It’s December in Iowa – snow is on the ground, an ice storm just blew through, and inside, they’re discussing whether Global Warming is real and if humans are the cause of it.

 
If that’s a real picture, it must be a presidential debate, and this Iowa forum sponsored by the Des Moines Register was the final ‘formal’ debate (prior to the Iowa caucuses) with all of the Republican candidates present. The discussion lasted about 85 minutes, there were no breaks, and the moderator made more of a lasting impression than did any of the candidates or their answers.

 
Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register took control of the debate early, interrupted the candidates often, and even got into a verbal jousting match with Fred Thompson over ‘hand shows’ and a very unhappy Alan Keyes over the way she was divvying up questions. Washburn mentioned at the outset that she would touch on issues important to Iowans, without delving as deeply into well-worn campaign subjects such as Iraq or immigration.

 
In that respect, this final debate was a great success. In terms of the sheer number of questions and topics posed, the forum covered a lot of ground. But since there were nine candidates on stage, none of them really got much of a chance to answer in depth to any issue.

 
Therein lies the problem with these multi-candidate ‘debates’ and the inherent flaws with a format that tries to present voters with a clear picture of what these men stand for -- 30 seconds at a time. With such an emphasis on making quick points, it’s no wonder why someone like Mike Huckabee now leads in the polls, since he’s the best one-liner comedian up there.

 
Although there was nothing earth-shattering that was revealed by any of the candidates, you could feel a tangible sense of urgency from them – this was their last chance to ‘convince’ undecided voters that they individually are up to the office, that they have the right ‘stuff’ to set the new policy direction after the disaster that’s been George W. Bush.

 
Polls show that many, many conservatives are undecided on whom to support. While this debate probably didn’t help many folks make up their minds in a concrete way, it did reinforce some impressions taken from the body of the campaign season.

 
If anything, the reputations each candidate earned throughout the year were proven true once again:

 
That Mitt Romney is gentlemanly, good looking and well spoken, a CEO-type presence who possesses a solid grasp of the issues, looks presidential and seems like he could stand behind the presidential seal for the next four years and make a good case for the conservative cause.

 
That Rudy Giuliani will always be remembered as ‘America’s Mayor,’ has some credible fiscal conservative positions and belongs in the ‘big tent’ version of the Republican Party – but that he should never be its leader.

 
That John McCain’s time has come and gone as a presidential candidate. McCain correctly pointed out that he has more legislative experience than anyone else on stage – but he’s running for an executive office, and although he might make a good Secretary of Defense for some president, does not seem suited to be the top guy. Add the fact that much of his legislative experience is an anathema to conservatives, he just can’t be the right one.

 
That Fred Thompson lacks a ‘passion’ for the office. It may be because he’s just naturally laid back, but the un-scripted actor in Thompson would not win this acting role. He probably makes good campaign commercials and if he’s speaking behind a teleprompter probably contributes a pretty good presentation – otherwise, he’s just too slow. Richard Nixon once said he was ‘dumb as hell,’ and while we know that’s not the case, he certainly lacks the polish of the other candidates, especially Romney and Huckabee.

 
That Huckabee came into the race as the populist ‘good guy’ of the bunch, has gained some popular support and the backing of many Christian conservatives, but lacks presidential stature and just isn’t credible on fiscal matters. Huckabee’s been taking a shellacking in the press from all angles about his tax and spend, wishy-washy past, and he seems like he’s running out of ways to explain how his Arkansas record is actually conservative. 

 
That Ron Paul is the lone candidate who sticks to his message without wavering, yet will probably never rise above his status as a fringe candidate, because there’s no way that he can explain what’s wrong with the Federal Reserve in 30-second sound-bites. Paul’s defense of limited government is highly refreshing in this group, but his arguments just don’t hit home in a culture that’s not well in tune with what the Constitution actually says – and his message just sounds ‘harsh.’

 
That Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter both make some good points, but just don’t offer anything that will catch fire with the electorate.

 
And finally, that Alan Keyes needs some advice on how to present his views in a presidential way. Keyes is a powerful speaker and commands the audience when he’s talking, but his gestures and tone would tend to scare a good share of the lay population. Keyes could be very effective in a place like the House of Representatives, where he could take the floor and verbally beat down the opposition, but the same level of intensity in this type of forum is wholly un-presidential.

 
Winners and Losers

 
This was the tenth official Republican debate, and we’re well beyond the simplicity involved with picking a ‘winner’ of these sound-bite circuses. No one ‘won.’ You can win an election, or a straw poll, but when it comes down to nine suits on a stage, it’s the impression that you leave that makes a difference.

 
In that sense, Mitt Romney ‘won’ this debate.

 
Romney still scares us when he talks about things like ‘No Child Left Behind’ – he gives George W. Bush credit for getting it passed. But overall, he has the most consistent conservative message, even if he doesn’t have the political background to back up his beliefs in every way.

 
Maybe he’s just said it enough that we finally believe him, but I doubt there’s anyone who questions his true feelings on abortion anymore. Or maybe it’s because the other candidates are less likeable than him, but Romney looks like the best candidate in the group, when all the parts are assembled. And he looked that way again in this debate, displaying a thorough knowledge of the topics while also displaying a sense of humor.

 
Fred Thompson likewise did well. As noted above, he’s not nearly as polished as some of the others, but he made a couple points that made him stand out. The first was an exchange with Carolyn Washburn over the ‘show of hands’ climate change question, then later on he said ‘who are you going to want sitting across the table from your enemy?’

 
He may not have a lot of personal energy, but he’s got presence. He’s played the president three times as an actor, so he seems to know what a president should look like. Give him credit for that, as well as the fact that he’s becoming known as the candidate who wants to tackle entitlements.

 
It’s probably too late for Thompson, and his record does not match his claims of being a ‘consistent’ conservative, but at least the candidate that we’ve been waiting for has finally arrived.

 

 

Mike Huckabee.

 
It’s not even that Huckabee did ‘poorly’ in this debate. It’s the fact that Huckabee has a new heap of expectations on him now, as the clear front-runner (at least in Iowa), and now that people are forced to pay attention to him, his witty lines don’t seem as funny, and his populist message doesn’t sound as appealing.

 
Huckabee’s trying to be like Ronald Reagan – an optimistic, faithful, man of the people who eschews negativity in favor of pushing forward a sunny portrait of the average American, and the principles that make this country great. 

 
The difference between Huckabee and Reagan lies in their beliefs in government’s role in that American Dream.

 
Ronald Reagan let the American ideal suggest the means for helping the poor – that by their very nature, the goodness of Americans will compel them to reach out to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, because it’s the right thing to do. As soon as government takes over the role traditionally played by churches and charities, not only does it cost more, the poor become slaves to the welfare state and nobody feels an obligation to pitch in – because Uncle Sam will dip the ladles at the soup kitchen or pay the rent (with cable TV thrown in).

 
In contrast, Huckabee has bought into the idea that it’s government’s duty to help the poor. As a Christian, Huckabee sees people that need a hand, so he’ll help them any way he can. Unfortunately, he’s not using the bully pulpit to empower citizens to assist the needy because of the goodness of their characters, but rather through the power and purse of the federal government.

 
On balance, his message is very liberal – that he’ll bring government’s power to bear in order to enforce fair outcomes; that people need to be brought down (the rich) in order to prop up someone else. That’s not a Reagan-like message – it sounds more like Jimmy Carter.

 
Most people would give Huckabee credit for his genuine concern for the less fortunate, but his message is off-kilter. Maybe Huckabee doesn’t even realize that he’s doing it, but if he’s wondering why fiscally minded conservatives can’t seem to get behind him, he needs to take a good look at his rhetoric. Or his advisors better set him straight.

 
Alan Keyes also ‘lost’ this debate, though through no fault of his own. Keyes pointed out that he wasn’t being given a chance to talk, which would normally be acceptable – but he was downright rude about it. Add the fact that he somewhat tastelessly attacked Romney and Giuliani at the end of the program and it’s not likely that he swayed any votes his way.

 
Keyes’ message needs to expressed, but he’s not the man to do it. He’s the only one who openly proclaims that the Republican Party betrayed conservatives and needs to be completely reformed, but he won’t win many converts by shouting like a deranged preacher at a prayer revival.

 
Keyes’ behavior almost makes it look like the networks were justified in barring him from the other debates in the last couple months.

 

 
This campaign season has already taken forever, and it’s hard to fathom that we’re still nearly a year away from the general election. To those who’ve been following the process, each of these candidates is very familiar, and their differences, though subtle, are clear to see.

 
None of them is perfect. None of them clearly pass either the Ronald Reagan test (active and lengthy participation in the conservative movement) or the Barry Goldwater test (speaking truth to power against big government excess). 

 
One of the candidates is completely unacceptable to social conservatives and would likely split the party.

 
One appears to be completely unacceptable to fiscal conservatives, though it’s less clear whether the party would split over his potential nomination.

 
One talks like a conservative but doesn’t have the legislative record to back up his claims of being ‘consistent’ in his conservatism.

 
One has experienced a series of eye-opening changes in his stances on many issues, though most of his ‘new’ positions are in line with mainstream conservatism.

 
One has the most consistent message and record, but could not gather a majority to support him.

 
A few are disqualified because they don’t have the stature for the office.

 
So where are we? Time is running out, and these candidates are the only ones offered by the Republican Party. The movement is far from united, and it’s very unlikely that any of these men could get everyone to agree. Like many conservative leaders have done with endorsements in recent months, it’s time to take it all in, and choose.

 
To their credit, these men have endured a lot to get to this day, and each at least deserves serious reflection on their merits as the potential next president. After that, it’s time to go to the polls, and make the best choice that your conscience will allow.