I finally watched the Fox presidential debate. Let me admit a few things up front.*

Debates are excruciating. Anyone who cares deeply about our nation, and grasps at all the complexity buried in most of our important issues, can only recoil at a format that allows 60 seconds for answers and 30 seconds for follow-ups.

Whatever makes for “good” television does not always make for “good” leadership. Television fixates on image–hair, weight, handsomeness or beauty, and a “cool” but compelling air. Leadership requires constancy, perseverance, pragmatism wrapped around a principled core, intelligence, service, selflessness, and so many other traits that often fail to translate to television. The fact that tv is the filter through which we “know” our candidates is one of the most reprehensible developments of the last seventy-five years, particularly in this kind of format.

Finally, this debate is far removed from actual voting, which will not take place until next year. Performance here may have little to do with performance in Iowa or New Hampshire. However, the debate’s massive ratings (24 million viewers, which made it the highest rated non-sports event in cable television history) may have a larger impact than normal. We will see.

Here are some general thoughts:

Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina (who was not even on the main stage) probably helped themselves the most. For those who follow Rubio, this was not a surprise. He is assured, personable, and content-driven. That is enormously difficult in such an artificial situation. Fiorina proved herself a master at this format. She had an impeccable sense of time and place. She has earned deeper scrutiny, which means Fiorina will now have to prove that her knowledge goes beyond digestible nuggets.

Rand Paul was passionate, but insecure. His tendency to interrupt grew tiresome and his idealism did not always mesh well with reality. Christie’s rejoinder about “blowing hot air” at a subcommittee meeting was not only devastating but accurate to a point. Theory, just like the 4th Amendment’s text, is clean. Reality is messy. Applying the 4th Amendment to terrorism is too complicated to dismiss. I agree with Paul in some ways; we have tilted our arguments away from civil liberties, and toward security, when it comes to terrorism. Paul has to show some appreciation for reality. His foreign policy is equally dogmatic and not workable.

Mike Huckabee was only a revelation for those who don’t remember the last time he ran. He is excellent on television. But like Paul, his idealism is dogmatic and it sometimes leads him to untenable extremes. He argued the new President should “use” the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to limit abortion. This smacks of unhinged zeal. While he might decry President Obama’s overstepping on immigration or Iran, how is his approach better? Is it just the politics that are preferable? If so, there is no constitutional principle at work. His comments on the Iran treaty were his best of the night. He nailed Obama’s idealism and his tendency to treat our enemies as friends and fellow Americans as enemies. Well done.

Scott Walker did not emerge. Walker was vanilla (which is delicious in its own right) on a stage full of Jamoca Almond Fudge. Though his personality did not shine, he pulled out his record and his conservative bona fides throughout the night. If he can keep his financial ship afloat, I think he will, like vanilla, hang around. Is that enough to win?

Ben Carson is a gentleman. He was the model of Christian charity throughout most of the night. He is humble and meek, and clearly brilliant given his accomplishments. Putting aside his lack of political experience, in any era not defined by television, he would tower over this field based on virtue. He oozes sincerity. But these are not televised merits, I fear. Combined with his political inexperience, it is difficult to see how he gets out of this field. His tax system based on tithing needs work–theological, economic, and political. I would love to see a Republican administration put Carson in a high level Cabinet post–Health and Human Services?–that rounds out his profile. If that happens, and he distinguishes himself, we could be looking at the President in 2024 if his health and vitality remain.

Ted Cruz is sharp and pointed. He is a firebrand on a frigid night–ideal for starting a warming blaze, but always threatening to turn the cabin into cinders. He is a revolutionary, but not necessarily a leader in a presidential sense. Presidents must bring together disparate parties and interests to get things done. In the Senate, he throws grenades. A necessary skill, for sure, but this short-circuits the legislative process. He highlighted this tension in the debate. When asked about “Kate’s Law,” that would deal with so-called sanctuary cities, Cruz said he sponsored such a law in the Senate, but the Republican leadership blocked it. The Senate leadership has no incentive to work with Cruz when he routinely, and publicly, calls them “liars” or implies their cowardice. Whether Cruz is right or not is irrelevant. His tactics make action less likely and not more. Can he change tactics? He must if he wants to make a dent.

The moderates on stage are in a death struggle. Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie all occupy similar ideological spaces within the Republican Party (they would of course disagree with this). I don’t think there are enough voters and donors to float all of them, so they are competing to be the last moderate standing. That candidate may find himself as the alternative to the last conservative. Which of the three will survive? If forced to bet now, I would say Bush, but Kasich is viable.

If you had to forecast the GOP ticket, what do you think it will be as of now?

*If you are looking for discussion of Donald Trump, you may need to go elsewhere. I hope we have seen the beginning of the end of Trump. Well, that is slightly overstated. I may write a separate post about Trump, who should not be ignored for a host of reasons.