We conservatives went into Thursday night’s Republican Party presidential debate with a wary eye, hopeful to find something about the current crop of GOP candidates that we could adopt as our own. Unfortunately, we didn’t get it.

 
Instead, we were served sample after sample of the same warmed-over candidate-speak with very few new ideas mixed in to temper the bitter aftertaste of George W. Bush-ism.

 
It’s been said that the only true cure for a hangover is time, but unfortunately, not even time can assuage the pain from listening to these big government proponents talk. There were some debate participants with solid conservative voting records, but they’re not viable candidates. And there were some participants who are viable candidates, but they’re not conservatives.

 
Pass the Advil and wait until noon, and maybe the pain will go away.

 
The clear ‘winner’ of the debate appeared to be Mitt Romney, partially because he looked the part and could put sentences together in a coherent fashion. It’s not easy speaking in front of adversaries, to a camera and millions of people looking on, but Romney seemed at ease in the setting.

 
But missing in Romney’s presentation was a Reagan-esque humility and deference to conservative ideals of limited government and individual liberty.

 
Romney missed his best opportunity to articulate a vision, when he was asked ‘what do you dislike most about America?’ Here was a chance to really lay some conservative concrete, decrying the state of government predominance in our world -- but instead Romney put a slick, non-memorable answer and the moment just died. 

 
The balance of the ‘big three’ candidates, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, appeared to be out of their element. Maybe it was the aura of Ronald Reagan present as the men faced the former president’s Air Force One 707 that delivered the conservative icon to hundreds of meaningful meetings around the world – but Giuliani fumbled for words from the opening question, and once the conversation turned from Iraq, McCain didn’t really know what to say. He failed to address the immigration question when prompted, instead turning to a diatribe on Iran that wasn’t asked for.

 
Giuliani took the prize for mentioning Reagan the most – perhaps trying to cast the illusion that he’s a conservative. It was clear that the former mayor was trying to sound presidential on foreign policy, and to find a middle ground on abortion, but didn’t make convincing points on either.

 
You had to feel for Giuliani, however, since he’s trying to cram an entire career’s worth of liberal governance into something that sounds conservative. He looked great five and a half years ago wearing a Yankee baseball cap at the World Series after September 11th, but put him in a suit and ask him to articulate a conservative message, and he’s simply unable to talk. Unfortunately for him, he can’t hide from his record and his past statements.

 
McCain took an early opportunity to dig at Democrat Harry Reid for his ‘the war is lost’ comment in the Senate. Kudos for drawing the distinction in a way that might gain McCain favor, but there doesn’t appear to be any new plan in McCain’s briefcase for altering the course of the War in Iraq – saying only that the Bush Administration’s ‘surge’ policy is the right one.

 
Former George W. Bush Administration member Tommy Thompson presented the most compelling ‘plan’ for Iraq, suggesting a three-point plan. First, offer an ultimatum to the Iraqi government; then mandate a form of federalism for the Iraqi territories; and finally, divide the oil proceeds amongst the different governing entities and the people themselves. If the debate had ended after the first third of the time devoted almost entirely to foreign policy, Thompson might have made some people notice him.

 
He didn’t have much to offer conservatives the rest of the way, however. As Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bush, Thompson was instrumental in passing the bloated federal prescription drug benefit. Once again, another example of one’s record coming back to haunt him. For those who know Thompson, he’s no conservative, having left Wisconsin with a huge deficit.

 
Texas Congressman Ron Paul made several salient points, appearing steadfast in his opposition to the War in Iraq. Paul argued for a foreign policy of non-intervention, clearly representing one conservative view, but failed to persuade on how non-intervention would protect our country from attack.

 
Ronald Reagan was not an isolationist, and if the conservative standard is ‘peace through strength,’ then merely not intervening won’t accomplish anything. Paul’s libertarian view was similar to many of the Founding Fathers, but some things do change over the course of time. We can’t ignore problems when they’re minutes away, and oceans don’t provide the security they once did.   

 
Congressman Duncan Hunter gave probably the best answer concerning immigration, claiming that he ‘built’ the border fence in San Diego – and would extend it for the rest of the porous border with Mexico. Where Hunter failed conservatives was his inability to explain how the Republican Congress fell short on spending – when asked, he called himself a ‘compassionate conservative,’ then changed the subject.

 
If being ‘compassionate’ means spending trillions of dollars, then Hunter’s compassion shouts from the mountaintops. Here was a chance for Hunter to explain that being conservative already provides compassion for every individual by allowing him the freedom to make his own economic choices. Conservatism is inherently ‘compassionate’ because it promotes liberty. Instead, Hunter left the question to address the Iran situation.

 
Senator Sam Brownback was a virtual no-show. His strongest appeal is to social conservatives, yet he used a version of the ‘big tent’ party philosophy to say he could support a pro-abortion candidate for the party nominee. Does this mean he’s running for vice president? 

 
Brownback also borrowed Giuliani’s ‘my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy’ line – attributing it to Ronald Reagan. The problem is, Reagan scholars can’t remember the president ever saying such a thing -- and besides, there’s no such animal as an ’80 percent’ conservative in the first place. 

 
Brownback missed his chance to distinguish himself.

 
Governor Mike Huckabee was probably the strongest of the lower-tier candidates, coming through as someone who’s honest, faithful and forthright. Huckabee said faith governs everyone’s decision making, and made no apologies for it. His biggest misstep occurred when he was asked about Global Warming, answering that our citizens have a Boy Scout-like duty to ‘leave the earth as we found it.’ This was a chance for Huckabee to separate himself from the McCain-ish wishy-washy position on climate change, but he didn’t take it.

 
Huckabee also failed to deliver a ‘letter grade’ on the Bush Administration, which was a means of separating himself from a very unpopular and incompetent president. George W. Bush is not a conservative, has never governed as a conservative, and these candidates all missed the mark in failing to make the case on how Bush has failed America and the conservative cause.

 
Two other candidates took part – Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Gilmore was by far the worst of all the candidates, mostly from the standpoint that he wouldn’t address any of the questions, couldn’t articulate a pro-life abortion stance, and didn’t seem very likeable. Gilmore hasn’t held office in over five years, isn’t known outside of Virginia, and left me wondering ‘why is he there?’

 
Tancredo is the truest conservative in the candidate field, yet when he’s asked about anything other than immigration, he looks nervous and unprepared to answer. Tancredo can’t go to the voters with a copy of his voting record, and if he can’t articulate conservatism, he isn’t the spokesman that conservatives need. Tancredo should stick to hammering the illegal immigration issue.

 
In fairness to the candidates, none of them were given time to fully expand on their ideas in a debate format with ten candidates and only ninety minutes. What was especially disappointing for all the candidates was their lack of interest in addressing the citizen questions coming from the readers of Politico.com.

 
Some of the questions bordered on the ridiculous, including asking Tancredo how we would address the scarcity of organ transplants. Tancredo side-stepped the question, and in that instance, it was justified.

 
But in all, there was simply too much side-stepping of the conservative agenda in the first GOP debate. These candidates only seem to be continuing in the George W. Bush tradition of ignoring the issues that are vital for America’s future – there needs to be an added emphasis on freedom and limited government, the very essence of what Ronald Reagan stood for.

 
Where’s the voice for limited government? Where’s the voice for the ‘shining city on a hill?’ Where’s the voice for individual empowerment? Where’s the voice for government accountability?