Since I’m a day late with the gradebook, it’s a good thing a lot of people took notes, like Mary Katharine Ham (who did the debate in lolDebatez format) Matt Lewis, Vodkapundit, and Huckleberry Dumbell, to back up my own PG-13-rated notes (rated such for language). Let’s break out the red pen and start grading both the candidates and the moderators:
Maria Bartiromo – B – She had the benefit of having Chris Matthews as the co-host, and most of her questions were decent economic ones.
Sam Brownback – B – The good: Flat tax, drill’em oil policy, no tax increases, focus on the family. The bad: electric cars (batteries do not work too well at zero degrees and colder, and it’s not a Wisconsin or Michigan winter without a few sub-zero nights), lack of stage presence, like of Greenspan, flat tax plan “optional”.
Rudy Giuliani – B – The good: Once again laid the smackdown on Ron Paul (though I would’ve dipped back to 12/7 instead of 9/11), seems to have turned over a new leaf from his ’80s witchhunt of Wall Street, good stage presence, sense of history (he actually dipped back before 9/11 for once). The bad: Wrong side of line-item veto (to be fair, I don’t want a President with Wisconsin’s Frankenstein veto), I still can’t get over his ’80s witchhunt of Wall Street.
John Harwood – I, leaning toward F – My semi-drunk notes (I would’ve been racing Vodkapundit, but I had to pace myself because of Drinking Right later last night) only show him asking 2 questions, but both started off with “Wah!”
Mike Huckabee – D+ – The good: He won’t wait for a public opinion poll if inbound nukes are on the way, faith in the American consumer. The bad: Repeating the “end of underground economy” lie vis-a-vis the “Fair”Tax, predicting a union comeback, supporting corn-a-hole, willing to spend billions just to deny the ‘Rats a political win (and giving them the actual win instead).
Duncan Hunter – C – The good: Understands we’re in a trade war, and that the Pubbies need to be more “human”. The bad: He’s turned into a one-note pony, blind support for the “Fair”Tax.
Chris Matthews – F – Once again, Prissy Chrissy proved the truth behind the ancient Egyptian fable of the scorpion and the horse. It was at the 45-minute mark, right after the first set of commercials, he plunged his stinger into the debate.
John McCain – C- – The good: Once again the most-quoted by his opponents, against compuslory union membership, command of history, won’t make the mistake of McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act with the Internet, earmark-hater The bad: Big-government lover, way out of his league on economic issues, bad stumbler (and that doesn’t count the problems hearing a couple of questions), egotistical.
Ron Paul – F – The good (yes, there is a good here): dislike of subsidies. The bad: Utter stupidity with regard to foreign relations, brain-dead on history, latent goldbug, dislike of subsidies seems more pro-forma than an actual core belief.
Mitt Romney – B- – The good: “(S)moother than a smoothie smoothed over with fine-grit sandpaper” (shamelessly stolen from Vodkapundit), says most of the right things. The bad: The record doesn’t support the rhetoric, support for farm subsidies while also supporting corn-a-hole, support for HiliaryCare Lite (i.e. TaxachusettsCare).
Jeffrey Seib – B+ – Two of the three questions he posed were very good ones. He got the corn-a-hole monster out on the table (promptly flubbed by both candidates it was posed to).
Tom Tancredo – C- – The good: The only candidate to recognize that the 3,000-lb hippo in the government part of the economic room is SocSecurity and Medicare, and the 3,000-lb hippo in the trade half is imported oil, won’t raise taxes. The bad: Somehow ties everything back to illegal immigration (stretching too far sometimes), gratuitous cheap shot at Brownback’s mother (which knocked the grade down a full grade).
Fred Thompson – B – The good: Avoided the Prissy Landmines with aplomb, said that unionizing ballots should remain secret ballots, generally got stronger as the debate went on. The bad: Slow start, fumbled the one “specifics” question from Bartiromo.
I think Huckabee did a lot better than you give him credit for. At least a B and Ron Paul did better than an F although I can not stand the guy.
What can I say; I’m not an easy grader. Notice nobody picked up an “A”.
I tried to limit the influence of the grading to just the 2 hours of the debate, which is something that definitely hurt Huckabee. He’s done better in earlier debates where the focus has not been so much on the economy.
Ron Paul deserves an F for his performance at this debate, not just his overall looniness. No doubt about that.
I’m not sure about a B for Thompson. That might be a bit high. I would give him a B- or C+. I agree that Thompson improved as the debate went on. He had a very shaky start.
I’m also with you that no one earned an A.
I think we may have to start grading on a curve. :)