Thompson comes alive, shines in South Carolina debate

It appears Fred Thompson picked the right time to stop sleepwalking through his presidential campaign.
I noted that Thompson had a solid performance in the final New Hampshire debate, and he topped it tonight, in a state where he has to perform well to keep his candidacy alive.

Thompson sharply critiqued the record of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, but did not so in an unpleasant way. He also appeared to have been well prepped for the debate. His immigration comment that he would "raise our fences, but widen our gates," then only open them at our own discretion, may have been the top comment of the night.

As well as Thompson did, two other candidates, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani vanished into the woodwork. Romney, the target of criticism from his opponents during the Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns, was ignored for the most part tonight. Giuliani simply did not distinguish himself at all.

Steering the middle course during the debate were Huckabee, the Iowa winner, and John McCain, the New Hampshire winner. Huckabee, as usual, was able to get off a few winning one-liners, but did not particularly distinguish himself. McCain, on the other hand, may have been a winner simply not making any mistakes and by not letting himself get beaten up over the immigration issue.

The wild card was Rep. Ron Paul. As usual, the Fox News Channel reporters (and please don't tell me they are any different than CNN or MSNBC or anyone else) tried to make the debate conform to their preconceived notions. Why else would they ask Ron Paul why he thinks he is a viable candidate. After all, Paul beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and received about nine times as many votes as Thompson in New Hampshire. Giuliani and Thompson were not asked any questions about their viability. Why not ask Ron Paul about his views on the issues, particularly some of the issues which have won him such a passionate following?

As usual, Paul in his own inimitable fashion, shed light on some issues Republicans would rather ignore. For instance, why has the party of limited government involvement, the party which once campaigned on promises to abolish the Department of Education, instead increased funding for it and brought federal interference in education to an all-time high.

As Paul asked, why has the party of Robert Taft, who opposed involvement in NATO become a company which has increased its involvement in situations all over the world.

Paul remained the only candidate to question the U. S. involvement in Iraq, bringing the subject into the immigration discussion. It would be easier for the U. S. to defend its borders, Paul said, if we did not have so many National Guard members in Iraq.