To their credit, FOX News added an extra lectern for Ron Paul in their South Carolina debate, but couldn’t find space for Duncan Hunter.

 
All the rationales in the world can’t adequately explain why you’d exclude a legitimate candidate from one of the final debates of the season, but there they were on stage – six Republican candidates, and no Hunter.

 
Hunter’s name wasn’t even mentioned, in fact. He didn’t ‘qualify’ for air time because he hadn’t polled either 5% in New Hampshire or 5% in a recent national poll. Good thing for Fred Thompson that he managed that latter number, since New Hampshire voters gave him a thoroughly pathetic 1% of the vote in their primary.

 
Allowing Hunter’s presence would constitute more of a matter of principle, which FOX doesn’t seem to care a whole lot about. But all things considered, this latest South Carolina forum was packed with substance. Just as you would expect a student to perform better at the end of a term, the candidates are certainly peaking at this time of the campaign year.

 
That’s not to say that they would all receive A’s on the examination, but we’re seeing a much clearer picture of the subtle differences in their positions – and we’re getting pretty good at spotting flip-flops and issue dodges.

 
Fred Thompson has especially picked up the pace, a man who seems to have a catchy line for the beginning of every answer, and enough policy substance to make himself sound credible. Maybe it’s because the others are so underwhelming, but lazy Fred is really shining these days – and the focus group at the conclusion of the debate confirmed my initial impressions. They liked Fred’s candor.

 
Thompson is a professional actor as well as a lawyer and longtime Washington lobbyist, so his emergence in debates isn’t entirely surprising – you just wonder what took him so long to register a pulse. Unfortunately for him, it’s most likely too late, save for some miracle in the Palmetto State. Fred’s past record also contradicts some of his present statements – but when you put him up against the likes of John McCain and Mike Huckabee, he actually sounds conservative.

 
In contrast to Thompson, the more you see of Mike Huckabee, the more you ponder how he’s managing to hang on. Like the others, Huckabee’s tightening his message – but now that he’s receiving much more substantive questions than at the beginning of the campaign, his lack of record and conservative core principles is rising to the surface. As a result, he often seems rattled and uneasy, especially on anything concerning foreign policy.

 
Thompson and McCain seem almost pompous when the discussion turns overseas, and why not? McCain has honed his pro-war message so well that he’s more than happy to restate for the thousandth time that he was the first to diss Donald Rumsfeld and call for dumping more American troops and treasure into the Iraq War.

 
Likewise, Thompson touts his experience on foreign affairs that he garnered during his relatively brief stint in the Senate. The ‘actor’ sounds up-to-speed on all the latest intelligence briefings even though he probably hasn’t seen anything classified in a very long time. Fred’s played the president three times during his film career – and he’s finally growing into the part!

 
An outside observer would have to admit that they’d rather have Fred at the international negotiating table than little Mike Huckabee – but it’s only shades of preference in the end.

 
But you can also see Thompson going up against Hillary or Obama in the general election debates and landing some stinging verbal punches. If there’s one area where he seems to excel, it’s pointing out the logical weaknesses of his opponents’ arguments. With the lack of a conservative consensus candidate in this election, maybe ‘ol faux conservative Fred deserves a second look.

 
He’s better than Hillary and Obama – that’s about the best that can be said for him.

 
The five ‘establishment’ candidates also took their turns verbally beating up Ron Paul, whose non-interventionist foreign policy views clearly no longer have a seat at the Republican Party’s table. That’s strange, considering Paul’s ability to mix those views with his strict defense of the constitution, his continued calls for smaller, more accountable government and individual liberties -- and the Robert Taft tradition of the party.

 
If Paul’s foreign policy was more in line with the modern mainstream GOP beliefs, would he gain more traction? Hard to say – he’s starting to look his age, and the strain of a presidential campaign is showing on the slender Texan’s face.

 
It’s only Paul’s good nature that allows him to be prodded and joked about by the others during the whole time – it’s really disrespectful and insulting. Front-runner McCain is particularly guilty with his condescending tone of voice towards Paul and his arrogant facial expressions.

 
John McCain relies heavily on Americans’ memories – that he’s a decorated war hero who dwelled six years in a Vietnamese prison, enduring torture and ridicule but refusing to give in to his captors’ attempts to break his spirit. Because of that, he’s given a pass for his outwardly rude behavior, which he labels ‘straight talk’ but would otherwise be known by another moniker. McCain is like the prodigal son – he can do and say just about everything, and people just sit back and think ‘oh yeah, but he’s a hero, let it slip.’

 
The ‘hero’ that is John McCain suspends reality – this is the man who led the Bush Amnesty fight; the man who champions killing the first amendment; the man who voted against the Bush tax cuts; the man who seems to glory in the reverence of the Democrats, and the man who said we could be in Iraq for generations.

 
Paul’s right that the GOP seems to have lost all its humility – and this presidential nominating race is particularly instructive. How could any conservative even fathom John McCain?

 
Likewise, Rudy Giuliani was given a perfect opportunity to speak directly to his conservative critics, yet rambled through a barely coherent diatribe on Ronald Reagan that didn’t even come close to addressing the question. Rudy says he’s the ‘complete conservative,’ because like Reagan, he believes in ‘peace through strength.’ That addresses one leg of the Republican stool, but what about the others?

 
Rudy’s pulled all his paid staff in Michigan and South Carolina – quite a statement in two states where he once led or was at least competitive. Giuliani is betting everything on Florida, a strategy that’s beyond explanation.  With the emergence of John McCain as the ‘national security’ candidate, what niche does Rudy hope to fill?

 
Rudy claims that the Republican Party must be competitive in all fifty states, but if he refuses to compete within his own party in the first five or six, how can he cling to that argument? Rudy defies description. If he somehow crawls back into the race, it truly is the end of the GOP.

 
The Reagan coalition

 
The most interesting exchange of the evening concerned the potential break-up of the Reagan coalition – the meeting of fiscal, social and national defense conservatives.

 
Here’s where each candidate’s individual flaws seemed to come to the forefront. 

 
Mike Huckabee was asked about Ed Rollins’ recent comment about the Reagan coalition being ‘dead.’ Huckabee stumbled through a response about how all three conservative groups are important to the GOP, but the party also can’t give the impression that it doesn’t care about the downtrodden. There’s the hole in Huckabee’s populist message – he thinks that conservatism leaves the appearance of being cruel. Can anyone say ‘compassionate conservative?’

 
John McCain was up next in trying to address the issue. McCain admitted that we’ve gotten away from the principles of the Reagan years – and then, astonishingly, started talking about global climate change. What does global warming theory have to do with Reagan’s principles?

 
Mitt Romney gave by far the best summation of the coalition’s needs, and phrased it in a very understandable way (after briefly addressing the question he was asked, on abortion services funding in his Massachusetts health care bill). Romney said America must be the strongest nation in the world, through strong families, a strong military and a strong economy. That’s putting it in a nutshell – score one for Mitt.

 
Thompson then demanded to address the Reagan coalition question – and used his time to attack Huckabee as a liberal!

 

 
Mitt Romney is the most polished candidate of the Republicans, and he’s arguably the most well spoken (might be in a tie with Huckabee), but the more we see of him, the more he seems… ‘plastic.’

 
If there’s a stereotypical image of an American corporate CEO, it’s Romney. The well coifed hair, the sly smile, the bubbly optimism – he’s the kind of person you envision standing at the front in a boardroom using a laser pointer to highlight last month’s earnings figures. It’s a different kind of positive message that comes across as somewhat phony and perhaps a little naïve.

 
Mike Huckabee’s scored points with ‘common’ folks because he’s authentically folksy, having honed his humility from a life at the pulpit. Any doubts about Huckabee stem from the fact that maybe he’s a little too charming and real – that he’s perhaps too ‘soft.’

 
In contrast, Mitt Romney reminds you of the school master you’d end up facing if you snickered out loud during study hall. There’s a feeling that underneath all the warmth and well packaged exterior -- that this rich man doesn’t ‘care’ enough about the concerns of the little guy.

 
Romney’s the guy who we would ‘hire’ to run the country, the venture capitalist turned politician who gave up making a ton of dough to ‘serve’ and ‘save’ the country from the ruin that lies ahead. The fact that he may very well be the man to do that is lost in who he is – and that’s a shame.

 
I doubt that enough voters will truly get over his flip-flops – it’s all part of his ‘teflon’ image, which unfortunately, seems to stick to him like cellophane molds to a glob of leftovers (we can only hope he doesn’t start growing mold).

 
I don’t see Romney doing well in South Carolina. If Romney loses to McCain in Michigan, it could very well be over for him.

 

The days ahead 

 
Despite the months of campaign commercials, debates, news stories, TV talking heads and glossy campaign materials, there’s still no clear conservative choice offered by the Republican Party.

 
Ron Paul has genuine domestic policy conservative credentials, yet won’t win the nomination, and insists he won’t run on a third party ticket, even though he probably would be well funded.

 
Mitt Romney has emerged as the party establishment candidate, yet he’s got a basket full of limitations, partially addressed above. If he wins in Michigan, he might be able to gain the momentum needed to go through to February 5th’s ‘Super Tuesday’ primaries. But that’s a big ‘if’ at this moment.

 
Rudy, Huckabee and McCain cannot and will not earn enough conservative support to make a long-term run at a successful general election. If you need the Reagan coalition to win, all of these candidates have issues with at least one of the three conservative groups.

 
Who does that leave? Fred Thompson? That’s a hard one to contemplate, especially since lazy Fred only managed to convince 1% of the Republican voters in New Hampshire that he’s the man to lead the country.