ABSENT: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney

PRESENT: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes

What were they thinking? They say a picture is worth a thousand words and the four empty chairs on the podium of the Republicans' recent debate on Thursday, September 27th at Morgan State University spoke volumes. Regardless of the spin or the rationale (reported "scheduling conflicts" for each of them), those candidates obviously did not think it was worth their while to show up and there is no way to interpret that except that they didn't think it was important to reach out to these blocs of voters -- which is interesting, since the over 60, white male, southern voter is probably going to vote for one of them anyway and is a shrinking population. I'm not sure a candidate can win the national election anymore with over 60, while male, southern voters.

Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come."

Sam Brownback said, "I think this is a disgrace that they are not here...a disgrace to our country...bad for our party...I don't think it's good for our future."

The general consensus is that after the primary, whoever the Republicans select will start moving towards the center and reaching out to these other voters. Good luck with that strategy. There are a lot of us around who will remind people of who was important, or not, to the candidate in September 2007.

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

My fellow Ohio Blogger Brain Shavings compiled the questions together.

Call it shooting yourself in the foot, and then the other foot. With the exception of John McCain, the slate of Republican candidates for president did not accept Univision's offer for a Spanish-language debate. The country's fifth-largest television network, and the "top-rated local newscast in 16 media markets," Univision broadcast a Democratic Party debate last night.

So why does it matter for the GOP? The Politico explains the obvious:

Republican and Democratic strategists agree that in order to win the White House, the presidential candidate must receive at least 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are expected to make up 10 percent of the total vote in 2008.

GOP candidates seem to be following the conclusion of its conservative base that the party cannot win over the Hispanic vote, Rosenberg [Dan, president of NDN] said. "I think we will look back on this time and it will be seen as one of the greatest strategic blunders in American history," he added.

Yes, the fastest-growing segment (legal, mind you) of the American voting population is not happy with the Republican party. All of George W. Bush's hard work at making in-roads to a constituency that the GOP needs, if it will ever win the White House again, has been squandered.

You may recall that the Democrats wimped out when asked to appear on Fox News for a debate, the questions posed to them from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace would have been too tough I guess. I for one think it hurts their chances to connect with the electorate as Fox is the most-widely viewed cable news channel and the the number one source for news on TV.

The GOP debate the other night has the highest viewership of any debate thus far:

The Republican debate on FNC last night was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle. The debate scored 3.14 million total viewers. That beats the nine other presidential debates.

There could be several reasons for that: Republicans are more into the race on their side and watch the debates to learn more about the candidates, the Dems have ceded the race to Hillary and nothing will change that so what's the point in watching or people are starting to pay more attention as the summer has passed. I imagine it;s a mix of all three.

Whatever the reason, the Dems are shorting themselves as you have many disaffected Republicans who may consider voting for a Democrat this go around. Most Republicans watch Fox and would have had a chance to tune in and see the array of candidates. For instance, Barack Obama is an intriguing candidate that many Republicans know of but haven't seen him in the debate setting, one in which he handles well. That won't happen now thanks to the Dem establishment that has demonized Fox, a channel which airs all views, not just liberal ones.

On Fox News last night, the GOP candidates -- sans Fred Thompson -- went at it again. There were some more fireworks than in previous face-offs and the race is starting to get more heated. Iraq, immigration, abortion and the greater War on Terror were the main topics with immigration and Iraq taking up the most time.

Winners would include John McCain although it's too little, too late and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had a sparring match with Ron Paul in which Huckabee definitely had the crowd on his side and in my opinion won the match. You can see why Paul attracts some devotees but I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds that his notion that the "neocons" led us to war and not the nation as a whole rings hollow. Paul is essentially rewriting history as he knows full-well that the President went to Congress for approval and went to the UN as well. In fact, the process was extended because of that and that allowed Saddam to set up the insurgency in my opinion. So the idea that a few "neocons" got us into war is ludicrous at best. Huckabee is running a decent campaign being that he came from nowhere.

McCain hit some good points and came across as prepared and on his game, unfortunately he sank during the "shamnesty" bill imbroglio and can never get back to the point he was, especially with Fred Thompson now in the race. A McCain upset in the early primaries is a possibility but not probable. The Arizona Senator had the funniest line of the night when busting on Thompson for missing the debate and doing the Leno show: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," although McCain is four years older.

Rudy Giuliani didn't make any huge mistakes but he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. He was Mayor of New York, we all know he was Mayor of New York and we all know his record in New York. Start talking about the rest of the country, Rudy.

I had only one question after last night's GOP debate: Can Mike Huckabee use it to build on his Iowa success, or will he once again fade into the woodwork? If you remember Huckabee was going nowhere until -- with next to no money -- he pulled off a surprising second place finish in the Iowa straw poll. Here then, are some random thoughts on Huckabee's debate performance last night:

Tigerhawk: "The most eloquent non-candidate up there, I would love to go to his church."

Headingright.com: Huckabee on Iraq: Has oblivious NIE pessimism thrown at him. His answer: "We broke it, we have to fix it." Color me underwhelmed. He must grasp that since he's trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

Stephen Green: I would so hire Mike Huckabee as my accountant. Heck, I might even vote for him for city council. And that's about it.

Ann Althouse: Here's what I think. Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say. Sit them down at a table and let them talk to each other. With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now. Let's go into a new stage of the campaign. It's really wearing to sit through Paul's ravings and Tancredo's fumblings and Hunter's blahness and Brownback's family, family, family. Enough.

The Politico reports (via redstate) a few changes in the Fred Thompson campaign.

Fred Thompson's communications director Linda Rozett has been let go, a sign of new campaign manager Bill Lacy exerting his authority and yet another indication of the uncertainty within the still-undeclared Thompson campaign. Rozett, a former television journalist and top official at the Chamber of Commerce, was to oversee the organization's communications strategy, but Lacy indicated in an email to his staff this morning that he needed somebody with more political experience.

Plus, more rumors from RealClearPolitics Blog around a date!

Sources tell numerous outlets that Thompson will announce his campaign September 4th, and that he will participate in his first debate on September 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore. His first major appearance at a GOP event will be at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan around a week earlier.

That's about a week from now, so the new communications director will have a very busy time putting this together if indeed, it's true. I expect Fred's numbers will make a 7-10 point move north immediately after this and may dump back down a bit depending on his performance immediately afterwards. There's a lot of high expectations he needs to meet.

When will it be? Maybe sooner than you think. Somehow I missed this in the Boston Globe, but the speculation is that Fred Thompson will announce on or around September 5, and simultaneously show up for the University of New Hampshire debate on the same date.

Asked Wednesday by a Nashville, Tenn., radio commentator whether Sept. 5 is likely to be the day, Thompson said: "I can't give you a particular date, but sounds like you're in the neighborhood."

"I'm taking the time that I've got allotted to me to get my team together, to get my act together," Thompson said.

More speculation of the same sort here.

Well, it's not like there has been any lack of opportunity! If he misses this debate, there will be another, we can count on that. As someone who's warming up to Thompson, I'm afraid to say it, but I think the superheated buzz around his non-campaign is raising expectations extremely high for his potential performance in any potential debate. He's going to have to hit a home run every single time.

Who benefits from the expectations game? Mike Huckabee, who, with an impressive achievement in the Iowa Straw Poll, will be watched closely in any future debates. He will no longer be lumped in with the others in the second tier but will be watched closely for any breakout potential. Which he has, in spades. Thompson or no Thompson, the next GOP debate and the reactions to it will be interesting for that alone.

When the GOP slate of candidates threatened to not participate in the next YouTube debate, I, and many other Republicans rightfully pilloried them. Their rationale was that it was not "presidential" responding to a talking snow man or some other such nonsense.

Now it's the Dems turn to be vilified, and for more important reasons. Fox News has officially canceled their scheduled Democratic debate in September in Detroit. The reason? Democrats will not participate and be subjected to questioning by the evil, right-wing channel. They don't want to face real questions that matter about the War on Terror, their past experience and stands on issues and domestic policy issues such as abortion. They know full-well that they will be interrogated by good newsmen such as Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and others and will not get the softball questions tossed underhand to them by liberal shill Keith Olbermann.

Where's the outcry over this? To Democrats, it is a good thing not having their candidates answer straight-forward questions from the other side of the political spectrum. Hell, the GOP candidates have withstood stupid questions from liberals in interviews such as "did you sleep with your wife before marriage?" I would venture that Brit Hume would not ask so shallow and insulting a question as that.

Too bad for the Democrats, as whoever gets the nomination will eventually have to answer questions from those who don't support them. It would be much better to get the answers out now and have them in the past then have to answer them when more people are paying attention. They have no issues with attending a forum hosted by gay and lesbian groups or a minority debate, but no way will they participate in a debate on the number one cable news channel. That makes sense.

The Democrats waged another round of meaningless debate today with George Stephanopoulos' moderating. My first thought upon pouring my coffee and watching this unfold was that Stephanopoulos asked better questions than Dem shill Keith Olbermann. But then again, Karl Marx would have asked better questions, but I digress.

The experience of Barack Obama was a main issue and Hillary Clinton pressed that his comments on meeting with various world leaders just shows his inexperience:

Despite her initially conciliatory tone, when pushed to comment on Obama's position, Clinton reiterated her initial criticism of Obama's statement, saying, "I don't think any president should give away a bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader, unless you know what you're going to get out of that."

From Mike Allen at The Politico:

Obama will honor his commitment to eight more debates (five sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, one by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and two in Iowa), but he does not plan to accept many invitations for forums, where the candidates appear sequentially.

Campaign sources confirmed that the announcement could affect such key Democratic constituencies as the Congressional Black Caucus, Iowa AARP and League of Conservation Voters, which are planning to sponsor forums in the fall.

"Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates," campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

I'm with Barack Obama on this one. More than 14 months before the 2008 election and we've already had so many debates I've lost count. Also note who he's sticking with: minorities, the elderly, and the greenies. Some constituents you just can't ignore.

But I can't help but wonder if last month's gay debate would have made the cut or being interrogated by Melissa Etheridge was the straw that broke the camel's back. Either way, this is a good decision for the campaign. Spread Obama around too much and he becomes a Wal-Mart commodity.

The open question is whether the leading candidate (Hillary Clinton) will take the opportunity and focus her attention as well, or try to embarrass Obama by showing up at a debate or forum that he won't attend. My guess is the former.

What is Mike Huckabee's secret sauce? The Washington Times talks to a campaign consultant who thinks he knows:

That Mr. Huckabee has a knack for connecting with voters is obvious, but Rich Thau, a campaign communications consultant who is conducting focus groups on the debates, has measured it and says Mr. Huckabee was literally off the chart in one of his answers in last weekend's debate.

Mr. Thau does dial-testing, in which voters constantly rate performances by turning a dial to indicate their approval of what a candidate is saying. He posts his results on his Web site, www.messagejury.com, and he says in last weekend's debate, voters scored Mr. Huckabee's blunt "Let's get it done" answer on energy independence at a 98 out of 100, putting it in the realm of "motherhood and apple pie."

"He has yet to deliver a dud response in any of the four GOP debates," Mr. Thau said calling him the Ted Williams of the debates for combining consistency with his ability to hit a home run. "Huckabee has that ability to bring the entire issue down to a single sentence where people go, 'Yeah, that makes sense to me.' "

Rich Thau has the "get it done" answer and the audience reaction to it on his website here. Fascinating stuff.

Not much of a debate if you ask me. Democratic candidates, one at a time, get asked pointed questions about their position on issues that matter to gays. Ryan Sager has a good liveblogging summary, and the Sun-Sentinel has a write-up:

The candidates underscored differences with Republicans on gay and lesbian rights, but leading candidates also faced aggressive questioning on their reluctance to embrace marriage for same-sex couples.

All of the Democratic candidates support a federal ban on anti-gay job discrimination, want to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military and support civil unions that would extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

Sure, but that's the easy stuff, what about gay arriage, an idea against which amendments have passed by large margins in most states of the union, including states that Democrats need to win the presidency.

When you're right, you're right. And when it comes to the subject of Iraq, the only candidate to be able to brag on that score at yesterday's GOP debate in Iowa was Ron Paul. What a breath of fresh air the man is. To the party establishment, however, Paul carries a foul, heretical odor. I'm sure they wish he'd just go away. Here's a recap of all the Paul highlights.

Note to the other Republican candidates: even your own base is now splintered on the question of the war. Sticking by the president is a losing issue. You'd be wise to listen to Ron Paul, at least insofar as the war is concerned.