Here’s my tally (first-tier only, excluding, obviously, FDT):

Illegal Immigration: Advantage Romney

Family Values: Hard to say, since Romney drew abortion and Rudy got a gun control meatball.  But Mitt’s answer was sufficiently abstruse that I guess Rudy gets this duke by default.

National Security: Frankly, McCain schooled both of them.  Rudy’s answer was bad; Romney’s answer was pathetic.  The “The Surge is ‘apparently’ working” weasel hedge is the major gaffe Mitt had thus far avoided in this campaign, and it’s gonna hurt him.

Domestic Counter-Terrorism: Strong comebacks for both.

Taxes: Romney signed the Americans For Tax Reform pledge and handled the question about his initial raising of state fees excellently by pointing out how he succeeded in cutting tax rates in a state just this side of Venezuela on the ideological spectrum.

Rudy hasn’t signed the AFTR pledge and completely ducked explaining why.  “A president should only take one pledge” (i.e. the oath of office) is no answer.  So I can only conclude that he wants to keep his tax-raising options open.

Advantage, Romney, in a rout.

Iran Scenario: Everybody lamely punted on this one, even Tancredo, who I thought might get in his “nuke Mecca & Medina” angle here, so Rudy and Mitt had plenty of company.

I’d give it to Romney on technical points, but he didn’t avoid the big-time gaffe and Rudy did, and that’s the measuring stick for any kind of debate in the television age.

Giuliani just suggested a Ron Paul / Mike Gravel debate on the H&C after show.

The audience:  this is the first real debate.  All the other ones were round-robin press conferences.

Of the candidates, I’d agree with Ed that Giuliani & Romney did well. 

That’s easy - Fred Thompson.  Big time.

If tonight is any indication, just his showing up at the next one will constitute running up the score.

Wasn’t there someone else? Brownback’s suit showed up anyway.

I’ll agree with Ed, a good night for Rudy and Romney. However, Fox News showing that McCain did very well with over at the Vote U (except with immigration).

I think McCain actually (dang I hate to say this) improved his standing a bit. He was a little less angry and much more focused.

Consequently they were disappointed with Rudy’s “style”, bored with his “New York” focus.

Romney looked a little flat footed. Rudy was on top of his game - as was McCain (what good that does him, I don’t know).

Second tier - Huck-a-Lot did himself no favors except for his exchange with Paul. Tancredo still looks out of his league. Didn’t hear enough from Duncan Hunter. Ron Paul is still weird.

They have nukes, dropped all pretense of cooperating with IAE, escalating hostilities in Iraq, UN won’t “authorize” hostilities” - what do you do?

Paul: Retreat, more diplomacy, go to Congress to see if there’s a threat?  WTH?  “We don’t have to go to war every time we’re attacked”.  Iran no threat to Israel?????  Get the hook and the straitjacket.

My answer: Why do we have to wait until we’re in a position where we’re at such a strategic disadvantage?  Isn’t that the whole point of pre-emption?

Tancredo: “Political correctness will get us all killed”.  He’s right about that.

Hunter: Answer a little too wonkish.  Does point out the connection to nuclear terrorism.  Parallels with Israeli attack on Saddam’s Osirik reactor.  Wait for allies to join us?  Way too muddled an answer.

Huckabee: Doesn’t want to answer hypothetical.  Hunter said the same thing, then tried to answer anyway.  Huckabee’s answer is almost a non sequitur.

Brownback: Doesn’t like hypothetical because it’s too realistic.  Well, no bleep, Sherlock.  Sure, make the case for attacking Iran while we still can, but in this scenario we wouldn’t have the time to do that.

Giuliani: “Iran shouldn’t be allowed to go nuclear”.  Okay, how, Mr. Mayor, without taking military action?  Meandering all over the place, ended up talking about Reagan aiming thousands of nukes at the Russkies.

Romney: Build bipartisan consensus?  Meet with allies?  There’s not TIME for that; that’s inherent in the question.  “We mean business” by taking the military options OFF the table?

McCain: “At the end of the day, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons”.  How?  “League of Democracies,” more economic sanctions, yata, yata, yata.  Invoked Reagan.

Everybody punted.  Not exactly an encouraging sign.

But maybe an opening for Fred.

pointed directly at their throats.”  Good line from RG.

Looks like he wants to slug Rudy.

We won’t know when Iran is close to building a nuke.

The fact is, they are already enriching uranium to about 5% - just good enough to run a reactor. In about 8 or 9 months, they will have enriched enough uranium to build a bomb - if they continued enrichment up to 85%.

The problem is, once you get to 5% most of the hard work is over. They could pause enrichment at that point and then, in a crisis, further enrich their stockpile to 85% in a matter of weeks.

So the chances of us knowing when they have a weapon or when they’re on the verge is just about nil.

You couldn’t spell out Dork?

What?

Oh, never mind.

Are they kidding me? What is so “hypothetical” about anything we have seen from the Iranians over the last 24 months?

Anyone?

I think that just about covers it.

And his supporters can take a flying leap into a deep lake…

Back off of Iran…..

Iran is not a threat to Israel…….

H-O-L-Y C-R-A-P….