In the debate last night those who showed up well were Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee
and, surprise, Paul. Giuliani because he has the ability somehow
and I cannot explain it
of dominating the panel. Why? Hes not handsome, is a little Italian guy, baldingbut with a flashing smile. Yet he somehow has the quality that says despite all the imperfections, you can see him in the Oval Office. Romney is without qualification the smartest guy in the room. I am consistently amazed at his encyclopedic command of language and issues. Huckabee grows on me every time I see him. Once he was regarded as the most eloquent candidate but only on social issuesthen the most colorful but only because he was wittiest. Now hes an easy second in articulation to Romneygood all-round. Paul has that feisty man of conviction, man of principle as when he said he would not take a pledge to support whomever will be the nominee. Easy answer for one who ran as the Libertarian party candidate and who probably will again while at the same time under Texas law be able to run for reelection to the Housewhere he endorses congressional term limits. Let us say he will stay in the House until term limits become a part of the Constitution.
The losers begin with Fred Thompson who is too unexciting, too bland, too old looking, too low-key to warrant much attention. Followed by Brownback and Tancredo (the latter having no business being on the platform with the rest of them). Duncan Hunter had one good moment in the debate where he talked about tradebut that was the only good moment hes had thus far.
Last week I wrote that I would apply the Pascal Wager to Giuliani were he to get the nomination. I better get ready because I imagine he will. In the meantime, my candidate is
Mitt Romney because his present position squares with all of my views. The nominated ticket could be Giuliani and Romney.
Now for your plebiscite with your views on the debate.