The Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate was perhaps the most anticipated multi-candidate, single-party debate in recent memory. After the Democrats met under a similar format in July, viewers of that forum thought that anything would be fair game for the GOP contenders when it finally came their turn to face the public uncensored.

 
For those folks (myself included) who were expecting a semi-wacky open discussion for the GOP, they were sorely disappointed. It was hard to tell if CNN got the message, or perhaps the terms were negotiated well in advance, but the ‘freakish’ elements that plagued the Democrats during their YouTube debate were almost completely absent from the Republican version.

 
‘Billiam the Snowman’ (made famous by posing a global warming question to the Democrats) did make an appearance, but it was for about two seconds at the beginning of the program, where CNN moderator Anderson Cooper was introducing the videos and flatly stated that there wouldn’t be any ‘aliens’ or animals asking questions in this debate, and neither would there be any ‘snowmen.’

 
I think a lot of people went into this YouTube debate with Super Bowl-like anticipation – not that we were thinking the debate answers would be up to that level, but that the videos would be like the commercials during professional football’s culminating game. Face it, some folks watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials. Likewise, some people probably watched this debate just for the wacky videos.

 
But take out the ‘weird’ stuff, and it was almost like a ‘real’ debate.

 

Did that make it better?

 
It made the tone of the debate more serious – and even for the harsher critics of the format, most likely appeased them.

 
Like the Democratic event, there was a guitar-playing performer, but only to ‘introduce’ the candidates after they’d been formally brought out by Florida Governor Charlie Crist. The questioning then proceeded with some very average-appearing citizens (for the most part) asking about mostly the same issues that the news professionals have been proposing for months.

 
There were the standard inquiries on immigration, the Iraq War, abortion, reducing the national debt, taxes (a question posed by Grover Norquist), entitlement reform and towards the end, a ‘planted’ question on homosexuals serving in the military.

 
It was revealed later that the retired openly gay Brigadier General who made the video (then appeared in the audience) is active in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so it’s only natural that he would ask a potentially embarrassing question to the candidates. Whether or not it matters where the question came from is a topic for another forum – but it introduced the specter of bias to the CNN sponsored event.

 
Not that conservatives would ever think CNN is biased.

 
But overall, the Republican YouTube debate was about as worthy as advertised. It was a good, substantive campaign event – and with just a short time left until one of these men will bear the Republican Party standard, substance is exactly what we need to make a choice (if indeed there is one).

 
Winners and losers

 
Always the loaded question, who ‘won’ the debate? I don’t know who scored the most points, but I do know who made an impression.

 
This was the first network debate where Mike Huckabee was given ‘top-tier’ status along with Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. 

 
Watching Huckabee, seeing the look in his eyes, you’re drawn to him. I don’t know what it is with men from Hope, Arkansas, but they seem to have a quality that attracts people. Having suffered through eight years of one conniving, lying, politics-first president from that small little town in the middle of a hopelessly poor American state, you’re trying desperately to think this man is different.

 
But it all goes to the record, and Huckabee has never really shown anything but a penchant for spending a lot of tax money and collecting it as well. That being said, there’s no doubt that he leaves an impression on people. Does that make him the ‘winner?’

 
Huckabee’s full of the funny lines, and this debate was no different. When asked a question on the death penalty, he deftly side-stepped the issue until Anderson Cooper pressed him on ‘What would Jesus do?’ Huckabee’s answer? “Jesus was smart enough to never run for office.”

 
A couple Huckabee observations: social conservatives have largely fallen in line with Huckabee, so he’s here to stay, at least through Iowa. The balance of the conservative movement is searching to find anything they can attach to in the man, and are coming up short. But those who say one, that Huckabee isn’t presidential, and two, that he can’t beat Hillary – are flat out wrong on both points.

 
Huckabee is the only candidate for either party that has the public ‘skills’ that compare favorably with the recent political icons – Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. He has a presence on stage, thinks well on his feet, and has a comedian’s timing for responses. It can easily be said that an American president doesn’t have to be the smartest man on earth, but he does have to possess the gift of political speak. 

 
On this point, Huckabee’s the strongest candidate for the Republicans. Like Clinton, he has the ability to take an issue and make it sound like what he’s done in the past is the greatest thing on earth. He’s also got the most positive message amongst the GOP candidates, largely staying above the fray that’s engulfing his opponents – especially Fred Thompson, who’s lately taking every opportunity to punch his party members where it hurts.

 
Dismissing Huckabee is a mistake that most of his opponents and two-thirds of the conservative movement have made time and again. It’s time to make a choice, similar to the one posed for conservatives opposing Giuliani – if he’s the Republican nominee, is he acceptable?

 
He passes the pro-life test with flying colors, but if the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan truly stands for a lesser government vision (where Huckabee clearly doesn’t pass muster), can we accept a ‘half’ candidate again?

 
I can’t help but think if Huckabee had the small government credentials of the ideal conservative candidate, he’d be in the lead with close to 50%. But he doesn’t. This is a developing story, and it doesn’t appear as if the many attacks that Huckabee is absorbing on his taxing and spending past is translating to dips in the polls.

 
It’s safe to say – Huckabee is the one phenomenon in the Republican race that cannot be explained or dismissed. We have six more weeks to decide what to do with him, and after that, it will be too late.

 

 
I don’t think any of the candidates outright dropped the ball, but Mitt Romney started waffling all over the place in the latter half of the debate.

 
Romney looked strong and confident during the opening sequences, yet was beat-down embarrassingly in a question over ‘water-boarding’ as torture (in an exchange with John McCain), and then foundered badly on his final question of the evening, concerning the display of the Confederate flag.

 
Over the past decade it’s become politically expedient to bash on the Confederate battle flag, and it’s turned into a political issue for groups who view it as a hate symbol – but Romney could’ve softened his answer to eliminate the more politically correct overtones. Even ‘ol Fred Thompson said he didn’t have a problem with people displaying the flag privately. Does Romney want to win in South Carolina?

 
Romney bumbled through a response on the flag, and looked very much like the Massachusetts Yankee speaking to a southern-fried issue that he clearly wasn’t prepared to address.

 

It didn’t make sense.

 
Romney came into the debate as the man with the most to lose – and he looked indecisive on several important issues, including farm subsidies and what he would do to improve the lot of the black community in the inner cities. Romney’s policies didn’t exactly inspire this observer or likely many others, so he probably hurt himself more than he helped his cause.

 
The rest of the candidates

 
The political pundits wouldn’t agree, but I thought Fred Thompson did well in this debate. It finally appears as if Thompson is employing some of his acting skills, and though we know he’s not exactly a ‘real’ conservative, he’s becoming an authority figure on social security/entitlement reform.

 
It’s hard to tell where lazy Fred is getting his schooling, but for the first time he legitimately seemed like a presidential candidate. Add the fact that he’s repeatedly touching American politics’ third-rail (social security), and he deserves credit for an issue-driven campaign. 

 
As for Rudy Giuliani, if he wasn’t leading the national polls, you would certainly wonder why he’s being taken seriously. Rudy’s not really presidential, stated outright that he wouldn’t sign a congressionally passed federal abortion ban (should Roe v. Wade be overturned), and was beaten badly by Romney in their early exchange over illegal immigration.

 
About halfway through the debate Giuliani answered a question posed by a Muslim woman (who asked how the candidates would repair America’s damaged image in the Muslim world) by saying that we “must remain on offense.”

 
Okay, the Muslims already think that America is picking on them, so we’ll mollify them by pounding them further into the dust.

 
It doesn’t really make sense, but not much about ‘Hizzoner’ translates to conservatives.

 
Another thing that was abundantly clear from the YouTube debate was Ron Paul’s emergence as a voice that people are listening to.

 
Paul was singled out early by John McCain of all people, who said the Congressman’s ‘isolationist’ stance is ‘dangerous,’ and that Paul’s line of thought led us into World War II. Just months ago, none of the candidates would directly address Paul’s arguments other than to try and score a political point – but now the real ‘maverick’ in the race is drawing fire.

 
Was it part of McCain’s strategy to go after Paul in this debate, in an attempt to separate the two in New Hampshire?

 
For those pundits who were giving McCain a greater share of the credit in this debate than he deserved, they should at least point out that his attacks on Paul and Romney were a direct result of his desperate attempt to come back in New Hampshire. McCain is competing with Paul in the Granite State for independents, and it’s no secret that Romney is the front-runner in a state that McCain desperately needs to win.

 
McCain was presidential, a true statesman in this setting. But he also looks more and more like a beaten man. He now admits that his pro-amnesty immigration position was a mistake, but it’s too little for the Arizona Senator, whose main issue, the Iraq War, is becoming less and less of a competitive subject these days.

 
There’s still time, but what can McCain possibly say that would change anyone’s mind about him? That’s why he’s going after Romney on torture and Paul on his foreign policy views – it’s a last-ditch attempt to try and win in New Hampshire.

 
Hunter and Tancredo, the forgotten men

 
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo occupied the balance of the time and were given sparing opportunities to speak. Both reiterated points they’ve made earlier on numerous occasions, and neither one is making an impact on the race – which can’t be said of any of the other candidates.

 
Huckabee’s risen to top-tier status, and Ron Paul’s ‘Revolution’ is engendering excitement, if not controversy.

 
Hunter and Tancredo are just ‘there.’ Maybe they’re vying for potential cabinet appointments.

 

 
The Republican YouTube debate was different, and better, than the Democratic version in July. Perhaps it’s because people are starting to pay attention, maybe it’s because the candidates are battle-tested, or even because the polls are beginning to mean something – but the discussion is being ramped up, and it’s almost time to choose between these men.

 

Or choose to stay out.

 
After all this time, it’s clear that conservatives aren’t going to find the ideal candidate from this GOP field. Most of these candidates offer something to like, and some present much not to like.

 
The early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan will narrow down the choices for most of the rest of the country. That will help some of the undecided voters to select from those remaining – but even then, it won’t be easy.

 
Conservatives must remain vigilant in pressing both parties to move towards positions that are in-tune with the mood of the country.