The Repub debates

Aside from the fact the questions were absurdly loaded and many sounded like they were created by Olbermann and a bunch of DNC strategists at Hillary headquarters, some clarity was derivable. Here's what I derived.

They all seem like fine gentlemen, but a fine gentleman doesn't always a fine president make. These debates are often more about absorbing the intangibles that convey leadership--that proverbial X factor--than just listening for answers.

John McCain, despite his vast experience and knowledge, wasn't impressive. He looked tense and his attempt at humor mostly wasn't (except for the drunken sailor joke). He came on strong in his usual area--the "pork chop" (can I claim that?). Oddly, A.C. Junior thinks he could be the next Dick Cheney for some strange reason.

Romney did OK, but I'm bothered by the fact he looks like he was created in a lab using a presidential algorithm designed by a graphic artist. Shallow, I know. As to his answers, I liked his stance on stem cells and cloning but I'm not buying his flip-flop on abortion. Junior adds he thinks Romney might have applied a fresh coat of Grecian Formula. My barbs aside he didn't ruin his decent shot at the nomination.

Duncan Hunter came across like a lot of military guys I know, tough, sharp, but a military guy. By the way, he'll be an interesting study for the body language lady on O'Reilly. Might be a good SecDef.

Ron Paul, well, slam dunking good on the national ID card as expected, but the cards were for the illegals, dude. Bush still lied and trashed the Constitution!

Tom Tancredo is, well, Tom Tancredo. At least he didn't bring up the SPP, or SCC?

Everyone knows Giuliani and he didn't hurt himself much, but didn't help himself on the abortion thing. He needs to just say it--I'm pro life choice, dammit. Interestingly, everyone including him gives himself credit for reducing crime in New York, yet the book "Freakonomics" made the argument that crime was coming down nationwide and would have happened anyway due to the effect of abortion (less kids in the lower income communities means less criminals). Just thought I'd throw that out even though I'm not sure I agree.

Tommy Thompson is a competent man but he's really got no chance. He vetoed 1900 items, though. Wow! Senator Brownback--now, which one was he again? Governor Gilmore was OK and got in some shadow hits with his "consistent" description (a shot at the flip-floppers) but he doesn't seem to have that X factor quality.

Finally, Mike Huckabee was better than expected despite being badgered by Matthews on the faith question with regards to Romney. I particularly liked how he answered that question that yes, his faith certainly MUST affect his decision-making. Why wouldn't it? He's bright and articulate but perhaps a tad too liberal to get the nomination, but I wouldn't eliminate him yet.

From my perspective nobody broke away from the pack. Giuliani and Romney came across as the most at ease under the hot lights and didn't stumble over their thoughts. None of them trashed Bush when given the opportunity except perhaps Paul. And did you see the look on the Governator's face at the end?

Now then, bring on Fred!

MORE 5/3/07

Good grief, they really ARE afraid of Freddy, aren't they?