Redstate

Trying to figure out what the rock song by Heart had to do with Hugh's loyalty to Romney.

Look- can't we not attack our friends and allies with snarky remarks just because of which Republican they support for President. I mean it's not like he's supporting Hillary or something.

I thought Thompson, Romney, and Guiliani all did well.

on the debate that is: Guiliani and Romney won hands down.

As for Harriet Miers, I am and was with you, Erick.

continues to look very, very strong.

As Kathryn suggests, conservatives should give the senator a second look.

Strong on national security and a solid free-market conservative - a commander in chief who will ensure that the government doesn't get in the way of economic growth and job creation.

I don't see that combination in any of the other Republican contenders.

P.S.- Whether to take action against a threat to our national security should never ever be a decision that's punted to the "lawyers.". Wow.

Thompson won by doing what he had to do: show that he's not a lightweight, that he's there and wants to be a force.

Late in the debate, he underscored that this thing didn't start to her began running by saying that the debates before him were uneventful. And after Romney tried to be clever with that Law and Order line, Thompson expressed what some folks seem to be thinking: that's Romney is acting.

Rudy was on his game. On the split-screens with Rudy and Thompson, Mitt was blinking with the expression of a frat boy caught in the headlights.

To be honest, I wasn't aware that McCain was in the house.

When Romney invoked Reagan, I almost reacted badly. This is just so wrong.

And in in keeping with the other thread, if he's as loyal as Bellatrix, shouldn't he be supporting Ron Paul?

On that note, I'm restarting Book Seven again. One of these times the climax to the battle scene will make sense.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

isn't supporting Romney or not calling it for Fred (he does say its a 3-way race between Mitt, Rudy, and Fred, and he's also wrong there), its his total dismissiveness of McCain, and his blind wishfulness that his campaign doesn't even exist.

If we're endorsing radio hosts' analyses, I agree with Michael Medved thay there were 4 great candidates up there: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani (though I've been upfront in saying I can't support Rudy, there's no question he is a strong and respectable candidate). He very pointedly left Fred out, saying we'd have to wait and see if he's a worthy candidate.

He clearly showed he is a force to be reckoned with. This debate, though Fred's first, was not an outright win, but I did not see anyone else who was the hands down winner, instead the Rudy and Mitt quarrel grabbed a lot of attention, and with all eyes on Fred to see if he fell of his "rocker" he obviously did well. Don't draw comparisons to his TV experience, you get as many takes as you want on TV and you get to memorize and practice lines. He may have been nervous at first tonight, but he finished very strong.

Let's keep in mind the value of the "one-liners" in these debates. We remember, "$400 haircut" right?

I think we will remember "I thought I was the best actor" and though he closed with a great line with "was getting boring without me" it was actually his snipe at Chris Matthews which may not have been heard by all "I wasn't asking for your opinion... Christopher" that re-sold Fred to me. Wonder what he will say to Mamoud Admadinejad? "Now you listen to me you silly little...!"

Fred is obviously not going to be intimidated by the more polished debaters. He seemed to do his best tonight when he did not have the ability to prepare... like the one-liners or the question about Canada.

I'm not a Romney supporter at all, but expect some sort of clarification from the campaign about the lawyer comment. I wonder if he meant to refer to "advisors" or something of that extent.

No need for Romney to offer an explanation - he was dead clear on what he would do when faced with a decision during a time of war. He would consult his attorneys first before making a decision to attack Iran !

Thats exactly what Bill Clinton did when he had the opportunity to capture Bin Ladin. Clinton's excuse for letting OBL slip away was due to the fact that his attorneys claimed it would have been illegal to apprehend Bin Ladin.

The stakes are too high in 2008 - what we don't need is another commander in chief who needs to run his foreign policy decisions through an attorney screening process before he decides which way to go on defending our nation.

I'm not an agent, I just write books

Half the country probably didn't even know there WAS a debate. And even to people tuning in, what exactly are we learning that we didn't already know? Even in a general election debate between 2 candidates you rarely find out anything interesting. In one that has 10 people on stage, you'd need 6 hours to get anything out of them. I can get more information listening to a stump speech.

Until the debate organizers start growing some and set some standards for inclusion in these things, I don't consider them worth the airtime they take up. Future debates should have a polling threshhold. A candidate should have to show 5% support either nationally or within the state hosting. It is late enough in the election season that it is unrealistic for folks that have been running for almost 9 months but who still can't find 5% support somewhere to expect to be treated seriously. That would likely limit any debate to a maximum of 6 people (at the moment - likely fewer as we get farther in) - a much more manageable and informative number (though still somewhat large).

Consulting attorneys may very well have been what got us into this mess.