Romney Wins

I am a Romney and/or Giuliani partisan, but Frank Luntz's focus group on the Fox News Channel confirmed my sense that Romney won this debate. He was serious, pleasant, focused and seemed to display the leadership qualities that have been his rationale for running. The discussion of economics is a strength for him, as is the contrast between executive experience and legislative experience. He would do well to stress that, unlike almost anyone else on the stage, his executive experience is private, as well as public (it's impressive to remember that he's had to meet a payroll, etc.). But he did what he needed to do -- in fact, it would not surprise me if his performance tonight helps him come back over McCain. It's hard to underestimate just how much damage Romney could have done to his candidacy if he hadn't had a great night tonight, and he's a smart man, so he had to know it. His ability to perform well under great pressure is impressive (and contrasts tellingly with Hillary's inability to do the same last night).

As for Senator McCain, he did better tonight than last night, because clearly someone on his team warned him against coming off as thin-skinned, testy, grumpy and sanctimonious -- qualities that remind many in the Republican base why they have disliked him so much for so many years. But with the discussion about immigration and tax cuts, it strikes me that the topics of the debate did nothing to help him hold on to his lead in New Hampshire. He can't ever admit that he was wrong about anything -- from the disastrous McCain-Kennedy immigration bill he tried to impose on America last year to the Bush tax cuts he opposed. He was, however, smart to resist the open invitation from Chris Wallace to go after Mitt Romney for the negative ads Romney has run against him. Sometimes, experience does show.

In contrast, Mike Huckabee revealed that he's simply not ready for the big leagues. When he was invited to complain about the negative ads against him, he actually took time to discuss his own record of commuting murderers' prison sentences -- why would a candidate take the floor to discuss one of the biggest problems for his candidacy in a way that doesn't take the problem off the table? What's more, the complaining doesn't sit well with voters. If he can't take Mitt Romney's comparison ads, he sure isn't going to like what Clinton or Obama (and the press) do to him in the fall.

Huckabee also bobbled the first question about tax cuts, where Romney pressed him effectively -- and didn't hold up well under pressure from Fred Thompson about the habeas corpus rights that would be provided to Guantanamo detainees if they came to the United States. Doesn't he understand that no matter what the Supreme Court says, there's no reason to offer Al Qaeda members a prison cell on American soil, and with it the opportunity to recruit inside American prisons? What's more, he muffed the discussion when it came to world opinion -- who would actually say he doesn't care what the world thinks, especially when it's so patently untrue? I shudder -- shudder -- to think how completely Barack Obama would eviscerate him in a head-to-head debate.

As always, Giuliani turned in a solid performance. And Fred Thompson was solid, likable and once again came across as something of a referee of the debate, rather than a participant. I agree with lots of what Thompson says; what a shame he doesn't seem to have the fire in the belly that he needs to win at the top of the ticket.