose.

Whoever is representing the conservative party once McCain or Guliani steals the nomination can't let any of these people become the president.

I like the idea of a "A vote for McCain as a vote for Edward Kennedy. " bumper sticker if McCain is the nominee. Oh the horror, oh the horror.

There is still over ayear to go. Giuliani and McCain will be exposed sooner or later.

Huckabee....saying Congress has "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop"

That line kind of makes me like him. I wonder what his views are on the open borders policies of the Bush Administration are?

acrosoc, McCain is not my guy. But he's not THAT bad. My goodness, if it's him vs. Hillary/Hussein Obama, it's no question he's far superior.

Yeah the guy's been a pain in the $$$ on immigration, Gitmo, taxes, and campaign finance. But on many conservative issues, he's generally with us. He is pro-life and pro-GWOT.

Look, I don't want McCain to win the nomination. But if he does, we'd better darn well all rally around him. The SCOTUS is at stake in this general election.

How does that sound? I like the guy. I thought he did great in the debate. I just don't think he's got a shot at the big house.

I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
- Theodore Roosevelt

virgil, I already said I don't want McCain as our nominee. I'd prefer a F. Thompson / Giuliani ticket, in that order.

What I said is IF McKennedy is our nominee, we'd better swallow hard and support him. I DON'T want Hillary/Hussein replacing Ginsberg, Stevens, and possibly Nino on the SCOTUS.

McCain is THAT bad. He authored the gang of 14, and there were many republican nominees that were sacrificed. We were probably one vote short of breaking his gang. Why was he saying in 2000 that he did not want Roe to be overturned, and when asked what types of judges he wants they are always steven-esque moderates who will move the court left. He voted against all the tax cuts. Campaign finance. I can't think of one good thing he's done in the senate except piss people off.

His worst problem. He authored the worst bill that nearly passed the senate- the Kennedy-McCain bill. Do you realize his bill allowed for 230 new illegal immigrants over 20 years according to Senator Sessions studies he talked about in his floor speech. The Heritage foundation estimated that he would allow a 190 million more in. As if the amnesty for the current 20 million here even matter if this guy is a the nominee.

McCain is part of the far left, and he's charading around as a conservative. He is literally a puppet of Edward Kennedy to get whatever he wants from the republicans.

Agreed on all your points concerning campaign finance and immigration. (I want a wall and a moat filled with alligators built.)

All I said was: If McKennedy does win the nomination, and it's him or Hillary, we have to support the lesser-of-the-evils. Otherwise, we surrender in the GWOT, and the SCOTUS is lost for perhaps 20 years.

McCain is not the lessor of two evils. He'll appoint liberal SC justices for 4 or 8 years, then after 16 years of "republican rule" do you think the country will elect another GOP canidate in 2016 without ever electing a Democrat. No. We'll have to deal with John McCain, Democrat in disguise", followed by a Democrat president. At some point you have to bite the bullet and refuse to vote for someone who doesn't represent the GOP on a single issue other than Iraq.

Acrosoc101,

You sound like a complete nut. McCain "doesn't represent the GOP on a single issue other than Iraq."

I guess a pro-life, 0% NARAL senator is a fake Republican.

I guess a man who supports a balanced budget amendment, authored his own $240 billion tax cut in 2000 (that consequently set spending caps as well as paid down the national debt and Social Security's structural debt), and harps on ending wasteful spending and returning the GOP and this nation to fiscal discipline is actually a fake Republican.

I guess a man who supports the death penalty, wants to appoint strict constructionist judges, and limit endless judicial appeals is a fake Republican.

I guess a senator who voted against the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban--evidence of his pro-2nd Amendment lifetime stance is a fake Republican.

And the list goes on. Look at him on health care, school choice, personal retirement accounts in Social Security, the global war against terror, welfare, simplifying the tax code, free trade, flag burning, etc.

Bottom line: your assertions fly in the face of facts. As John Adamns once said, "[f]acts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Your passion is clear, and I appreciate that. But your statements hold no water because they cannot alter the state of facts.

Senator McCain, unlike Rudy and Romney, has a RECORD of conservative stances on KEY issues. You do yourself no service, nor do you serve the GOP or your country with your hateful, blind, and incorrect statements about McCain.

And about the Gan of 14. Instead of attacking McCain for it, you should thank him. He got Alito, Owen, Pryor, and Brown through the Senate. Without this deal, you'd have gotten NONE of them. And today, you'd have a Democratic Senate slamming the GOP with the same rule. The GOP would be unable to use the filibuster on issues important to them (see the Iraq war non-binding resolution). Bottom line: you should thank McCain for the Gang of 14. He did right for the GOP.

McCain is the right man for 2008.

nobody got enough "playing time" to really draw much of a conclusion. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney played like returning veterans, some of the others had their moments.

Paul troubles me the way Libertarians often do; there's just enough truth in what they say that you can't dismiss them out of hand. Prosecutor that he is, Guiliani sprung for the opening he was given and made a powerful emotional appeal. That said, who here can deny that British and American policy in the Middle East has been heavy handed and often ham-fisted for the last century and more. That doesn't justify flying airplanes into buildings, but it does go at least some way towards explaining it. I'm of the belief that radical Muslims would seek expansion into the non-Muslim world anyway, but we and the Brits and the French have given them reasons beyond religious ideology to do so. Realpolitk doesn't bother me, but you must understand that it may have consequences.

Some here have attacked Hunter for his seeming pro-union or protectionist stance on American manufacturing fleeing to foreign soil. OK, I'm not much on either unions or protectionism, but who here can deny that at some point we face a serious lack of manufacturing capacity and a serious dependency on sources that may not be friendly to us. Today it is oil, tomorrow it might be steel plate, or who knows what; some level of domestic manufacture of basic materials seems to me necessary to our national security.

In Vino Veritas

And that may not be much, a leftie's take on the debate, which I watched twice.

Huckabee cleaned the rest of their clocks. He's definitely among the group whose basic platform holds almost no appeal for me, so it surprises me to come to the conclusion that he could win the general election (though I don't think he will). He seemed, by far, the most optimistic of the bunch. He sound bites with the best of them. He gave concise, compelling, honest and well thought-out answers. He seemed comfortable and well prepared, and he was just generally likeable, even when he gave answers that indicate he would support policies that I'd find repellent.

It's a mystery to me that anyone could think Giulliani scored major points with his response to Paul about 9/11. I've actually always had a bit of a soft spot for Giulliani, but that response was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of those feelings. It was so predictable, and his outrage read as so incredibly put on. Even while Paul was saying what he said, I was trying to guess which one of them was going to jump in with their faux-outrage and call him a blame America firster. But, of course, I knew it would be Giulliani, because, really, it would have to be, wouldn't it. Plus, he doesn't even seem to be able to give coherent voice to his position on abortion. And he's got syntax problems that annoy me.

Brownback ... blah. He was about as charasmatic and interesting as the puddles of milk my daughter leaves on the table after breakfast. I don't care how much of a purist the guy is, I just can't see how that guy gets the nomination in a field that includes Huckabee.

Romney. Oh how I hope for Romney to get the nomination. He comes across as a poor man's rightish wing (maybe) whatever you people think of Bill Clinton. His "well, I support No Child Left Behind" answer in response to the "what change of heart have you had that would not endear you to the base" question was the debate equivalent of the classic job interview blunder: "What's my greatest fault? Well, sometimes I'm too much of a perfectionist." Get outa here! No job for you. Or your hair.

McCain did fine, which is probably all he needs to do right now. And he didn't look like a doddering old coot, which he looks like more and more these days.

Ron Paul? Well, every party needs their Mike Gravel. For a little while. He obviously doesn't belong there, but it's more reasonable to see him on a presidential debate stage than, say, Al Sharpton or Pat Robertson. I think you guys should be happy to have him on the stage. He can't win, but he certainly helps to prop up the "big tent" theory.

Tommy Thompson looked like he might eat my child.

Anyway, you guys have plenty of people who worry me, at least at this stage: Giulliani, McCain, Fred Thompson. And now, I think you should recognize that Huckabee is a star.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you. My overall feelings on all the debates is that their is no true winner, if the candidates were narrowed down to 4 or so we would see one coming out on top.

I believe that Giuliani really shined last night and he was able to show his strength. When he lashed back at Ron Paul you saw an emotion in him that few candidates are able to show to a national audience.

I also think that McCain hurt Romney by calling him out on his election year position changes, at least he hit him harder than Romney hit McCain.
---------------------
Reuben A. Ingber
Founder, Informed Students

But I still think he looked presidential.

Agreed on Huckabee, but I think McCain and Guiliani faired well overall.

Ron Paul needs to be voted off the island.

My folks are pretty conservative, vote GOP every time, etc, but aren't into the nitty gritty redstate level of discourse.

There positive impressions were of Rudy and Romney. They didn't watch the whole debate though, just the first half, but then, there were probably a good number of those people as well.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

I watched the debate last night and think that Mike Huckabee needs to be looked at as a serious candidate. His answers were dead on and they spoke volumes about the way he would preside if elected president. Govenor Huckabee did not apologize for any of his decisions and did not need to restate or reaffirm his conservative credentials.

There is some talk about limiting the number of participants in future debates. I belive the only current candidate that needs to be left off the list is Ron Paul. What a WACKO!