REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE

The surviving Republican Presidential candidates convened for a debate Wednesday evening hosted by CNN in the Air Force One pavilion of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There could not have been a less appropriate setting, considering none of the gentlemen still remaining in the race quite fit the Reagan philosophy. Questions were posed by moderator Anderson Cooper with assistance from Jim Vandehei of Politico.com and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times. Instead of dividing the evening up into issue segments, I decided to score the debate like a sporting event. Yeah, yeah, I know this is about selecting the leader of the free world and all that, but the Republicans have now debated at least a hundred times. I can only take so much, so why not have some fun with it and declare a winner at the end? Each candidate was awarded one point for each time they stated something with which I agreed, and one negative point for each time they said something that I found objectionable. The scores have been tallied, so let's look at the statistics, starting with the losers.

Ron Paul earned three good, solid kicks in the testicles for the number of times he used the word "empire" to describe American foreign policy. Listen closely, grandpa: America does not now nor has it ever maintained an "empire". We just don't fit the definition. United States forces in no way rule over foreign lands as absolute authorities, nor do we go around the planet absorbing smaller, weaker nations. Paul's assertion is that we can simply withdraw from the globe behind our oceans and no one will bother us. It's both stunningly stupid and stunningly naive for a man of his experience. His foreign policy totally ignores the last say, oh, seventy or eighty years of world history. His presence in the campaign has been a sad little joke that has wasted everyone's time. I will never get back the time I wasted listening to Ron Paul's vacuous and assanine philosophy, and I deeply resent that. I cannot explain the money he has raised or his continued presence in the race. Having a substantive debate over critical domestic and foreign policy matters is not helped by the presence of some braying jackass who has zero chance of getting the nomination. And stop saying "empire".

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a big three points. Now, admittedly, I may have a residual bias against Huck from Iowa. I may never get over the floating cross commercial. It made me think of a Christian version of "Big Brother". Huckabee scored a point for his strong advocacy of federalism and the right of states to more freely legislate, a largely missing subject from this campaign. He also scored for wondering about borrowing money from China to finance consumer puchases of Chinese goods in an effort to stimulate the economy. Huck didn't score for a long stretch until the end, when his reply to a question about who Ronald Reagan would endorse, he said, "I don't know if he would endorse me, but I endorse him." Governor Huckabee complained several times about the amount of time allotted to McCain and Romney, and he was right. The press always neglect coverage of real issues to gather around a fight like children on a playground.

Arizona Senator John McCain scored plenty. Unfortunately for him, all his points were negative, and by the end of the evening, he stood at negative ten. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. When asked about his record as a conservative, McCain used his stock phrase to describe compromising conservative principles and submitting to the Democrats: "reaching across the aisle to get something done". I don't want "something" done, I want the right thing done. I vote Republican to promote conservative policies, not meld them with liberal claptrap. McCain's response to California's attempts to more strictly regulate carbon emissions devolved into a rambling version of Gore-style global warming hysteria. His answer to the subprime lending situation is massive government regulation. He continues to push the absurd claim that the Republican congressional losses in 2006 were solely because of spending, a simplistic argument that ignores every other possible factor. McCain's defense of his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, formed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy, continues to be unconvincing and pathetic. He also could not defend his Iraq timetable sucker punch of Romney on the eve of the Florida primary, and even the liberal media so in love with McCain seem to agree it was dishonest. He lost another point for complaining about "negative ads". I call those "political ads". You'd think a man who spent five years a prisoner of the North Vietnamese could take a few jabs. Shortly after his complaint, he took a shot at Romney's experience as "for profit", characterizing his as "for patriotism". So, he seems to have a problem with capitalism and thinks commanding a naval squadron is relevant experience in dealing with the national economy? Another shot at Romney's business experience cost McCain another point when he said, "He bought, and he sold, and some people lost their jobs." Again, a shot at capitalism. When did John McCain morph into John Edwards? McCain was assessed a tenth and final negative point for constantly saying he was a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution". He was more like a passerby or witness than he was a footsoldier. McCain's performance was flat and unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was today's endorsement of McCain by Rudy Guliani, brazenly conducted at the library as well. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reportedly endorse McCain tomorrow as well. Big deal.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney finished the night with eight points, well ahead of the other fellows. Mitt's justified interpretation of McCain's record scored first, and Romney even threw in the New York Times endorsement of McCain as proof. Romney correctly disputed Huckabee's assertion that building infrastructure can help the economy in the short term, and pointed out that McCain was one of only two Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Bush tax cuts. He strongly supported deporting illegal immigrants and assailed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Romney said Ronald Reagan would find McCain's tactics on the eve of the Florida primary "reprehensible", and he was right. He scored again over the same subject by asking McCain, "How are YOU and expert on MY position?" Mitt's last point came during his summation question about a theoretical Reagan endorsement. He concisely stated the Reagan philosophy and formula for winning elections and aggressively made his cas for the nomination. Huckabee's response to the same question was properly humble, but Romney made a good case for himself within the Reagan model.

There have been two debates since Fred Thompson dropped out, I have judged them both objectively, and in my estimation Mitt Romney has easily won them both. His challenge going forward will be to somehow slow the snowball effect of McCain's South Carolina and Florida wins. I can't say yet that I would vote for Romney, but it's looking more and more probable with each debate. If I can't vote for the candidate I really wanted, then I'll have to pick the best of what's available. The evening made clear once again that McCain certainly isn't it.