The Republican Party’s 2008 presidential hopefuls met again in South Carolina, and though some did better, others not as well, there still wasn’t much to distinguish any of them in their second go-around.

 
Here are some debate observations from one conservative’s point-of-view:

 
First off, I didn't find offense with the first debate format, or even the questions from Chris Matthews.  Matthews went 'down the line' with a stock question for each candidate, which in many ways was a good way of separating the candidates from each other.

 
There wasn't any 'down the line' questioning from FOX News, but I found the questions more direct in this debate.  By and large there were good questions, though the first 'round' of queries on Iraq were largely irrelevant.  Every candidate's answer, except for Ron Paul was largely an articulation of 'stay the course' that's already going on.  Paul made a good point in that the war should have been declared, as the Constitution would require.  Paul scored some points here... but went backwards later.

 
I liked the 'breaks' in the debate – they gave everyone a chance to rest, and helped to quell the monotony experienced in the first debate.

 
Winners?  No clear winner here.  There were some funny lines, mostly delivered from Mike Huckabee and John McCain, but unlike the first debate, there wasn't any candidate who really stood out.

 
Losers? None, though Ron Paul probably didn’t win many friends with his answer to the terrorism question, even suggesting that America was to ‘blame’ for being ‘over there’ and bombing Iraq for ten years. It's a shame, because I think Ron Paul's stances on domestic issues are probably the closest to what I believe.  I'm not sure I agree with him on foreign policy, but his thoughts on the role of government are spot on. 

 
Paul might be right about the Islamic worldview, as far as fostering a mindset in the Middle East, but the voting public isn't going to stand for a candidate who suggests that the terrorists were 'right' to attack us because of what we're doing 'over there.'

 
Ron Paul would be wise to issue a clarification on the matter, if he hasn’t done so already, explaining in detail what he meant. 

 
Here's a breakdown of each candidate -- which is hard, because no one really distinguished themselves...

 
John McCain -- McCain has a lot to answer for.  He did a credible job in explaining away his 'liberal' stances, but his Iraq policies just sound so canned.  A few of the other candidates have at least come up with some alternatives to the present Iraq strategy, but McCain doesn't offer anything new.  McCain's a good politician, however, and his dig on Romney (as far as staying 'consistent') was hilarious.  There are no traces of his legendary temper.  His answer on the confederate flag was a cop-out.  It's hard to say where McCain is trying to come from -- he seems to want to be all things to all people.  I liked his answer on torture -- and with his personal history, he's believable.  Did he make up ground?  No.  I didn't see a single thing that he offered to conservatives or otherwise that would say 'this is the guy.'

 
Tommy Thompson – He should drop out.  He's an embarrassment up on the stage.  Thompson was given a great opportunity to cite programs that he would cut, and stumbled through a pathetic answer about his record as governor of Wisconsin.  Then he was asked again to name ONE program he would cut, and the former secretary of HHS couldn't even name ONE specific program.  This guy takes up time that could be used for other candidates to talk.  He's embarrassing.

 
Mitt Romney – Romney seemed to really make ground in the first debate, but didn't do much in South Carolina.  He was asked about his flip-flopping on taxes and other issues, and gave some decent answers -- but the most damage to Romney came from the digs of other candidates.  Romney looks the part, and that may be his strongest asset.  He doesn't have enough political 'experience' to cut into him too much, though he did explain that he was governor of the 'bluest' of states, which was effective.  He did say later on that he was in favor of 'No child left behind,' so we know he's a big government supporter.  He looks good, but can't be trusted...  who knows what he would do if elected.  He's a GOP version of Bill Clinton.

 
Sam Brownback -- Did better than the first debate, yet still has nothing that distinguishes him.  I liked his answer on 'life,' where he said he wouldn't support an abortion in cases of rape or incest, but other than that, what did he say that you remember?  His answer on energy was pretty good -- he did mention that we need to address the oil supply issue, including drilling in ANWAR.  I can't understand why this issue doesn't get more play amongst the American public, but Brownback did a decent job in answering this question -- including his suggestion of ethanol, which should play in Iowa.  He's running for Vice President, I think.

 
Rudy Giuliani -- Made major points with his 'retort' to Ron Paul on the terrorist attack, but still has a stature problem.  Time after time, he's trying to touch on his 'security' experience in New York City, but there's more to life than a few days in September six years ago...  He's not believable on fiscal responsibility, wouldn't address the question on his liberal policy stances... He came across better than in the first debate, but he's not presidential, his 'lisp' is distracting, and isn't very 'deep' as a candidate, when you get past the 9/11/01 issue.  He did say that the Democrats are the ones to attack -- give him some credit for that.  Giuliani idn't improve his stance -- I still don't understand why anyone would support him.

 
Tom Tancredo -- Did better than the first debate, seemed less nervous.  Tancredo said there were 'conversions' on the stage tonight (road to Demascus vs. road to Des Moines), and I liked his answer on fiscal discipline -- said the Republicans have lost their way on spending.  He said 'if you voted for the federal drug bill, or no child left-behind, are you a fiscal conservative?'  These are good points, though is it enough to distinguish him from the others?  You wonder why he's there, because he carries absolutely no weight, despite his excellent voting record.  Immigration isn't enough.  Tancredo is someone you want as a policy advisor, but do you want him sitting across from other world leaders in negotiating important foreign issues?  Nope.

 
Ron Paul -- I thought he was doing great up until the terrorist question.  His answer on Iraq was the only one that even hinted at doing something different.  He clearly differs with most of the GOP party voters, yet nothing he said would insult people.  Ditto for his answer on changing the attitudes of people on government spending.  But as noted above, when he said that we're in trouble with the world because of our actions in the Middle East, he comes across like Dennis Kucinich.  Paul's great as a presenter of ideas, but he seems like he's his own worst enemy.  He reminds me of Linus (of Peanuts fame), where he's running ahead, yet can't help but mention the 'Great Pumpkin' because he personally believes in it.  Paul is not presidential, either, which is a shame, because there's a lot of room for his message.

 
Duncan Hunter -- Non-descript, except for his answer on the immigration question.  He keeps insisting that he 'built' the fence between San Diego and Mexico, and that his military experience makes him the guy to lead the country in the War on Terror.  I liked the fact that he was one of the few who would actually say the Bush Administration is slow in its response to illegal immigration, but there's very little else there that distinguishes him from the others.  He'd do a lot better by really hammering on Bush's 'betrayal' to conservatives in the last Congress -- but instead comes across as just one of the big spenders.  He was asked about what he'd do about the trade deficit in China, but was there anything he said that is memorable?  Blah blah blah.

 
Mike Huckabee -- Like the first debate, came across as believable and likeable.  I may be the only one in America, but this is one candidate who you want to believe -- he's got a good sense of humor, stands on firm ground, and doesn't make apologies.  He acknowledged that he raised taxes (which he's been heavily criticized for), but seemed to make a credible answer for why he did it.  Because of what I've heard about his fiscal policies, I probably couldn't support him -- but this type of 'common sense' candidate is something the party needs.  Every answer he gives seems sincere, and he gave the best 'zinger' of the night at the expense of John Edwards.  I don't see him gaining much in the election, but the party seems better off from having a person like Huckabee -- if for nothing else, he seems likeable.

 
Jim Gilmore -- Gilmore is most notable for his complete unwillingness to answer questions.  It's almost like 'Okay, Jim, why don't you just talk about anything you want to talk about, instead of addressing what I asked you?'  He tries to come across as tough on terrorism because of his experience as Governor of Virginia -- but do you really want this guy as your president?  The very fact he won't address any of the questions he's asked -- it's very distracting.  We still don't know anything about Gilmore, other than the fact he wants to avoid questioning... why is he there?  He was also given a golden opportunity to attack his opponents as 'Rudy McRomney,' and dropped the ball on that one as well.  Nice guys don't advance in politics -- and I don't even know if Gilmore is a nice guy, but he's not much for politics.

 
In other words, this 2nd debate didn't solve much more than the first debate.  It's great having all the candidates on the same stage, but if they're just going to spout the party line, what's the point?