Peggy Noonan notes in her fine column about the debate, the Sept 5th debate showed some fireworks and some good conversation on the war. As Huckabee pointed out afterwards, it could have use a few new fresh topics in the 1 1/2 hour debate.
Romney still looks like a stuffed suit and never answers a question. The quintessential politician. I had to laugh when moderator Brit Hume asked Romney if he had any thoughts and my wife interjected, "Nothing original." He dances like Astaire, ever looking for the sound bite.
Guiliani wears thin with his statistics about reducing crime in NY City. We all know about lies, damn lies and statistics. So the city improved while he was mayor, good for him. But that would be the expected outcome for any elected official. Now tell us why he would be a good president. So far, he has not done that.
Ron Paul and Huckabee had a good jab fest over the troop withdrawal. As much as Noonan loves Huckabees "If we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America."" comment, I thought Paul's response was even better; "If we make a mistake, the American people through their representatives should correct that mistake." I like Huckabee, but I am not as attached to the Republican party that I think they should all be like honorable captains on a sinking ship. Especially when the ship hasn't sunk, and there is still time to change courses and find harbor.
Dr. Paul made his comments quite emphatically, especially when the moderator tried to mock him with the "orders from Al-Qaida " comment. And while on the subject, the snickering teen-age mentality of some candidates was seriously out of line. Fox News and the establishment must be worried to sink to the level of engaging in these subtle discrediting tactics.
Duncan is about done, I like his stance on the border, but the super-hawk isn't going to distinguish himself from a mostly pro-war field. Brownback looks more and more like a big government Republican every day. Thinking the fed-gov should fix everything and write an amendment for all the social problems would set a bad precedent. It may be tempting to solve it this way, but what happens when the party of opposite ideals wants to solve their "problems" in the same fashion?