It’d been a while since the so-called ‘top tier’ Republican candidates gathered to debate, so the latest event in Michigan came together with more anticipation than most of the previous gatherings (the last ‘full field’ debate was in New Hampshire on September 5th). 

 
Going in, you probably figured this would be the one GOP presidential forum where the candidates would agree on most of the issues presented, and that’s the way it turned out, as ‘The economy and you’ theme was very much a chance for the candidates to try and shore up their fiscal conservative credentials required of any candidate for the Republican Party (at least post-George W. Bush, who confirmed that ‘compassionate conservatism’ really means unlocking the federal treasury and unleashing its power).

 
Fred Thompson took the stage for the first time alongside his opponents, and although he didn’t appear nervous, he also lived up to his under-whelming status as a political candidate. His answers to many questions lacked depth or clarity, and his reputation for being less-than-enthusiastic was not aided by a lackluster personal manner against men who’d been on stage together numerous times and appeared very comfortable with each other – almost congenial, even amongst rivals.

 
This event was almost like a Democratic debate, where they never say anything ‘mean’ about each other, especially Hillary Clinton.

 
That same ‘niceness’ could even be said of Tom Tancredo, who often succumbs to a ‘deer in the headlights’ look when asked about anything other than illegal immigration. Tancredo’s finding a niche as the anti-Republican establishment candidate, which helps set him apart from the field.

 
The debate was moderated by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, with additional questions contributed by CNBC’s John Harwood and Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal. There weren’t any silly interruptions for questions from the audience, no queries from snowmen or even breaks to talk with debate-watchers at nearby restaurants. The questions came fast and furious, and though these formats don’t provide any candidate a chance to answer anything thoroughly, a wide range of subjects were addressed and viewers could get at least some sense on where the competitors stood on very important issues.

 
The moderators went out of their way to ensure that Fred Thompson received an opportunity to make up for lost time, as he was given the first question of the debate, and often led off a string where the others were offered a chance to follow-up on his answers. It’s almost as if the TV folks were playing to those who wanted to see Thompson, or perhaps it was a cruel strategy to throw him to the lions in his first national appearance, but there wasn’t anyone who was more watched during the two hours of time than big Fred.

 
Chris Matthews is a known liberal and his high-pitched whiney voice is enough to get on anyone’s nerves, yet he’s entertaining and I didn’t think any of his questions were unfair.

 
Several of the candidates went out of their way to attack Hillary Clinton, as popular opinion amongst Republicans assumes that she’s going to be the Democratic nominee – which makes her easy pickings in a setting where she’s not there to defend herself. Rudy Giuliani, by far, takes the most shots at Hillary, as if he’s already assumed he’ll be facing her next year.

 
Winners and losers

 
Losers first. Fred Thompson was the biggest loser of this debate, despite the fact that expectations of him were so low, it would be hard for him to underachieve to the point where he could ‘lose’ anything. But he did. 

 
About the only thing that Fred won was the title of ‘tallest candidate on stage.’

 
For example, Maria Bartilomo asked Fred to name specifics on how he would reform Social Security and Medicare. Talk about a situation where he could have rattled off any number of proposals and made them sound impressive, but instead Thompson bumbled through several sentences about how we’re spending our kids’ money, and that we need to grow the economy in order to fix the problem. 

 
It was a lofted softball question where the tall Tennesseean completely whiffed – and that’s not the only opportunity he passed up. Given the chance over and over to say something substantive, he devolved into politician-speak that made little sense and didn’t serve to do anything other than warm the bellies of people already supporting him.

 
Thompson’s been heavily criticized for his failures to give details on the campaign trail, and this debate was no great awakening for him in that regard. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, which affirmed what the press has been writing about him, and was kind of sad at the same time – at least it must have been for some people.

 
He also didn’t fill out his allotted time to answer the questions – and considering that it’s hard to describe any policy in less than a minute, when he deferred time to others, it simply appeared as if he didn’t have anything to say.

 
I think most people would try hard to admire Thompson. Though we’ve examined his record and discovered that he’s not really a conservative, you can’t help but like his movies (if only he were in real life like he was in ‘In the Line of Fire’), he’d make a strong and great leader. Or at least you’d think he had a pulse.

 
But the ‘real’ Fred Thompson doesn’t have much spark, and doesn’t pass even the most basic presidential test: ‘Can you see him behind the presidential seal, addressing questions from the press and having to present a governing vision for the country for at least four years?’ Um, no. Not even for four minutes, Fred.

 
Sadly to say, Mike Huckabee wasn’t very impressive either. Huckabee is a champion in the social conservative setting, as he’s 100% credible on life issues and being a Baptist Minister, you haven’t a doubt that he’s sincere in his beliefs. But if there’s a set of issues where Huckabee falls short, it’s his fiscal record – and his answers in Michigan only made those concerns more apparent. 

 
Huckabee’s constant appeals to the populist constituency are appealing and effective, but when he was asked if he would do as George W. Bush did and veto the S-CHIP bill, he wouldn’t confirm that he would follow up on one of the few things that George W. Bush has offered conservatives. Is this the soft under-belly of ANOTHER liberal spending candidate?

 
Would Huckabee just introduce the next round of massive federal spending initiatives? 

 
Huckabee also couldn’t adequately explain the ‘Fair Tax,’ which would eliminate the IRS and institute a national sales tax in place of federal income and payroll taxes. The whole idea sounds nice, but even on a conceptual level it has massive problems (at least from an administrative sense), and Huckabee couldn’t speak to it.

 
Many conservatives have supported Huckabee since the beginning, truly liking the candidate personally, but there are many doubts around him because he smells surprisingly strongly like George W. Bush, and that’s one musky scent that conservatives can’t tolerate any longer than mid-January of 2009.

 
Sam Brownback also continues to un-impress. The most notable thing Brownback said was his championing of a three-state solution in Iraq, which he happens to share with Democratic Senator Joe Biden – to the point that he’s promoting a campaign stop where the both of them will speak to the issue.

 
George W. Bush has spent the last six and a half years trying to appease Democrats, so why would we want someone to succeed Bush who cares what Democrats think? Brownback’s another candidate who you want to support, but you just can’t. He sealed the deal when he said he would support the GOP candidate no matter what, tossing the pro-life issue to the side.

 

 
Clearly, Mitt Romney. Romney exudes credibility on fiscal issues, having served his entire life as a successful business leader in the private sector. On some of these things, when Mitt speaks, people listen.

 
In addition to Romney’s ability to articulate on a knowledgeable fiscal level, he appeared very comfortable in this role, making jokes about the other candidates, clarifying his record, and propping up his accomplishments. Romney talked about trade issues with authority, and said he’s the only candidate intimately familiar with the business world when it comes to protectionism versus free trade.

 
When Romney isn’t dodging his numerous flip-flops on social issues, he actually sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. And his joke at the end of the debate about Fred Thompson and ‘Law and Order’ revealed a side of Mitt that we really hadn’t seen before. His overly polished, wooden appearance is beginning to give way to a more ‘human’ side that you can see leading the country.

 
Here’s one conservative who doubts that he’d ever vote for Romney, and further doubts that Romney could beat Hillary, but for the first time, you can see where the ex-Massachusetts Governor could at least articulate a conservative vision against the Hillary forces. You go, Mitt.

 
John McCain was his usual self, throwing in one-liners and taking advantage of a message that he’s polished for years on the stump. McCain won Michigan in 2000 and seemed very comfortable. His fiscal record is fairly solid, and his weakest policy areas (immigration and campaign finance reform) weren’t examined in this debate. 

 
‘Honorable mention’ to Tom Tancredo. This debate was by far his best showing, as he wasn’t afraid to put some distance between himself and the party establishment, which was VERY refreshing. Tancredo said he wouldn’t rubber-stamp the GOP nominee, and it’s about time that someone other than Ron Paul said what most conservatives are thinking.

 
Tancredo said he would take the pledge not to raise taxes, but then quickly shifted the discussion to entitlement reform, expressing a willingness to take on the political ‘third rail,’ the sort of truth-to-power guts that this country needs.

 
Ron Paul had another good performance, but was rarely given a chance to speak. Paul is truly a libertarian’s candidate, but his message isn’t clearly understood to anyone other than the most die-hard of political followers. Paul’s presence is vital to continue to put forward ideas, but it’s time to forget the notion that he’ll ever figure prominently in the GOP – or any nationally viable party – in the presidential nominating race.

Paul’s at the point where his foreign policy views seem less shocking to the party base, but when he starts discussing monetary policy and the gold standard, those sitting at the kitchen table in Iowa begin to lose track of his message. Paul deserves credit for saying what needs to be said, but he just doesn’t have the presence to be president.

 
Rudy Giuliani also performed well. Rudy gives the impression that he knows what he’s talking about when discussing taxation, budgets and trade – and in this setting, he was free, at least for one night, from questions involving his bugaboo social stances. From a fiscal standpoint, Giuliani might be acceptable.

 
But the world’s not flat, and we know in the back of our minds that Rudy believes what he believes. He’s a ‘big tent’ Republican that’s acceptable for membership in the party, but not as its standard bearer.

 
Duncan Hunter also made a number of good points, especially in discussing the trade deficit and relations with China. He’s a good man with a solid record on many issues that conservatives care about, but there are stature problems with Hunter that he’s unable to overcome. In the mean world of presidential politics, Hunter’s too nice a guy.

 
Was anything resolved?

 
It’s fair to say that the Michigan GOP debate didn’t really solve the question on whom, if any, to support amongst the Republican Party’s candidates. But these forums are serving a purpose in helping to narrow the field, and we’re getting to know their personalities as well as painting a clearer picture on where they stand.

 
Most conservatives have expressed apprehension in discussing these candidates, and that trepidation will continue – there isn’t a Ronald Reagan (or a Barry Goldwater) in this field. Our best hope is that things will continue to evolve to a point where we won’t feel like we’re once again supporting the lesser of two ‘evils.’ 

 
Will that happen? I’m not sure. The only thing that results from continuing to watch these debates is a sense that you can see some of these men occupying the White House and not get that ‘uh-oh, what have we done’ feeling.