I went into the third Republican debate hoping and expecting something different than the first two meetings – and I would have to say, was extremely disappointed. These ten Republicans are reaching the point where the party’s faithful are getting to know them better, and they need to start taking chances to stand out from the others.

 
That sense of ‘urgency’ was completely lacking in a pretty mundane two-hour debate in New Hampshire. The format was the same as it was for the Democrats two nights earlier, so most people were probably looking forward to the ‘break’ in the middle – I know I was.

 
It seems each one of these candidates lacks an ‘essential’ element to his persona. For some, it’s a lack of stature; for others, it’s a questionable record; for some, it’s a simple inability to articulate a confident set of conservative ideas – and for a couple, it’s all of the above.

 
There’s a lot not to like about someone like Newt Gingrich, but there’s also one thing that most conservatives would agree on – Gingrich’s got ideas, and an ability to talk about them in an engaging way. We may not agree with a particular position he’s taking, but Newt has a ‘gift’ and a presence to present them.

 
The same is true with Fred Thompson, though I don’t think he carries the ‘intellectual’ power of Gingrich.

 
The problem with the current group of candidates is they don’t immediately strike you as being overly intelligent – instead, they’re a group of pragmatic politicians. They’re not very ‘deep.’ Making things worse, their personalities get in the way – either being too forceful or too passive.

 
Debate winners? Always a loaded question when talking about debates, but using criteria of ‘who do you remember from the debate?’ (at least in a positive way), I’d have to say Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

 
Mike Huckabee because he seems the most genuine of the group, and fairly articulate as well.

 
McCain because he provided several memorable instances, especially with the young lady whose brother was killed in Iraq. McCain certainly didn’t win me over with the force of his ideas, and I’d still never vote for him, but looking at it objectively, he might’ve swayed some people last night.

 
Losers? Mitt Romney. Romney made a splash in California during the first debate, mostly with his excellent speaking talent and, for lack of a better way to put it, good looks. Now that we’ve had some time to get to know him a little bit, his explanations for his ‘flip-flops’ are starting to wear thin, and his answers to issues like health care just sound like poorly disguised big-government-speak.

 
Literally from the opening question, when he looked rattled over being asked: ‘Was it a mistake to invade Iraq?’ – he seemed unprepared to answer and afraid to confront the question right-on.

 
There were two particularly interesting moments in the debate – first, when Giuliani was asked about the Catholic Bishop’s letter, comparing his abortion stance to Pontius Pilate’s decision not to intervene to save Jesus -- only to have the mayor’s microphone cut out because of lightning! It was side-splitting hilarious watching Rudy's facial expressions, though the devoutly religious would probably have a different take on the humor of the moment. Giuliani did handle it well, but sometimes an ‘act of God’ can help make the point.

 
The other interesting exchange was when McCain was being questioned about his indefensible immigration stance, and he said ‘well, if you’ve got a better idea’ and all the candidates raised their hands! McCain deserves credit for standing on his beliefs, but that doesn’t mean everyone should buy into the ‘Cult of John McCain’ and make him king. 

 
There are certain things about McCain that you can’t help but like. As mentioned above, his answer to the young lady whose brother was killed in Iraq was truly inspirational. The fact that he walked forward to address her, then talked about his sacrifice in ‘higher’ terms – wow, that was probably the emotional apex of the evening. McCain personal history carries with it an instant credibility in these types of emotional exchanges… but then he always provides you with reality-checks when he discusses his ‘maverick’ stances. Why don’t they ask him about his stonewalling on approving judicial nominees?

 
And despite the obvious political opportunities to do so, Tom Tancredo’s the only one who seems willing to criticize George W. Bush outright, even calling him a liberal. The top-tier candidates don’t have the guts to do that, even if they talk continuously about Bush’s spending and against earmarks. 

 
Every time I think the lower-tier candidates (except for Paul) should be excluded from these debates, I reconsider, because they’re the ones who speak freely. You had to love Tancredo’s dig on Karl Rove and the Bush White House. The good news for Tancredo is -- after this debate, he can probably look forward to doubling his poll numbers… The bad news is, that might bring him up to 1% total. He no longer looks like a deer in the headlights (like the first debate), but he still doesn’t have the gift of articulation that a candidate needs to make an impression on someone – especially when they’re only given a few seconds to make someone like them.

 
American voters, as they’ve proved over and over, have somewhat short attention spans. You can tell that by the turnout numbers in elections, but you also know that 99% of people are not going to do a lot of research on someone’s voting record. The only chance that these men have is to express some personality along with articulating some sort of ‘vision.’ The fact that Mike Huckabee has a good sense of humor and an engaging personality is a big advantage for him – even his opening ‘introductory’ line, where he said ‘I’m from Hope, Arkansas… give us one more chance.” It’s funny, but it also makes a point in a short amount of time. The Sam Brownbacks, Jim Gilmores and Tommy Thompsons of this race just don’t have the talent. And when you ‘measure’ these guys against the stature of someone like Fred Thompson, they’re going to virtually disappear.

 
Even Duncan Hunter, who carries more of a presence than Brownback, Gilmore or Thompson – is there anything notable about him? He’s got a pretty decent conservative voting record, is a veteran and has a son in Afghanistan (after serving two tours in Iraq), but when you get over who he is, what can you remember about him? He waited until the final moments of the debate to start criticizing the ‘big three’ candidates. If he was going to try and paint them as liberals or flip-floppers, why did he wait until most people were already asleep or waiting to switch over to FOX News to see what Fred Thompson had to say?

 
What might be interesting, if some media entity was willing to sponsor it, would be to have a two-hour debate, but split up the candidates into smaller groups. Three (or four) candidates each for a 35 minute sequence debating each other -- then bring them all together for fifteen minutes, and give them each an opportunity to articulate a ‘vision’ for the country.  Or, as has been suggested by conservativesbetrayed.com, a one-on-one debate segment between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani on foreign policy, which would represent the ideological extremes of the candidate field (you can even sign a petition for it at:  www.aREALdebate.com ).

 

 
Romney gave a good response when he was asked about being Mormon, making no ‘apologies’ for it, but there are aspects of the Mormon Church that would still be very disturbing to a portion of the electorate. I think until Romney can come up with a way to ‘explain’ what it means to be Mormon (if indeed he can), the issue will continue to follow him throughout the campaign. And if he won’t try to ‘educate’ people on it, the media will be more than happy to do the work for him (assuming he wins the nomination), and I doubt he’ll like what they’ll come up with. 

 
People are naturally apprehensive about something they don’t understand – and comparing his situation to Kennedy and Catholicism in the 60’s – it’s not really the same thing. There may have always been a ‘suspicion’ between Protestants and Catholics, but it wasn’t rooted out of not ‘understanding’ what the other faith was about. On the contrary, people don’t know much about Mormons other than there are a lot of them in Utah and every once in a while, young men in suits on bicycles come to the door to hand them the Book of Mormon.

 
The ‘shock’ over Ron Paul’s foreign policy views has entirely subsided – and he was able to speak without any condemnation on what he believes. Towards the end of the debate he cited the $1 trillion a year that we’re spending abroad fighting wars, but then said that money’s needed right here at home for education and health care…? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that word-for-word what the Democrats are saying? 

 
Paul gets credit from just about everyone -- including the audience, based on applause – for his willingness to stand up for non-intervention. But where he does a poor job (as a Congressman with an excellent record on spending) is articulating the libertarian message that Ronald Reagan was so effective in getting across. Paul can’t win on his foreign policy beliefs alone, and his lack of pounding the Jeffersonian limited government ideal is somewhat disappointing after three debates (granted, he isn’t given a whole lot of time). Paul also comes across as a bit of a curmudgeon… and I’m guessing people would be more attracted to someone who smiles once in a while (even if that has a tendency to get us in trouble, but nobody wants to go to a party with a room full of disgruntled old grouches). Everybody’s model candidates, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (yes, yuck), caught on with people because their personalities came through, and they were someone that ‘average’ people could relate to. Paul’s not in that category.

 
Maybe it’s just me, but I thought Mike Huckabee’s answer on the evolution question was one of the best answers in any of the three debates. The fact that he pointed out that one’s views on evolution have very little to do with being president – but then articulated an excellent and learned answer on the subject itself… it was a great moment in the debate. Up until that time, the popular culture had been trying to portray him as a religious fanatic who would dare to question evolution theory – his answer in New Hampshire should take care of that. 

 
Even Huckabee’s ‘stadium’ analogy for immigration was a good way to synopsize the issue – ‘if you want to come in, you’ve got to have a ticket.’ That type of sincerity is rare in politicians, and explains why Huckabee is gaining some attention in the race. He doesn’t have the money or name recognition to compete with the top tier, which is kind of a shame. From a ‘like-ability’ standpoint, he’s the best candidate on stage.

 
As I’ve said before, Jim Gilmore makes absolutely no impact on stage, either with presence, record, articulation, stature or offering any ideas that really make you stand back and say ‘hey, that’s an interesting way to phrase that issue.’ Gilmore was given a chance during the debate to group Fred Thompson in there with ‘Rudy McRomney,’ and again, failed to take the chance to make a ‘moment.’ Someone like Gilmore, who nobody knows anything about, would be wise to take on the Bush Administration – didn’t he have some real differences with the Bushies when he was Chairman of the RNC? Why won’t he talk about that? It’s no wonder Gilmore can’t raise any money, because he’s essentially taking up space on the stage, and the air goes out of the room whenever the commentators come up with a good question and it goes to him…

 
I found it interesting that CNN, for both debates, grouped all the ‘tiered’ candidates together. Hillary, Obama and Edwards were all next to each other, and Mike Gravel, who no one’s ever heard of, was on the side of the stage where the camera wouldn’t catch much of a glimpse of him. Likewise, CNN put Tancredo on one ‘edge’ and Ron Paul on the other… and there was certainly a disproportionate balance in questions for the candidates in the center as opposed to the ‘extremes.’ 

 
Tommy Thompson must feel slighted, since he hardly ever gets asked anything of consequence, and even commented that he was glad to FINALLY get a question on health care. Thompson is another candidate with zero chance of getting the nomination, but if they’re not going to really go after him, then why is he there? Even Tancredo was thrown some softballs on immigration.

 
Again, it seems like the Republican presidential race is just crying for something different, something more Reagan-like, something to attach to. The only one who hints of ‘vision’ is Huckabee, but he’s got a questionable fiscal record and no money.