Nothing in the New Hampshire debate dramatically altered the balance – if anything, it only brought up more concerns about this crop of candidates from a conservative perspective. For those principled conservatives who are searching for the next Ronald Reagan – or even the next Barry Goldwater – none of these men fill the suit. Greatness is hard to measure, but there’s just no sense from watching on TV that these competitors are even in the same realm as the best conservative minds of our times.

 
As I’ve watched all of the Republican debates thus far, and several of the Democratic debates as well, I’ve developed a little ‘test’ when it comes to evaluating presidential talent. Since FOX News felt empowered to pose hypothetical questions, I’ve also got a potential scenario in mind for measuring these candidates: Imagine each one of them taking the oath of office, hand on the Bible, swearing to uphold the office and defend the constitution – and then imagine them entering the Oval Office for the first time as president, sitting behind the desk, and receiving their first briefing.

 
Do any of these men present a positive image under that setting? Would you feel confident that any of them would make a good decision to address that first crisis? Is there any of them you’d feel proud to ‘support’ as opposed to begrudgingly offer an endorsement because you can’t stand the thought of Hillary Clinton as president?

 
The answer: an emphatic ‘no.’ Why? Because they don’t seem to have core principles, and the ones who do have heartfelt beliefs are so ‘un-presidential’ that you can’t take them seriously, or their issue positions in the past lend no sense of trust to their potential to lead.  

 
Some themes emerged: first, no candidate other than Ron Paul puts forward a Reagan-like message of smaller government and constitutional supremacy. Second, every candidate except for Ron Paul seems to have adopted some form of interventionist foreign policy, all under the justification of American ‘security.’ Finally, none of the competitors will directly attack George W. Bush on the Administration’s specific spending bugaboos, namely ‘No Child Left Behind’ and the federal prescription drug bill. Does that mean we’re stuck with them?

 
If there’d been any serious attempt to distance themselves from the Karl Rove era, I didn’t see it. The Republican Party is in disarray, and no one, save for Ron Paul, is willing to distance himself from what has proven to be a losing electoral strategy. For all of these candidates who claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, then where’s the ‘vision?’ Where’s the shining city on the hill?

 
Winners: Ron Paul and John McCain.

 
The Ron Paul phenomenon is inexplicable to FOX News and everyone else who uses the mainstream media for their informational needs. Paul doesn’t make sense to these people, which is part of his charm. He doesn’t bend in his convictions, putting before the world the stalwart stubbornness that’s earned him the nickname ‘Dr. No’ in Congress.

 
There’s also the ‘dark’ side of Ron Paul, which he’s unable to suppress. He comes across as the grumpy old man of the group. He’s the same age (or close) as John McCain, but McCain’s ability to deflect jabs with humor makes him appear much younger than Paul. I feel confident that Paul would make good, reasoned, principled decisions as president, but when he sits across the table from world leaders, anything goes. That’s frightening.

 
John McCain clearly had his best performance of the presidential campaign season in this debate. McCain won in New Hampshire in 2000, and Pat Buchanan won the state in ’96, so there’s room here for a ‘maverick’ point of view in the Granite State. McCain doesn’t always tote the party line, makes no bones about criticizing Donald Rumsfeld, and sounds very credible when speaking to issues such as torture and spending.

 
But then you take a step back and think ‘this man is John McCain.’ He’s the one who led the fight against conservatives in favor of the Bush Amnesty Bill. He’s the one who hints that the United States will be in Iraq forever. He’s the man who didn’t stand up for conservative judicial appointments, preferring to take the bi-partisan easy way out instead.

 
McCain has wanted to ‘make nice’ with the Democrats once too often. He’s someone you’re dying to like, yet as a conservative, you just can’t. Would you trust him with the federal treasury? Perhaps. But McCain’s ideas on immigration, the War in Iraq and taxes just don’t lend themselves to a great deal of confidence.

 
Losers: Romney and the rest

 
Mitt Romney lost the debate in one moment, one he couldn’t control, yet spoke volumes on his credibility problems. The citizen questioner who asked him about his comment on his sons’ ‘service,’ was perhaps the emotional apex of the debate, and Romney simply dropped the ball.

 
Romney should’ve spent his time talking about what a mistake he’d made by making the comparison between his ‘chicken hawk’ sons driving around in a camper across Iowa as compared to soldiers facing bullets and bombs in the front lines. Instead, he gave lip service to the troops and wandered off into a disjointed diatribe that refused to answer the direct question: how would you end the war?

 
The balance of the candidates lost the debate because they didn’t distinguish themselves. Tom Tancredo gave a forceful answer on immigration, as you would expect him to – then stumbled badly through most of the rest of his questions.

 
Sam Brownback has no presence. His one ‘moment’ came in answering the question on gay marriage, then FOX cut to a break, depriving him of any real momentum.

 
Mike Huckabee, the ‘good guy’ of the group, continued his strong rhetorical performances, yet he seems soft and somewhat weak when measured against his opponents, and even the Democrats waiting on another stage. He locked horns with Paul during the best moment of the debate, yet seemed to be shouted down by the much older man who clearly held his ideas closer to his ‘heart,’ as Huckabee would later discuss.

 
Duncan Hunter keeps using his ‘Olympics’ quip when talking about his border fence – that if illegals could get through his fence, sign them up for the Olympic team (do we really want to sign up lawbreakers for any Olympic team?). Hunter has a lot of personal integrity, but he doesn’t come across like the right choice for a party that’s already having a hard time defining itself as full of vitality and life.

 
Rudy Giuliani – I haven’t mentioned him until now. He makes points about executive experience, and he’s the face you most closely identify with controlling the aftermath of the fallen World Trade Center towers, yet there’s still much to dislike about Giuliani from a conservative standpoint.

 
To his credit, Giuliani must have worked hard to try and soften his anti-conservative positions, because listening to him, he sounds like a strong leader. But he can’t get past his personal history with an answer concerning his leadership qualities – it just doesn’t work.

 
The Thompson effect

 
Another ‘winner’ of the debate could be Fred Thompson, who was mentioned several times despite his obvious choice to blow off the voters of New Hampshire in favor of mixing it up with Jay Leno. Thompson’s video has been released and he’s ‘in,’ but why the heck wasn’t he on stage in New Hampshire?

 
Thompson’s rivals ‘welcomed’ him to the race and said some nice things about him, but McCain came up with the best line on Thompson, saying ‘maybe it’s past his bedtime.’ Thompson’s no-show may hurt him in the end, but probably no more than his utter lack of a conservative record.

 

 
One thing I particularly enjoyed was the questioning from FOX News – this was by far the best questioning of any debate thus far. The citizen questions were firm but tough, and even the FOX News anchors asked for direct confrontation of the issues and the candidates’ past statements that bring up questions on their current positions.

 
Absent were the queries about beliefs on evolution and other near-meaningless issues that have no place in a presidential campaign.

 

 
The September New Hampshire GOP debate was notable only for its lack of distinction. Hearing these candidates, you long for someone who can articulate the ‘vision’ of a greater America, complete with the rights of the individual and the restraint of government.