ABC deserves credit for the concept: three days before the New Hampshire primary, bring all of the viable candidates from both parties together to have a heart-to-heart discussion on stage for one last time before casting ballots. And instead of setting up two separate locations, bring the Republicans and Democrats to the same spot and feature them back-to-back.

 
What might have been more interesting would be to have all ten candidates from both parties on stage at the same time, but their campaigns probably wouldn’t have gone for that… but it would’ve been fun to watch.

 
As it was, at the conclusion of the Republican forum, in the spirit of goodwill, ABC brought the Democrats out on stage to mix it up with the Republicans for a couple brief minutes of backslapping, hugging and whispers that viewers weren’t privileged enough to hear. The feigned warmth and facial expressions were priceless – it may have been the best two minutes of the evening.

 
But it also provided a sense of destiny, since there they were – as a collection, our choices for the world’s top political job.

 
The fact that the program was scheduled for a Saturday night opposite the NFL playoffs meant that only the truly dedicated would be watching – or perhaps the truly worried, and the chronically undecided.

 

As a conservative, I’d already decided long ago that the Democrats were off the table. As attractive as it might be to consider an alternative to the Republicans, there just aren’t any conservative principles to choose from amongst the Democratic candidates. As a group, they present the same big government squishy socialism that the party’s been known to favor for decades.

 
At the same time, sadly, the Republicans aren’t really offering much of an alternative. George W. Bush has taken the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and turned it into a jumbled collaboration of big government Democrat-like do-gooders and thrown in some neo-con aggressive foreign policy to contaminate the mix even further.

 
All of the Republicans (except for Ron Paul), in one way or another, seem to subscribe to the ‘new’ GOP philosophies, probably the main reason why none of them has emerged as the front-runner in a party that loves to get behind an establishment candidate early and ride the wave all the way to the general election.

 
Saturday night’s meeting of the candidates only highlighted the lack of choice we’ve been encountering since the beginning of 2007.

 

 
Mitt Romney would seem to be the brightest candidate of the bunch, which is why several prominent conservatives have decided to endorse him as the best in a weak field – flawed, to be sure, but the one who would have the ability to unite the Reagan coalition, or at least prevent a total breakdown.

 
But Romney’s been plagued from the beginning with a series of issue flip-flops that won’t go away. Add the fact that he’s wealthy, largely self-funded and has taken on an aggressive strategy of campaign assassination through negative advertising, and he was the one candidate on stage that clearly drew the ire of the others.

 
The verbal darts came early and lasted until the end – it was almost like Romney’s head served as a well-groomed bulls-eye.

 
Mike Huckabee sat to Romney’s left and appeared so angry at Romney that he could scarcely keep the contempt off his face. John McCain didn’t keep the resentment to himself, directing several jibes directly at Romney, who was on the defensive the entire evening.

 
As a result, Romney came across as defensive, offended and indecisive – probably his worst overall debate performance to date, which isn’t a good sign in a state that he must win in order to remain a viable candidate in the overall race.

 
For what would seem like the best choice amongst the Republicans, Romney opened himself up to the doubters – and you could only imagine what the Democratic nominee would do to him in the presidential debates later this year.

 
Fred Thompson was surprisingly impressive, appearing well informed and confident. Thompson refused to take the bait on several leading questions from Gibson, and perhaps because of his low poll standings, was never the butt of any attacks from his opponents.

 
In one sense that’s a shame, since Thompson’s campaign has been based from the beginning on the assumption that he could pass as a true conservative despite his aggressive past pursuit of campaign finance ‘reform’ and a record that’s sparse in some respects and highly questionable in others.

 
His campaign has also ignored New Hampshire, and with his third-by-a-hair finish in Iowa, it’s not likely that he’ll catch fire at this point. But he’s helpful in stirring the debate.

 
Likewise, Rudy Giuliani appeared strong and decisive. Clearly benefiting from reduced expectations brought forth by a fifth place finish in Iowa, and national poll numbers that are in persistent decline – Rudy sat on the end of the row and was saved much direct criticism from his opponents.

 
Rudy joined in the Romney kicking exercise without having to endure much abuse himself, though he did take some hits over his New York City immigration policies. Romney has eased up on Rudy and it’s definitely making Rudy look more at ease – a role that suits him.

 
Mike Huckabee seems buoyed by his win in Iowa but still is insecure with foreign policy questions, which even his gift for rhetoric is unable to make him sound credible. His first question of the evening concerned his ‘bunker mentality’ quote regarding George W. Bush’s foreign policy, and Huckabee stumbled through an answer about how America went into Iraq without sufficient forces.

 
Huckabee’s strong suit is his ability to appeal to the heart-strings of average Americans, but that warm and fuzzy feeling doesn’t translate well into strong leadership – especially when he’s sitting next to someone like Rudy Giuliani, who at the very least seems like a ‘tough guy.’

 
His nice guy nature makes you want to give Huckabee a hug, but it doesn’t make you want to make him president.

 
Ron Paul was clearly the odd man out in this debate, as he has been for every such meeting. Paul again passionately presented his non-interventionist foreign policy views, which clearly clashed with those of all the other candidates and probably would get more acceptance amongst the Democrats.

 
Paul’s got the most credibility on advancing a constitutional agenda, and his reputation for sticking to principles was acknowledged even by ABC Moderator Charlie Gibson, who said “The only thing you’re known for changing is your party, having previously run for the presidency as a libertarian.”

 
Despite Paul’s ideological purity, he’s starting to look his age and his high-pitched defense of his monetary policy views makes him look like kind of a kook. Put Paul’s arguments into a candidate who looks a little more like a figurehead and you might really have something.

 
One thing for sure – this race needs Ron Paul, if for nothing else, to serve as a check on the others and show that the Republican Party has room for people who don’t approve of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

 
John McCain has emerged as the front-runner in New Hampshire and looked like he was trying to stay out of the debate as much as possible, saving his opportunities to dig at Romney and appearing very vulnerable when defending his immigration amnesty stance.

 
Just when McCain had many people thinking that he deserves a second look, you remember all the reasons why he was unacceptable in the first place – against the Bush tax cuts, the leader of the gang of 14 senators who would allow the liberals to filibuster conservative judicial appointments, his leadership in restricting free speech through campaign finance ‘reform,’ and his overall willingness to throw his own party members under the bus to bolster his own ego.

 
Perhaps the most telling moment on McCain actually occurred during the Democrats’ debate, when John Edwards gave McCain credit for working with him and Ted Kennedy to pass a ‘Patient’s Bill of Rights.’ McCain’s legislative career is full of instances where he’d go out of his way to court liberals in order to appear ‘non-partisan.’ So much for principles above politics.

 
John McCain is the liberals’ best friend.

 
McCain says his immigration plan was not ‘amnesty,’ yet when Romney repeatedly asked him if his plan would require illegals to return home, he replied “some would and some wouldn’t.” Well, John, conservatives think that amounts to amnesty, whether you want to call it that or not.

 
Fines don’t scrub away the stench of amnesty for people who broke the law.

 
Even wishy-washy Mike Huckabee has adopted a position where the aliens would need to return to their home countries to get in line. When Huckabee’s bleeding heart has fewer holes than your own, you know you’re in trouble. McCain says the illegals are still ‘God’s children’ and need to be treated humanely.

 
Nobody’s advocating inhumane treatment for anyone. But we are demanding that they obey the law.

 
McCain may score well on limiting spending, but he doesn’t appear to have any domestic principles that we can pin down, and his foreign policy experience – though impressive, doesn’t qualify him for anything other than perhaps a good Secretary of Defense. McCain can set up a nicely appointed office in the Pentagon with my approval, but as president, who knows what damage he could do to the conservative cause.

 

Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd dropped out of the race after Iowa, and ABC News’ rules mercifully excluded kook-fringe candidates Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel – so there were only four occupied seats for the Democrats.

 
Because of this, voters got a good look at the survivors, which revealed many things.

 
First, Barack Obama has emerged as the front-runner, and appears to deserve it. Obama is gentlemanly and presidential, well spoken and sharp on his feet. He appeals to young voters and clearly represents a departure from the Democratic leaders of the recent past – Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

 
Conservatives have little to agree with in Obama’s issue positions, but there’s no doubting that Obama’s an attractive figure, a man that you wouldn’t mind talking to or potentially even working against. 

 
Second, Hillary Clinton’s lost it. When Obama and Edwards were hammering the ‘change’ theme, Hillary revealed the existence of her legendary temper and screeched at them – attempting to put them in their place. It was the first time that Hillary really looked old and stale, and her desperation is showing through.

 
Does it mean she’s through? No, but one wonders what she can do to halt the Obama momentum.

 
Third, John Edwards is a pathetic fool. Edwards cites all kind of statistics to bolster his ‘me-against-the-corporate-world’ arguments, and you’d have to be very uninformed, indeed, to buy into it. 

 
Edwards claims that “200,000 men who have worn our uniform will tonight sleep under bridges or on grates to keep warm.” 200,000? No one will make light of homeless veterans, but that number seems impossibly high, and where would Edwards get such a statistic?

 
The one-term North Carolina Senator keeps talking about how he’ll ‘fight’ for us, but who wants it? Fight for what, against whom? Does he really think people want a pitched battle against the oil companies – and even if they did, what could possibly be gained?

 
Finally, Bill Richardson is running for Vice President – that’s the only reason he’s still in the race, though he does make a credible claim that he’s the only one for the Democrats with any appreciable experience in an executive capacity.

 
Democratic voters don’t seem to care that their leading candidates consist of: a Senator elected in 2004 who previously served in the Illinois state Senate and has no executive experience at all; a Senator who rode the name recognition of her husband to win her seat, and who’s biggest claim to change is “I would be the first woman president;” and a hopeless populist who presents himself as a modern day Thomas Paine, but really comes off as a tobacco spitting doofus in a suit who lives in a huge mansion yet claims to be one with the masses.

 
Looking at this group as a whole, you feel for the plight of the country. Can any of these people stare down Vladimir Putin over Russia’s increasingly aggressive moves in the world? 

 
The ad that spoiled the evening

 
In addition to the debates themselves, one of the most surprising aspects of the evening was the showing of Representative Joe Kennedy’s TV-commercial, where Kennedy openly touts the benevolent efforts of the Venezuelan government in its drive to ‘help you buy heating oil.’

 
Joe Kennedy must be Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s best friend, and no doubt has no qualms about advancing an enemy’s interests at the expense of American dignity, much less his own. I wonder if the Democratic candidates would be willing to accept discounted Venezuelan oil in order to win a few votes.

 
Charlie Gibson should have asked them.

 
I personally would rather freeze than burn Hugo Chavez’s oil. The ad was as tasteless as it was nauseating, and all Americans should let Joe Kennedy know of their displeasure.

 

 
With just two short days until New Hampshire votes, everything looks to be going Barack Obama’s way. Since independents can vote for any of the candidates, the fact that many will go towards Obama will certainly have an impact on the campaigns of John McCain and Ron Paul.

 
McCain has been counting on the independent vote all along, and it remains to be seen whether he’ll have enough to overcome Romney’s advantage in organization and money. 

 
But Romney also appears to be unraveling at the worst possible time. A strong showing in the final debate (on FOX) might help stop the bleeding, but here’s one pair of eyes that sees him going down hard in New Hampshire.

 
Whether that opens the door for Rudy or Fred Thompson remains to be seen, or whether Mike Huckabee can regain the momentum in South Carolina.

 
The Republican race is just as open as it’s ever been, and conservatives are just as confused over what to do – or what can be done.