Huckabee is right that SCHIP was about political posturing. But his answer is too detailed already-- he's out of time. Huckabee's basically saying he wouldn't get to the point of having to veto SCHIP because he would have run the PR better. He's also saying he might not have vetoed the bill, essentially (I think he's saying) because it might have been a waste of political capital. Yet, by defaulting to the individual control of insurance point, he gets a round of applause. Interesting.

Romney 's sounding a little defensive at the suggestion that America might seem anti-Arab.

Thompson is giving a tremendously waffley answer on why we need a strong dollar.

Giuliani is saying that we should in fact be selling more things overseas, not worrying about foreigners owning bits of America.

Brownback seems to like Alan Greenspan, but can't utter his name. What's up with that? He needs a number of people, and probably also Phil Gramm.

McCain just said he doesn't have the expertise to know whether Ben Bernanke's rate cuts have been good. That's probably true, but I'm not sure it's a good answer. He personally likes low interest rates (no kidding, I have a mortgage, too).

Paul isn't willing to say he'll support the Republican nominee for president next year. I think a lot of Republicans feel that way, actually (I know a lot of Thompson and Rudy supporters who say they can't and won't support Romney).

Tancredo doesn't seem to want to commit to supporting the Republican nominee next year, either. Interesting.

Brownback will support the nominee of the party. He wants someone who's pro-growth and pro-life, and won't accept that someone who doesn't fit that bill might be nominated.

Hunter's basically saying the same thing as Brownback.

Giuliani will not allow London to replace NYC as the financial capital of the world. The number of IPOs being conducted in London is irrelevant. He's not going to t...

> Read more & share

Fred exceeded expectations, sure, but I'm not sure he won. He KO'd Romney with that last line, which I liked, but I'm not sure the rest was a total home run.

I think Rudy won-- just. But he didn't distinguish himself as much as he should have.

McCain also did well, despite evidently not being able to hear half of the questions.

Romney lost by being forced to concede that Rudy had a great fiscal record in New York, and by looking like a desperate, scripted, [expletive] with his Fred "joke" at the end. And Fred's comeback made it worse, since that looked utterly unscripted and improvised.

Note that in the post-debate spin room chat with Larry Kudlow, he also refused to name a single program he would cut. Couldn't name one. Wants to rely on a comprehensive audit once elected.

That's not the kind of guy I vote for, I'm afraid. But we all knew that, already.

> Read more & share

I have been often accused of being too harsh on CO-Sen candidate and Republican Bob Schaffer (including by some people working for some very prolific and powerful Republicans in DC). No mind. As someone who is very concerned about where the party is going wrong in the West, and who thinks Colorado is the focal point of our screw-ups, I think it's important to point out what I think is really going on with this race, not what party bigwigs want to be going on with it.

So, I'm pointing out that Denver Post seems to think that Schaffer is in trouble, more than a year away from the 2008 general election:

The GOP candidate for U.S. Senate isn't viewed as a substantial threat by many Democrats, who publicly say Schaffer is a serious challenger but privately whisper that the race is a shoo-in for their candidate Rep. Mark Udall.

And a number of Republicans, including some well-heeled donors and power brokers, are exhibiting a significant lack of enthusiasm, and some are still hoping another Republican front-runner emerges.

[...]

Schaffer still faces some serious challenges. The Democrats' confidence stems from a four-year roll, where they captured the statehouse, won a U.S. Senate seat and catapulted into the governor's mansion.

Additionally, most Democrats view Udall as a top-notch candidate, whereas Schaffer's 2004 loss to Coors has left some Republicans with a second- banana taste in their mouth.

"Democrats are feeling their oats. And they seem to have their top-choice candidate, while Republicans seem to have had some angst," said political analyst Eric Sondermann.

While he predicted a tough and competitive race, Sondermann said that Schaffer's biggest challenge may be convincing voters he is a moderate because many perceive him as a social conservative.

"There is somewhat more con...

> Read more & share