The Art of the Scorecard

At the New York Sun, Ryan Sager seconds that view:

"Rudy Giuliani won that debate hands down . . .

"Whether it was Iraq, immigration, health care, or whatever, he just sounded so much more relaxed and in command of the situation than the other candidates that it was ridiculous. Even when the abortion question came up -- one might not have liked the substance of his answer, but he was confident in his convictions while giving it (he was also helped by that lightning strike during his answer, which lightened the mood).

"As for the other candidates, one would have to give John McCain second place. While the sheer amount of time spent on immigration wasn't good for him, he got to talk a lot about Iraq and service and the military -- and he's always good when he's on those themes. Even on immigration, it's hard to miss that this guy's doing what he thinks is right. That's the product voters are buying when it comes to Mr. McCain, I think they got a lot of it."

So McCain, buried at RedState, has been resurrected.

"Out of the Big Three, Mr. Romney was clearly the third. From prevaricating on the Iraq question at the beginning to prevaricating on the Spanish-language-ad question toward the end, he simply did himself no favors. I don't remember him getting off one good line. I do remember him seeming overly slick."

So much for Roger Simon declaring him the winner.

There was no blood on the floor, but McCain did very well, says Fred Barnes:

"There was a moment in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that must have caused a massive sigh of disappointment among the media. It came when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney declined to attack Arizona senator John McCain on immigration. The day before, McCain had criticized Romney for failing to do something-or-other on that issue. Romney grinned, declared McCain his friend, and said, 'I'm not going to make this a matter of personal politics.'

"Why the heck not? That was my reaction. It's personal squabbling among the candidates that the press was looking for. It's what Wolf Blitzer, who ably moderated the debate on CNN, was looking for. And so was I. Serious bickering, preferably by the top tier candidates, is what makes these events interesting, fun, and worth watching. Any political debate described as polite, as Tuesday's was, is something less than exciting. . . .

"If was an especially good night for anyone, that was probably McCain. He was forceful without being overbearing."

Not a bad description of a successful pundit, either.