A.M.? Who Knew?
I knew there was a Republican Presidential debate in Iowa today, and I'd intended to watch it and set up a group live-blog in the Forum as we've done for past debates. I checked the time and saw that it was 8:00 eastern, so I was looking forward to the event this evening. Then, to my surprise, I saw that the debate had already occurred--it apparently started at 7 a.m. in Iowa.
I'm not sure why anyone would schedule a debate at 7:00 on a Sunday morning, unless the idea was to make sure hardly anyone would see it. For those who did see it, I've set up a topic thread here, in the Election 2008 Forum. We'll be curious to hear how you think it went.
UPDDATE: Here is SJShooter's evaluation in the Forum:
Here is my overall impression: Giuliani had the most memorable lines, was best at mixing his own experience into his answers, and was really sharp when picking apart the Democratic field. He is so incredibly quick on his feet in this setting (no doubt from his years as a US attorney, et. al.) that he is able to hit for extra bases on many of the questions. He is also the only candidate who comes across as viewing the Democrats’ positions as distasteful, and I can’t help but project to the general election, where you can just imagine Giuliani tearing Obama or Edwards to shreds in a debate.One more thing: Romney is really taking a beating over the abortion issue lately, and it is ironic since Giuliani was the one who was supposed to have problems with the base on this issue. But Giuliani gives an honest, frank, and consistent answer on this question and it works, while Romney is coming across as either a panderer now or a panderer then. So, even though Romney is declaring himself pro-[life] and Giuliani isn’t, it is Rudy who is winning on authenticity and I think long term this is more important.
PS, McCain seems old, tired, and an also-ran. Absolutely nothing memorable about his performance.
I think the point about viewing the Democrats' positions as distasteful is an astute one. Giuliani on the stump can be devastating: I'll never forget the impression he made on me at the Republican convention in 2004. He is capable of eviscerating liberals and their positions in a way that the others, with the possible exception of McCain, don't really aspire to. When people fret about whether Rudy can fire up the Republican faithful, I think they are overlooking his ability to articulate the scorn for liberalism that most conservatives feel.
FURTHER UPDATE: This is how Jennifer Rubin sums up the debate in the American Spectator:
The top three all looked solid. You can argue Rudy wins because nothing happened to undermine his frontrunner status. He weaves his command of detail and his NYC experience into answers impressively. You can make a case that McCain reminded everyone of this national security credentials. Romney supporters will be pleased since he was assertive, relaxed and in command and none of his Ames challengers looked all that impressive. (I do think his abortion answer was not helpful. He sounds best when he talks about his personal conversion after his 2002 election. Why not say "I regret I didn't see the light earlier"? Is he confessing he was hiding the ball in 2002? ) And Fred Thompson? Each of the top three was entirely credible as a potential nominee so he'll have to show he is a better, more credible, and more electable choice. Not an easy task.
I may be completely wrong about this, but I have a sense that the Fred Thompson moment has passed.
