Ten Republicans took the stage at the Reagan Library for a 90 minute "debate" tonight. Figure a few minutes for introductions and rule explanations, a few more for the questions themselves, and you have each candidate alloted an average of about 7 or 8 minutes in an hour and a half. This format, it must be stated at the outset, is in no way conducive to learning more about the serious candidates. Both parties and/or the hosting organizations need to insist that some level of support be demonstrated in order to participate in the debates, so we don't waste time stroking the egos of candidates who couldn't win the Presidency if they were unopposed.

I have to say also, without equivocation, that the MSNBC debate moderation team SUCKED. The questions were weak (not to mention often coming from a Democratic talking point memo perspective), and Chris Mathews exercised absolutely no control at all. Candidates exceeded the time limits regularly, and usually gave answers to questions previously asked. At one point Mathews invited one, Thompson, I think, to "just answer whatever question you want to."

The reason for MSNBC's low ratings isn't their leftist slant. It's because their people aren't professional in any way.

Now, to the candidates. I didn't hear anything new from anyone tonight, but I do have some impressions on performance. Beginning with the so-called "top tier" candidates:

• Giuliani: Very disappointing. He held his own, but showed none of the fire or charisma he typically exhibits in interviews or on the stump. Had a strong moment at the end defending Bush for his response to 9/11. Stumbled a bit over the abortion question, although his answer was consistent with his past positions, and blew the difference between Shi'ia and Sunni Muslims badly. Overall, he didn't hurt himself, but did nothing to set himself apart as frontrunner, either.

  McCain: Not his best performance, but not bad at all, either. He had a shaky start, but grew stronger as the night progressed. Certainly achieved his primary goal of out-performing Rudy, but not much more. At times he looked his age, and this will bear watching at future debates and on the campaign trail.

  Romney: Overall a very strong showing. He stumbled a bit with the conversion question on abortion, mainly because his follow-up answer was verbatim the same as his initial response, indicating it was "canned," but was the class of the field in most other answers. He is doing what he needs to do to stay in the "top tier," if only barely so with one eye on Fred Thompson's schedule. Now his campaign will either catch on and move up, or it won't. The continuing suspense over FT isn't helping Mitt at all, though.

  Former Governors Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore gave a good account of themselves, showing their experience and judgment. In a perfect world, such highly-qualified candidates would be very competitive, but we live here, and they aren't. Good show! to both of them, though, on their way out the door.

  Former Governor Mike Huckabee wasn't bad, either. Like the other two, though, his problem was he needed to be jaw-droppingly spectaculariffic. He wasn't.

  Senator Sam Brownback didn't help his cause much, either. He kept returning to his partition idea for Iraq, which pretty well demonstrates he hasn't a clue. He was the 4th-place coming in of the declared candidates, but I think his momentum begins to fizzle swiftly now.

  Representative Duncan Hunter was effective on defense procurement issues and explaining the benefits of the "fence," but lackluster otherwise. I don't seem him as a potential Vice Presidential nominee for anyone except Giuliani, who could use the help with conservatives and has enough administrative experience of his own. That's the best of all possible outcomes here for Hunter.

  Representative Tom Tancredo came across as sincere but dreadfully unready for the intensity of the spotlight. For those who think a hard-line anti-immigration stance is a big political plus, he's your proof you're wrong.

  Representative Ron Paul was the skunk at the garden party, but he looked as out of place as his ideas sound. His isolationist policies haven't held sway in the GOP since before WWII, and his "sound money" policy (which sounds suspiciously close to the buffoonery of the "gold standard") is so critical it isn't mentioned on his website (I went to check if he actually called for a gold standard, so I could make more fun of him).
  

My opinion of the order of performance, without respect to actual chance to win: Thompson, Romney, McCain, Gilmore, Huckabee, Giuliani, Hunter, Brownback, Paul, Tancredo.