In the Republican Debate at St. Anselm College in Goffstown (NOT MANCHESTER) NH, Rudy Giuliani emerged as strong on defense, devoted to the issue, and interested in gaining "energy independence" with an "Apollo-like" program to develop new sources of energy and increase refining. Increasing the number of refineries in the US is easily done -- simply lift the hand of government off the backs of the oil refiners, and LET THEM MAKE NEW REFINING PLANTS!

As far as developing government programs to "set us on a course for energy independence"? Bad idea. Let the market answer to the demands of consumers. Giuliani and his cohorts were all aglow over their supposed adoration of local control of education (nice, but let's see them back up those words rather than just talk). They didn't think Washington should be telling local parents and teachers how to run their schools. Yet they cannot see their inconsistency when they do not give the same trust to energy consumers and producers. Why not let them decide for themselves? Why, if these supposed defenders of freedom truly believe in freedom, don't they get the federal government out of energy regulation, the same way they would like to get the federal government out of education regulation?

Simple enough question. Don't expect to hear any answers from them.

So, Rudy Giuliani will appeal to many Republicans and some "independents" (i.e. leftists who aren't registered Democrats, which allows them to mess around in Republican primaries in NH). He handled the immigration issue without slitting his wrists. He skirted the abortion issue deftly, but it will hang over him with core Republican voters during the primary.

McCain had one fleeting moment of seeming alacrity, when he spoke to a woman who recently lost her brother in Iraq. But his support for his immigration plan has him sunk in the primary.

Romney... didn't hurt himself. But he seemed full of platitudes, and too agreeable. He may have stumbled, but his spending on campaign advertising in NH will help him make up for it.

Ron Paul has a great deal of support from a very vocal set in NH. But Ron has trouble articulating his message in a concise way, and stumbles when citing hard arguments to back him up. What people see in Ron is a good man, but not the best candidate for their message.

Duncan Hunter was surprisingly forceful in his criticism of the Bush administration's spending and handling of the supposed "war" in Iraq (it was never declared). He has no chance, but his arguments are full of poise and preparation.

What it boils down to is this: the Republican nominee will be either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson. The conservative grass roots of the party will have to decide whether they value their pro-life stance (which usually translates into a strict-constructionist view of the Constitution - think Supreme Court) more than they value beating a person like Hilary or Obama. All the rest is hot air.

Romney needs to stop criticizing the Dems for talking about socialized health care, not because socialized health care is a wise or constitutional idea, but because Mitt helped impose a FASCISTIC (entirely proper characterization according to the political definition of the word) health care system in MA. He has no legs to stand on. He has to hit low spending and taxes.

Fred Thompson has to... Well, get in the race, and... show what he believes.

End transmission.