SantorumShowed Up

Rick Santorum had his best debate of the election last night, maybe because his mom was in the audience.  He seemed less whiny.  And his request that the time be used for substance, as opposed to Mitt and Newt's sniping, was welcome and overdue. I still don't see Santorum winning.  However, he should do well enough in Florida to press on.

Newt has crested, in my view. The more I see of Newt, the better everyone else looks.  It didn't help that Elliott Abrams put the lie to Newt's claim that he helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War.  On NRO, Abrams details all the snotty things Newt said to and about Reagan, and how Newt in fact undermined Reagan. Had Newt prevailed, it is unlikely that America would have won the Cold War.  It is a devastating critique of Newt and a must-read for anyone who is seriously considering him and anyone who considers Reagan the standard by which we should judge those who seek to carry the Republican mantle.

I fear that Newt would demean the Office of the President.  As one elderly lady observed to me recently, the man has the "morals of an alley cat."  When I see Newt, I think of Bill Clinton, and then I think about how W. had to put new carpet in the Oval Office.  My mind doesn't want to go there, but this is the consequence of Newt's life choices.

Mitt Romney did well the first hour. But it is uncomfortable to watch him go negative against Newt; plainly, this is not in Mitt's character.  That raises the concern:  will he be similarly awkward attacking Obama?

National Pundits Agree: Paul Won Debate

Note that the common theme in assessing last night's debate is that Rand Paul appeared more intelligent than Jack Conway. Conway is not dim, by any means. The problem for Conway, as Paul helpfully suggested, is that Conway oversimplified the issues -- repeatedly. For example, when Conway insisted that Paul wanted to raise taxes by imposing a 23 percent national sales tax, Paul called Conway out for his intellectual dishonesty: Conway failed to mention that a national sales tax would replace the federal income tax.

Here's a summary of national reactions to the debate -- and note that much of it comes from Conway's favorite network, MSNBC:

MARK HALPERIN: "I Thought Rand Paul In That Debate Was Calm And Cool, Even When There Was A Heated Exchange. He Stayed Looking Senatorial." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "Rand Paul Was The Clear Visual Winner Here... This Guy Looked Centered, Focused..." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

EUGENE ROBINSON: "Rand Paul Is The One Who Has Managed To Come Across Sounding The Most Reasonable, Smartest. You Know, That Was A Very Reasoned Performance In The Debate." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

JOE SCARBOUROUGH: "I'm not comparing Rand Paul to Ronald Reagan here, but he's got a similar dynamic... people saw him debating Jimmy Carter, he looked... quite effective. And he ran away with it." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

JOE SCARBOUROUGH: "I Suspect In Kentucky They're Thinking, That Guy Actually Looked More Senatorial Than Conway." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

PAT BUCHANNAN: "Makes Rand Paul Look Like A Very Intelligent Thoughtful Guy" "He looked like a tutor. He's very professorial he's giving instructions basically on a complex issue sales tax, income tax. And he's sitting there with what looks like sort of a wiseacre pupil who's throwing smart aleck cracks and comments. There's nothing that Conway did in this segment that makes him look good and there's an awful lot in there that makes Rand Paul look like a very intelligent thoughtful guy who's trying to get across a point to a pretty slow student." (MSNBC's Morning Joe, 10/26/10)

The Fox Debate

About that Rand Paul - Jack Conway debate, moderated yesterday by Chris Wallace: seems to me that it was a draw. Nobody said anything so outrageous or sagacious as to change the election. That means that Paul will likely retain his lead.

Having watched it three times, I was continually struck by the difference in the appearance of the candidates. Jack Conway looked like what he is: a rich trial lawyer -- rich enough to run a horse in the Derby. His suit (Canali, perhaps?) was exquisite, beautifully tailored. Between the suit, the Hair and the Jaw, he made quite a dashing image.

Rand Paul, not so much. His suit didn't even fit. Television make-up for men can be tricky, but Paul needed some translucent powder; the shine on his forehead was distracting. He looked pale and sickly. The up-side for Paul is that no one would mistake him for the career politician in the race.

On the merits, Paul was able to put into context some of his past remarks that form the basis of Conway's advertising. Paul was particularly strong about the $2000 deductible for Medicare. He made clear that he would not vote for such a deductible for current recipients, but asserted that younger voters recognize that the system is unsustainable without serious reform, including possibly a deductible. It was the most honest and adult portion of the debate.

Regrettably, Paul did not do as well regarding past remarks on mine safety or the drug issue. He did go on offense and criticize the increase of meth labs on Conway's watch as Attorney General. But his general observations that local control is better was unpersuasive on a drug problem that spans not just states but countries.

The same for mine safety: Paul's stated preference for local control rather than federal regulations did little to reassure, particularly after Conway's melodramatic assertion that the federal mine safety regulations are "written in the blood" of dead miners.

Paul did not respond to attacks about the applicability of the A.D.A. and Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private entities, and given how much he has said on this, that was the right call.

Chris Wallace, at one point, corrected Paul, who had stated that Obamacare applies to illegal aliens. The Courier-Journal coverage notes only half of this exchange, which creates the misimpression that Wallace schooled Paul. Here's what the C-J omits: Paul then corrected Wallace by pointing out that though Obamacare does not apply to illegal aliens, it is illegal to ask whether a patient is legal or illegal. Republicans, as Paul explained to Wallace, repeatedly tried to close the loop-hole, but Democrats outvoted them. For Paul to catch Chris Wallace in such a factual mistake showed Paul's considerable mastery of the nuances of Obamacare, a central issue in the campaign.

Jack Conway was likewise taken to task by Wallace for flip-flopping on cap and trade and bailouts. Conway asserted -- repeatedly -- that he has been consistent, but all he could offer was just the bare assertion with no details. Paul pounced on his inconsistencies.

Wallace highlighted that Conway's positions line up with both the Daily Kos and Moveon.org, including support for a single-payor healthcare system. Doesn't this put Conway to the left of President Obama?, Wallace asked. Conway denied it and trotted out the cliche that he would "put Kentucky first."

Regarding party leadership, Conway seemed to suggest that it was premature to speculate whether he would support Sen. Harry Reid because Reid "is in his own race" -- what, and might not win? Conway should be so lucky.

Paul said he presumed Mitch McConnell would emerge from the party caucus as party leader and that Paul would support him, but his voice became almost inaudible. This caused Wallace to repeat the question from several different angles. Bottom line: Paul said he would support McConnell but he appeared to be whispering so as not to enrage the Tea Partiers who don't like McConnell's earmarks.

Perhaps the most surprising moment was when Conway said how proud he was to run "for Wendell Ford's seat," and Paul responded that he thought it was "the people of Kentucky's seat." Good for Paul for seizing upon Conway's gaffe.

The shock here is that Conway appeared not to have noticed that Massachusetts held a special election last year in which Martha Coakley was skewered by Scott Brown for referring to the seat as "Teddy Kennedy's seat." The sound-bite was played over and over. Scott Brown even alluded to it in his victory speech.

For Conway to set himself up this way gave rise to two inferences: (1) he was oblivious to the special election in Massachusetts after Teddy Kennedy died or (2) -- and this is more likely -- he figures that ordinary Kentuckians had not paid attention to the Massachusetts race and Coakley's mistake. Memo to Conway: Kentuckians have been paying attention, close attention, to the elitism that threatens to ruin our country. Conway unwittingly painted himself as an elitist.

See Bruce Get Trounced

Bruce Lunsford whined about Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell not debating him, and even had a supporter dress as a chicken at McConnell events. The inconvenient truth, however, is that McConnell debated Lunsford three times.

The only dispute was whether McConnell should rearrange his schedule to do an extra debate for KET, which had failed to film the earlier debates. McConnell was otherwise occupied doing the job he was elected to do, including negotiating the financial rescue that Lunsford has yet to take a position on, to schedule a make-up debate for KET.

In any event, notwithstanding KET's curious editorial policy, C-SPAN-2 will televise last Thursday's debate tonight at 9:50. That's the debate in which Lunsford swiped the tape recorder. (If Lunsford was so keen to let the public judge the candidates' performances in the debates, why did he steal the tape recorder and erase the record of the debate?) All three debates can be viewed at any time on http://www.kysenatedebate.com/.

Watch Bruce argue that the U.S. constitution should apply to people who are not U.S. citizens, including terrorists. Watch Bruce say that he wants the U.S. to become energy independent, but then oppose the construction of nuclear power plants, which even France allows. This is the same guy who flies around the country to his seven homes in his private jet. Bruce's judgment on energy may be colored, just not the color green.