So who won? Tonight, two candidates really benefited form their efforts. I have a feeling that Mitt Romney will emerge from every one of these shindigs as the most articulate, well informed and appealing candidate. In terms of debating skills, it’s a man amongst boys out there. But Rudy also had a great night, rebounding from a fairly disastrous debut at the first go-round. Rudy is by far the most likely candidate to have an “I paid for this microphone” moment.

Mitt gains from every one of these formats. The more the country gets to see him, the better it is for him. As for Rudy, he did nothing less than right his campaign’s listing ship. This was the first time in a long time that it looked like his frontrunner status was anything more than an accident.

As for McCain, it was an up and down night. He badly bungled the Confederate Flag question, but had some good moments, too. McCain looks a bit tired and inarticulate at these things. When Fred gets in, the contrast between him and the rest of the top tier will be all the starker.

Now, some individual comments:

1) Rudy Giuliani - Much, much better than last time. Still, the format doesn’t lend itself to his speaking style. At these things, Rudy rambles, interrupting himself only to interject a tired soundbite. I wonder why he can’t streamline his thought processes more efficiently. Nevertheless, he had by far the best moment of the night by challenging Congressman Crackpot on his absurd 9/11 comments.

2) John McCain – Obviously McCain was trying to tone it down tonight. The finger pointing and shrillness that characterized his effort a couple of weeks ago were happily absent tonight. His campaign must have hooked up a focus group to one of those Frank Luntz instant reaction gizmos to grade his performance last time.

3) Mitt Romney – Was it just me, or did Romney talk a lot less tonight than in the previous hoedown? Anyway, about Iraq, his answer was so much more scholarly than the others. It’s almost like he’s a doctorate holder who actually knows the facts, while the other guys are platitude spewing high school students. His command of the facts and authoritative delivery have to be the envy of the field.

4) Tommy Thompson – Tommy usually holds his hands, arms and the rest of his body perfectly still while he talks. When he offers some body language, it’s like a little voice in his head is saying, “Move your hands – it will make you look life-like.” The effect makes him resemble a disembodied head atop a gray suit. Maybe America will flip for that image. I didn’t. I’m even going to make a prediction – Tommy Thompson will be the first candidate voted off the island. His presidential campaign is providing a disgraceful coda to a distinguished career. Let it end!

5) Ron Paul – Do you know that this Robert Taft-idolizing crackpot is Andrew Sullivan’s latest heartthrob? Andrew’s bitterly disappointed that Republicans aren’t giving Paul a chance. I’m convinced that if Andrew familiarized himself with Paul’s background, his disappointment would be mitigated. On the bright side, Wendell Goler asked Paul for three programs he would cut. Talk about serving a heaping helping of red meat to a libertarian. (For what it’s worth, Paul is actually right about the Department of Homeland Security; that monstrosity is a living breathing emblem of all that’s wrong with our government.) The good news is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate. As Captain Picard might say, make it so.

6) Tom Tancredo – Tancredo is completely unready for primetime. He halts when he speaks, and is oddly unsure of himself. Not that it matters, but he’s not presidential. At these forums, he’d be better off going the Ron Paul route and just talking about what he wants to talk about in response to every question. When asked about Iraq, talk about immigration. When asked about the economy, talk about immigration. What’s the worse that can happen? It’s not like he can sink in the polls. Good line about “the road to Des Moines,” though. Across the board, the canned jokes were pretty solid tonight.

7) Some Guy Named Gilmohr – Can this guy ever answer a single question without immediately citing his résumé?

8) Sam Brownback – Obviously made a concerted effort to be more animated tonight. Since the bar was set very low in that regard, mission accomplished. But, sheesh, when Brownback was talking about ethanol as the answer to rising gas prices, I felt like throwing my Cairn terrier through the TV screen. You know what ethanol is? The chemical compound that results when you mix corn and tax dollars.

9) Mike Huckabee – You know what bugs me about Huckabee and Gilmore? I get no sense that any depth of understanding lurks beneath their platitudes and the obsessive recitation of their résumés. Nevertheless, I have to give Huckabee mad props for the “John Edwards in a beauty shop” line. Could it be that my relentless pounding of the Pink Sapphire meme has successfully brought it into the mainstream? If so, I could not be prouder.

10) Duncan Hunter – Unlike the guys who mention their lame-o backgrounds as governor, Hunter actually has a résumé that you gotta love. Also, I think he comes across impressively. In a better world, he would be a top tier candidate.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

They are the class of the field, far beyond the rest in terms of presence and appeal.  It is an open question on whether Fred Thompson will join them in the hunt, but it is at most a three-way race. Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney are light years ahead in electability and seriousness than the other eight.  Each are superbly prepared and competent to talk at length and persuasively about the key issues ahead and not the old feuds and failed policies of the past.

Two observations:

When Romney criticized McCain on policy grounds --McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy-- McCain did not answer the specific critiques but attacked Romney on personal grounds, also arguing that  his own consistency mattered more than the quality of his ideas and then asserting that Romney changed his positions on even numbered years.  Thus did McCain miss an opportunity to confront squarely two of the four reasons GOP voters won't rally to him, and not only did he miss that opportunity, he took the moment to remind the audience why his reputation as a touchy and temperamentally chancy candidate is deserved.

The questions from Hume, Wallace, and Goller were generally good, but again as with last week the problem was the rigidity of the format. and the number of candidates  The most important moment of the debate was the discussion begun by Ron Paul --now clearly revealed as a fringe candidate who ought not to be on the stage-- who argued that America invited the 9/11 attacks and was rightly and strongly rebuked by Giuliani.  A wide screen shot showed many of the candidates ready to join in a discussion of what motivates our enemy, a conversation that would have gone a long way towards making the debate significant.  But at just this moment Wendall Goller decided he had to ask his prepared questions instead of allowing an authentic debate to break out.  The moment passed, and the candidates went back to the staggered (and usually dull) one minute riffs on this or that.  The hardest thing for an interviewer to do is listen and be willing to abandon the script when such a moment arrives.  Goller missed such a moment.

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney ought to consider a few appearances together, asking each other questions and taking questions from audiences.  They should of course show up for all the cattle calls, but the interesting conversation is between these two, and I'd like to hear it --at length, and with Fred Thompson if an when he joins the race.

CarByChoice.com.

If you can trust the buyer --and thousands of people trust this service-- all you need is make, model, year and some idea of options.  They do the work for you.

Specializiation at work, again.

FYI, from Senator McConnell's office:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement regarding attempts by Congressional Democrats to revive the misnamed “fairness doctrine”:

“Our Founding Fathers understood free speech is fundamental to our nation and sought to protect it with the First Amendment. As a strong supporter of First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, I will continue to work to prevent government limitations on speech.

“The latest attempt by House Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘fairness doctrine’ will silence active political voices and limit the free flow of information. Government is not the speech police and I will not support these efforts to restrict free speech.

“Political debate is among the most important democratic traditions of our nation and a hallmark of free society. We must continue to preserve the right of all Americans to express their views.”

Watch the video. Enjoy. And later tonight, we’ll talk about the rest of the guys.

And lord, what a night we have in front of us. American Idol and then a presidential debate. Pinch me! Don’t worry. We’ll get through this together. I’ll be posting a debate recap shortly after the festivities conclude.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Dr. Mohler pens a tribute to his friend.  If you read only one thing about the Rev. Falwell, read this one.

Dr. Robert Smith of the Yellowstone-Teton Epicenter Project will be my guest today.

My first posts on this subject are here and here.  The first nifty illustration is here:

 UPDATE:  My geologist friend Viuki says there are much more immediate concerns than Yellowstone's supervolcano:

Hugh,

I've been reading Bill Bryson since he started publishing books (very
popular in England before any Yanks had read him.) He is a wonderful
writer, and Short History is a good science text. I have all his books
if you want to borrow some more! I think he would be a great guest
columnist since he can speak authoritatively on the British version of
free speech and ours.

Now, Yellowstone. As we discussed once (a couple years ago at least),
Yellowstone Park is over an active hot spot -- just like Hawai'i -- as
the plates move over the hot spot, volcanic activity ensues. The
probability of eruption is unknowable, but there are far more serious
geologic concerns for the average American. They just don't happen to be
in such scenic areas!

1. New Madrid Fault --
The Mississippi Valley-"Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On"
In the winter of 1811-12, the central Mississippi Valley was struck by
three of the most powerful earthquakes in U.S. history. Even today, this
region has more earthquakes than any other part of the United States
east of the Rocky Mountains. Government agencies, universities, and
private organizations are working to increase awareness of the
earthquake threat and to reduce loss of life and property in future
shocks.
Read More...

Hugh points out below that the TV networks, in an effort to generate positive buzz for their programs, have been plying bloggers (of all people) with gifts and trips and attention (precious attention!) to win favorable notices for their shows. This has led some people to ask if I’ve received any swag.

Sadly, unlike the bloggers in the WSJ story, I’ve received nothing as exciting as a video I-Pod. Hell, I can’t even get Bill Kristol to give me a Weekly Standard tote bag. I think I haven’t been bribed because I come across as unmistakably incorruptible. Nevertheless, some politicians have tried to soften me up with some gifts. In the interest of full disclosure, below is a list of my swag received to date:

From Rudy Giuliani – A “Rudy Giuliani Abortion Position Decoder Ring”

From Newt Gingrich – An “I Rode on Air Force One and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt” t-shirt.

From Some Guy Named Gilmoar – A Virginia Baked Ham

From Dennis Kucinich – A set of “Dennis Kucinich Novelty Ears”

From John Edwards – A day of manly beauty at Manchester NH’s Pink Sapphire

From Tommy Thompson – A box of Tamiflu

From Mitt Romney – A “Serious Times Require Serious Hair” bumper sticker

From Joe Biden – A “Serious Times Require Serious Pseudo-Hair” bumper sticker

From Mike Gravel – A greeting card that read, “I don’t know who you are, either.”

That’s it to date. Hardly anything worth mentioning.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

There must be something in the water in right wing Blogistan. Maybe we’ve caught a touch of that “rage virus” that the important new movie “28 Weeks Later” documents.

Yesterday, two of the right wing blogosphere’s heavyweights squared off. Glenn Reynolds started things off with a little jab over the widespread appeasement of Muslim sensibilities, commenting, “Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine.”

This greatly agitated HotAir’s Bryan Preston who shot back with a nasty right cross, “I get the warning and humor of (the) line, but frankly I’m tired of it. Prof. Reynolds needs to hit the books.” Then Bryan got angry, making an extensive case for why Glenn was wrong and chiding “major bloggers” for not “getting it” in regards to what makes Islam different. For what it’s worth, I agreed with most of Bryan’s substance if not his style. For a minute there, Bryan’s anger over this little dust-up reminded me of the good old days when everyone on the right was so civilly discussing the Terri Schiavo situation and Bryan was calling Glenn “InstaPilate.”

As far as yesterday’s festivities are concerned, Glenn’s little jibe violated one of my fundamental rules of snarky writing: If you find it absolutely necessary to tweak an ethnic group, make fun of your own. With that small exception, save the ethnic cracks for your private gatherings and correspondence.

Additionally, I find the substance of Glenn’s statement to be off. Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are completely different. Every sect has its whack-jobs and weirdoes. In my tribe of the Jews, my own dear Aunt Susan proudly carries that banner. But the threat posed by Fundamentalist Islam and the antics it’s already inspired like flying 767’s into skyscrapers are unique. Casually comparing that threat to some vague and non-specific Christian bogeyman, even in jest, will offend some folks.

In spite of the foregoing, I found Bryan’s angry counter-post to be over-the-top, although still an enormous step forward from the “InstaPilate” days. One of the things I like about the right wing blogosphere, especially when compared to the left wing blogosphere, is the civility. We can disagree and remain cordial. None of us write in a style that could best be characterized as “angry.” We eschew name-calling, at least among ourselves. (Obviously we’re willing to call John Edwards names, but that’s different.) Disagreeing with Glenn was fine. Saying he needed to hit the books and that he just didn’t get it was needlessly personal.

On a related note, there’s the Red State blog’s “open declaration of war against the Republican House leadership.” The official casus belli is the appointment of Ken Calvert to the House appropriations committee. According to Erick Erickson,

“The House Republican Leadership just does not get it and they will not take us seriously until we flex our muscle against them. We must scalp one member. That member's name is Ken Calvert.”

On the merits, Erick is right. Calvert is by all appearance one of our more shady representatives, and not the kind of guy who should be getting plum committee assignments. Nevertheless, the prose is needlessly purple and hostile. I’m not going to war against other Republicans. I don’t even go to war against Democrats. Especially when there’s a real war going on, such rhetorical table pounding isn’t my cup of tea.

And then there’s this email that Erick sent out today to fellow bloggers:

A reporter called to get my response to this:

(Rep.) John Linder told the reporter less than ten people called yesterday about Calvert and that it does not matter anyway because he does not trust anything bloggers have to say.

So, now you know where you rank with John Linder.

Students of the left wing blogosphere will find this message and Erick’s entire campaign strikingly similar to a Markos Moulitsas operation. The sense of grievance and the naked lust to empower the blogopshere are things that could have easily sprung from Kos’ modem.

Which brings up a deeper question – Is there room on the right for a Kos? I don’t think so. If you look at the top tier of right wing bloggers, they’re almost unfailingly civil. One of the things that made Bryan Preston’s post yesterday so notable was that it flirted with incivility. Erick’s declaration of war goes quite a bit further. If there’s an appetite for manning the barricades on the right and attempting to make the right wing blogs the kingmakers that the left wing blogs are, I’m missing it.

Additionally, the right wing blogosphere, including both bloggers and readers, are well within the conservative mainstream. The reason Kos and company got traction in the first place is because they were way outside the Democratic mainstream. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that Dr. Dean was the only Democratic presidential candidate who ran as an unambiguous opponent of the war in Iraq. In other words, there was room on the Democratic mainstream’s left for a movement to pop up. That movement found its expression in the left wing blogosphere. There’s not a similar dynamic available on the right. That’s why any movements of this sort will be redolent of personal pique and ambition.

And there’s one other thing, just speaking as one lonely blogger: I’m not into Action Alerts. I’m not into telling you how to protest something or telling you to call Congress. I find the very rare political conference calls that I attend to be a nuisance, even though they do provide a handy opportunity to watch “Family Feud” on the DVR while officially spending my time constructively.

I’m a writer, not an activist, and I have no interest in changing. Although, come to think of it, I wouldn’t mind 600,000 visits a day like Markos gets.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

The always helpful N.Z. Bear, himself a fine observor of ecosystems, directs me to the Yellowstone supervolcano watch. 

For those of you just checking in, the background on my new documentary is here. Sponsorships are welcome.  Docs are very expensive to produce.

Here it is.

The Boston Globe story on the Romney boys' blog is here.

If you had read the book, you'd have seen this coming.  And much more as well.

From the New York Times:

30 of the 41 Democratic freshmen in the House are facing Republicans who have either announced their candidacies or are said to have plans to announce them, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Visit NRCC.org and you'll find this "Fact of the Day": "Congressman John Duncan (TN-02) performed as a back-up singer on a show aired nationally from Nashville's Grand Ole Opry in 2001."

But you won't find a list of the 30, or 25, or 15, or even 5 candidates who need early support to succeed.

Because the GOP's political team still doesn't get the basic fact that the cycle started the day after November's losses.  Every day without a tagreted district list matched with serious challengers is another day wasted.

From the WSJ.com:

Who says you can't buy love? Trying to tap into the burgeoning power of blogs as promotional tools and fed up with the jaded attitudes of professional critics and TV feature writers, studios and networks are flooding bloggers with free stuff in hopes the flattered recipients will reward them with positive coverage. Flowing into the trough is everything from fancy gym bags and toasters to video iPods and free trips. Some networks -- in the spotlight this week as they unveil their fall schedules to advertisers -- have even borrowed a term from the technology industry to describe the strategy: blogola.

I watched "24" last night --see Dave Barry's summary here-- in the new mode:  I waited until 9:15, and then sped through the commercials.  Which brings us to this WSJ.com article from this AM (subscription required, and routine for the well-informed):

For decades, advertisers at the huge annual ad-buying event known as the "upfront" have required TV networks to guarantee the number of viewers that will be tuning in to each show. This year, advertisers will be making a range of new demands.

They will be insisting on far more information about how people consume particular TV shows -- from the number of viewers who watch a program on a delayed basis rather than live to the number of people who actually watch commercial breaks. As a result, networks at the upfront, which is being held this week, are expected to have a tougher time nailing down early commitments for ads on their fall shows, something they have been able to count on in the past.

One of the problems that DVR's have brought about:

One of the big issues at stake is how to take DVR audiences into consideration. While it is clear that many viewers use the devices to skip through ads, networks continue to demand advertisers pay for those people who do watch ads as long as seven days after they air. Last year, marketers rebuffed networks' demands and paid only for live audiences.

This year, media buyers and network executives say a consensus seems to be emerging between the two sides: Networks will be able to charge advertisers for any viewers who watch a program within three days after it airs.

Yesterday I interviewed Michael Malone, high tech journalist and author of many fine books including the brand new Bill & Dave, the story of the founders of Hewlett Packard.  Among the many subjects we covered was the new reality for advertisers:

HH: Is that what every newspaper should be doing, Michael Malone?

MM: They should have done it a long time ago. They didn’t do it because they were afraid they’d lose their advertisers. And what they would not accept was that the advertisers, and the advertising agencies, are still evolving, and they’re very carefully inching their way forward, trying to understand how this web and blogosphere world works. But we’re starting to see the first major companies…look at Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit, and his podcast. It’s sponsored by Volvo.

HH: Yup.

MM: We’re starting to see the big boys coming in and advertise in cyberspace.

HH: Yup.

MM: And newspapers should have been set up to grab that advertising when it transferred over.

HH: Is it too late?

MM: I think it’s too late for most papers.

The web is eating up ad dollars.  "Advertisers have already begun to throw in," Malone added. "By the end of this decade, you’ll see a major migration by advertisers over to cyberspace."

Which is why we love Townhall.com's space in the world of the web, and why we expect to grow and grow even as the dinosaur media thrashes about in the swamp.

Read the whole Malone interview here.