The First Republican Debate -- Who Won? -- Does It Matter?

I didn't get to watch/listen to the entire Republican debate last night, but did catch most of the last hour. I hate to admit it, but I knew most of the names, but not the faces of several of the candidates. Who is that guy from Texas anyway I kept thinking -- did they send Ross Perot to see the re-animator? At least you have to give the elephant party chops for havin' some big cahones cajones [duly chastised by Jimmy for spelling/language deficiency!] -- our guys are willing to appear on MSNBC and be grilled by a very worn-out-looking Chris Matthews, a lefty to the core -- whereas the Dems got their panties in a super-tight wad and bugged out of the planned debates that were to be hosted on Fox News. I like Hugh Hewitt's comment on Matthews as host:

I also want to note that while many are complaining --wholly correctly-- about the partisan and sometimes ludicrously absurd questions from Chris Matthews, there is an upside to having him as host: This is what 90% of the MSM is, and while Jim Lehrer might be a bit more polished at hiding the bias, day in and day out this is what the GOP nominee will have to deal with. Far better to see our candidates dealing with what they will be dealing with than to have the NRA and the Right to Life League draft the questions. I would like to see more questions in future debates about issues of great concern to the center-right which aren't even on the MSM's radar, but having Matthews display the endless ideological grinding the nominee will get provided a useful glimpse of the MSM environment the GOP nominee will find when running against Hillary. That Romney shined when Matthews was acting as a stand-in for all of MSM made his clear win even more impressive.

From my perspective, there were only three guys up there that mattered: Romney, Giuliani and McCain -- and the 4th guy that wasn't there, Fred Thompson. The rest will never raise the money to compete, and have none of the recognition necessary to run against an Obama or Hilliary -- although I did like some of Tancredo's answers, especially on border security. However, the next presidential time frame will be preoccupied with the fight against radical Islamists -- boy will the next pres ever be tested, by the likes of ol' Maumoud and whatever fetid cream that rises to the top of Al-Qaeda. No one will get my vote, and support, unless they are committed to being tough on these extremists, and unless they have a strong desire and a plan to finish what we've started in Iraq.

My observation is that Romney "won" last night -- he certainly was more upbeat and came off as far more "presidential" than McCain. McCain was just weird -- looked kinda like someones crazy uncle ranting over in the corner. As Dean Barnett remarks, Rudi doesn't seem to be engaged, doesn't look like he really wants to be there. Of course, Matthews couldn't help himself from addressing "the question", giving Romney a jab below the belt about his Mormonism by asking him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. No, ol' Chris wasn't interested in Mitt's thoughts about Catholic doctrine -- it was classic bait-&-switch, to which fellow SCBA blogger John Schroeder over at Article6blog addressed this way.

Which may make it the only comment on the sheer audacity and ham-fistedness of Matthews inquiry. I spent the last 45 minutes this morning looking for anybody that was commenting on the fact that both that question and Matthew’s “divinely inspired” crack were completely out of line, and I have come up with zilch. Where were the “defiance of Rome” cracks when Guiliani sounded so upset to have to admit ending abortion might be a good thing? The fact of the matter is singling out Romney for that crack and that question was and expression of at best morbid curiosity, but given the source, more likely genuine bigotry. The media has got to at least begin to play fair here. If they are going to hit Romney with this stuff, they have got to hit everybody else. That’s why Brownback, despite a generally poor showing, is a hero - he amongst all the candidates moved to Romney when Matthews got stupid. I for one, as a Republican, want a candidate that stands for the proper role of religion in our social and political structure. The entire panel shold have jumped all over Matthews. Romney handled it, as Noonan says, brilliantly, but where were the rest of them?

I am beginning to think that through this crucible Romney will end up being the only viable Republican candidate (Sorry Sam) that will stand for faith - my faith, his faith, any faith. Evangelicals that are still holding reservations need to take a careful look at what happened last night. It was short, it was laughed off, but it was not pretty. There is trouble afoot here and it is not just for the Mormons.

Several of the candidates expressed their desire for "more" inclusion of religion in the public square, not less. That's something that you won't hear at the Democrat debates. I would like to see an end to the efforts to sanitize our society from religion. If the sight of a cross or a menorah drives you into an apoplectic frenzy -- see a shrink! If someone praying in public so highly offends you -- you might want to think about why you're feeling so insecure. The Dems also tout their religious affiliations, they just don't come across as being as genuine -- more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- we really don't mean it" sort of thing.

But, at this point -- did this Republican debate matter? If it leads to funding for one or more of the bottom seven, I guess it did. If not, then not much has changed. My growing anxiety is that this election cycle is going to be so terribly long, that by the time Nov. '08 rolls around everyone except for the nutroots is going to be burned out. That would give us a fearless leader that might just have to have a Pink Sapphire annex added to the OEOB. Heh! (Dean, just had to "borrow" it back!)

That said, the MSM is going to give Obama, Hillary or Edwards cakewalk -- long as they come down on the "we give up" side of the Iraq War issue. For our guys, it's gonna be a looooong next year-and-a-half! As the voice said in Field of Dreams, "Go the distance."

[Cross-posted @ Okie on the Lam]