A Solid Performance By All (Who Matter)

In last night's debate, it's hard to pick an overall winner -- both the frontrunners had some strong moments, and some weak ones.

Romney had one of his best performances ever . . . but his answer to the question about gays in the military was unconvincing.

Giuliani was witty and sharp as ever . . . but he definitely came out the worse in his exchange on immigration with Romney (I bet Romney wishes he's the one who had used Fred Thompson's line about not blaming people for the actions of everyone they hire!).

As for the rest:

McCain was very effective in taking on Ron Paul over the necessity for the war . . . but on the torture question, his sanctimony reminded everyone of why he's so abrasive.

Thompson was, true to form, a disappointment. His habit of stating the obvious at the outset of every question -- for some time -- signals that he may be unprepared to handle the issues. And what was he thinking to use his ad -- which more profitably could have introduced his own positive qualities to the Republican electorate -- to attack other candidates? The decision came across as needlessly negative.

Huckabee was a smooth talker, as always. But how much good he would have done for the American electoral process generally if he -- using his "street cred" as a minister -- had refused to discuss the issue of whether he takes every word in the Bible literally! Instead, he's running ads that describe him as the "Christian" candidate. Does that kind of characterization really have a place in our political life?

And then, of course, everyone knows that CNN was the evening's big loser. Questions about Biblical interpretation, the Confederate flag, and the Trilateral Commission? If that doesn't tell you what the CNN folks really think of the Republican Party, what would?