Here's NEWSWEEK cultural critic Jeremy McCarter deconstructing the first full night of the GOP convention--and its "Country First" rhetoric.

Fred Thompson's narcoleptic performance in this year's primaries proved that he's not the greatest candidate around. And when it comes to his day job, he's not exactly the guy you'll see leading the next big revival of King Lear. But as his starring turn at Tuesday night's Republican convention showed, he will always find work, because he has one rare skill in abundance: He is fluent in Heartland.

Heartland isn't a foreign language; it's not even a dialect. It's a combination of certain words and certain visuals that add up to describe a worldview. It works via careful balance. So you hear, for instance, the lofty language of ancient and patriotic glory, of martial and heroic valor, but juxtaposed with a tone of Pepperidge Farm. Heartland thumps its chest and knows its strength, but labors under the existential dread of gathering foreign threat. Heartland also loves—loves—metaphor. Thus, a question of fiscal policy, in the hands of as skilled a practitioner as Thompson, becomes: "They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the 'other' side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform."

Democrats are no good at Heartland. Sure, they've got Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who lit up last week's convention by sounding like an actual human being. But the main thrust of their speeches follows the Clinton route: trying to make wonkishness sexy. The best moments of Thompson's speech showed what they're missing. With hand stuck casually in pocket, he laid out the case for John McCain with the easy charm of a country lawyer bringing a jury around. He also found his laughs, as when he noted that McCain viewed the historic number of demerits his father amassed at the Naval Academy "as a record to be beaten." And naturally he made the kind of bold patriotic claims that are very near the core of Heartland. "We live in the freest, strongest, most generous and prosperous nation in the history of the world, and we are thankful," he drawled. (The reference to McCain having dated an exotic dancer named Marie, the Flame of Florida, was not Heartland. It was just weird.)

But last night saw a curious twist on those affirmations of patriotism. Throughout the evening--too frequently for it to be coincidence—love of country was held up as something demonstrated through physical suffering and death. Each occurrence was honorable and just; it's the pile-up that begins to seem off-putting: a quick shot of Reagan waving from hospital window, a voice-over saying "no one can take away what our flag symbolizes" as a widow is presented with one in a cemetery, a biographical film about Mike Monsoor, the Navy SEAL who threw himself on a grenade. Even Abraham Lincoln was described, over an illustration of John Wilkes Booth's fatal shot, as one who served "the country he had put first, before self."...

Two portions of last night's program lacked that Heartland energy. The first was the video of President Bush. He checked off the boxes that needed checking where McCain was concerned, and made a gratuitous swipe at the "angry left," but the whole spectacle went awry: Unable to react to the crowd in real time, Bush began to seem out of touch even with his own party. The second was the speech by Joe Lieberman, who may not be a Democratic senator any more, but is dull enough to be mistaken for one. He wore a sober suit and a patterned tie (if you look closely, the dots are little Benedict Arnold heads), and mildly requested, in his mild away, that all right-thinking Democrats and independents transcend petty partisanship and vote for McCain.

It's hard to say how effective this might be with people who haven't seen much of Lieberman since he ran with Al Gore. But Democrats should at least be glad that the party apostate isn't, say, Joe Biden; somebody with that kind of fire could have done real damage. As it was, Lieberman seemed an almost comic coda to Thompson's weighty address. He's been unpopular for a long while now, and suddenly he has something that makes everybody to want to be his friend. Eight years ago, Lieberman could have been the vice president of the United States. Last night, he was more like McLovin.

READ THE REST HERE.
 

As we noted earlier today, several prominent Republicans--including Fred Thompson--have taken to mentioning Harry Truman when asked about Sarah Palin's skimpy resume. Turns out that the references to 33rd president are part of the GOP's latest talking points--as NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter reports. "Look at Harry Truman, where he stood, how much experience he had before he was chosen as vice president," said Thompson this afternoon. Alter did--and what he found doesn't exactly flatter Palin. Here's Jon:

The GOP talking points on Monday instructed all surrogates to compare the selection of Sarah Palin to FDR's choice of Harry Truman in 1944. The idea is that a plain spoken candidate who isn't an expert can become a great president. In some iterations, the surrogates mention that FDR and Truman met only briefly before Roosevelt died, and that he never told Truman about the atom bomb.

The Truman-Palin comparison is a bad one. By the time of the 1944 Democratic convention Truman was an experienced U.S. Senator from Missouri who had reached national prominence by chairing an important committee that examined profiteering and other contractor abuses during World War II. Not only was Truman no rookie, he had studied history and government for many years on his own and was thus extremely well-versed on the issues of the day and their historical context. Time and again, Truman impressed friends and colleagues with how much he knew.

Perhaps Palin has been reading history for years and boning up Truman-style on public issues. If so, we don't know it yet.
 

ST. PAUL, Minn.--Fred Thompson is a talented actor, but even he couldn't conceal the fact that he thinks John McCain's new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is something of a gamble--albeit a gamble that going's to pay off. "No nominee that I've ever heard of has had all the boxes checked," he confessed this afternoon during lunch with NEWSWEEK's convention team here at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown St. Paul, referring to Palin's rather skimpy resume. "Whether she can survive those liabilities depends on things that haven't happened yet. John McCain has lot riding on this. I think she'll do very well, but it's up to her to carry the mail."

If today's encounter is any indication, Thompson hasn't changed since stepping out of the spotlight last January. He's still the same slow-moving, sardonic, Southern-fried character he was on the trail. But it was clear during our meeting that his lumbering grizzly bear act conceals a savvy intelligence keenly attuned--at least this afternoon--to Republican talking points. Thompson's performance, in fact, struck me as a preview of what's to come from the GOP.

A few key exchanges. Pressed on Palin's inexperience, the Tennessean turned the tables on Obama--as I predicted last week that Republicans would do. "I wonder sometimes what we call experience," he drawled. "How much experience does Barack Obama have? Sitting on the floor of the Senate listening to people talk does not give you foreign-relations experience." But McCain has always said that his VP must be able to assume the Oval Office at a moment's notice, we reminded him. Is Palin ready? At this, Thompson groaned. "Ahhhh," he said, pausing for a moment before finding his footing. "Yes, I do. Look, remember what the standard is. Go back and look at vice-presidential picks throughout the history of the country. Look at Harry Truman, where he stood, how much experience he had before he was chosen as vice president." Given that Thompson was the third Republican to mention Truman since I arrived this morning, I suspect we'll hear more about the Missourian--who went from county commissioner in 1935 to leader of the free world in 1945--before November.

But the most interesting debate--and potentially the most consequential--was about Palin's daughter Bristol, 17, who announced this morning that she's five-months pregnant and planning to marry the father of her child. Pushed by NEWSWEEK's reporters and editors to say whether having a pregnant teenage daughter and five-month-old baby with Down syndrome at home will raise questions about Palin's "priorities," Thompson immediately questioned the questioners. "Would you be saying that about man running for office in her shoes?" he asked. "I really think you're going to be surprised at how average people--and especially women--who are not necessarily political one way or another identify with her. I see nothing in this that will hurt Sarah Palin politically. I mean, I get that it's a necessary part of the process to ask those questions. But we have to keep it fair. If we don't keep it fair, it will redound to her benefit." Judging by the reaction in the room--one female Newsweeker said she couldn't "believe that [our male reporters] were even asking this question"--I have a feeling he's right. Saying a woman can't pursue her professional goals AND care for her children is never a winning political issue--whether it's conservatives or liberals wagging their fingers.

The only part of Thompson's remarks that wouldn't fly with GOP message controllers was the stuff about risk. Asked how much time Palin has to prepare for the spotlight, Thompson didn't pull any punches. "Not much," he said--perhaps with a bit of rue regarding his own ill-fated run. "She has to be prepared to do everything, from answering the big questions to pronouncing the names of foreign leaders correctly. That's rule No.1 now. She's going to get tested in every conceivable way in that regard and she's got to be able to handle it." Part of the problem with Palin, Thompson admitted--and the promise, for that matter--is that she's something of a Cinderella story. "This is the stuff they make movies out of," he said, laughing. "In fact, it's a good idea for one."

Does the senator have any parts picked out? we asked.

"I have a couple," he said.

Hi everyone. A lot of Fredheads were offended by an item I wrote yesterday about his exit from the race, and I can understand why--it was a quick-hit humor piece about a candidate they admire. So I've posted an email analysis from Tim Schranck, very smart Thompson supporter, just to show how his fans viewed him--and the difficulties his bid encountered. I think Tim's largely correct, and greatly appreciate his perspective. Hope you enjoy. Best, Stumper

By Tim Schranck 

First of all, I think most objective observers would say that few if any candidates in either party put as much thought and substance into putting forth specific policy proposals as Fred did, and whether they fit your political bias or not, they were policies that were roundly hailed by leading conservative publications such as National Review and the WSJ.  Rather, the biggest beef against Fred seemed to be that he didn’t act like other politicians who only know they want to be president, not what they want to accomplish as president.
 
The failure of his candidacy is as much an indictment of our political system and the media as it is about him.  How many columns of newspaper space and minutes on Fox – FOX!!! – were dedicated to what shoes he wore to the Iowa state fair and the fact that he rode around in a golf cart?  At lot more space than his specific policies.  Tell me, how much more important were the brand of his loafers than this immigration policy?  The media built him up, practically begged him to get in, and then jumped down his throat from the start.  The media and the system conspire in Iowa to give us a lunatic fringe candidate like Huckabee—a guy who literally believes in Creation instead of scientific facts like, take for one example, carbon dating.  Why on God’s green earth do we give them this much say?  Because the media loves the story, and the parties fall in line.
 
Fred did not behave the way politicians have behaved for the last few decades, and in my mind that was one of his biggest pluses.  He went directly to the voters on blogs and the media can’t stand that because it threatens them.  Could he have campaigned harder?  Sure.  But I, for one, want a candidate who takes time every day to think, read and write about the important issues of the day.  I’d rather have a candidate with policies and positions than one who panders left and right.
 
In the era of Lincoln-Douglas debates, he would have been a natural.  In this end-of-an empire era when we want our presidential candidates to perform on stage like trained seals, showing hands here and taking questions from cartoon characters on You Tube Debates, he refused to play that game.  And now, because of a whopping 5 or so of our fifty states have ”spoken”, hundreds of millions of other Americans will never get a chance to voice their opinion.  To paraphrase a movie he did not star in, after careful consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that our electoral system sucks.  Not because of federalism, because of the dominance of the two parties and their patsies in the media, on both the right and the left.
 
I’ve worked on more than one Presidential campaign in my life.  I had no problem accepting Bush when Dole lost, no problem with any GOP nominee thereafter, but this year, I am left with a sick feeling in my stomach that makes me want to pack up and leave this place for someplace else.
 
If bread and circus is all we want, then that’s all we’ll get.
 
God help us, because we surely can’t seem to help ourselves.

UPDATE, 1.23.08: Hi everyone. A lot of Fredheads were offended by this item, and I can understand why--it's a quick-hit humor piece about a candidate you admire. So I've posted an email analysis from a very smart Thompson supporter here, just to show how his fans viewed him and the difficulties his bid encountered. Hope you enjoy. Best, Andrew

Who could have seen it coming?

Other than, like, everyone.  

At 2:24 p.m. this afternoon, a message from "Friends of Fred Thompson" arrived in the inboxes of political reporters and operatives across the country. "Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States," wrote Thompson, who finished a disappointing third Saturday in his must-win state of South Carolina. "I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

And with that, reporters and operatives all across the country--including, I'm guessing, those on Thompson's payroll, who must have been sick of repeating that the boss's one-stop-a-day schedule represented "a lazy new kind of campaign"--breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, they thought. We can stop pretending this guy wants to be president.

Thompson's bid was so painfully and publicly half-assed that his withdrawal is almost like an act of leadership. Yes, he was a charming, coherent conservative who showed well in debates and had gotten somewhat fired up in his final days. But from the start, no one ever really believed his heart was in winning the White House.

I like to think of him as the Peter Gibbons of presidential candidates. Gibbons, in case you're not a 21-to-34-year old Clinton-era cult comedy aficionado, was the protagonist of the 1999 Mike Judge workplace romp "Office Space" starring Ron Livingston as Gibbons and Jennifer Aniston as his obligatory love interest. Like Thompson, who said in 1998 that he didn't enjoy "spending 14- and 16-hour days voting on 'sense of the Senate' resolutions on irrelevant matters," Gibbons is a likable, laconic dude who somehow got stuck with monotonous gig that he obviously loathes. "Ever since I started working, every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it," he says. "So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life." But everything changes when Gibbons suddenly stops worrying about pushing paper--and stops showing up at the office--inspiring friends and colleagues to shake off the shackles of their own workaday lives and rebel against the powers that be.

Sure, it's unlikely that a liberated Thompson will go on to deploy a computer virus to swindle money from a regional tech company. But that's no reason his story shouldn't shine like a beacon of hope for disgruntled, disinterested staple monkeys everywhere.  

Also, there's now a chance that the fourth next installment of the "Iron Eagle" series will finally get greenlighted.

UPDATE, 8:00 p.m.: As he battled for third with Romney in South Carolina, Fred Thompson delivered remarks from the USC campus that seem to suggest an imminent departure from the race. “My friends, we will always be bound by a close bond because we have traveled a very special road together for very special purpose," he said. "This has never been about me, it's never been about you." At that, reporters here at McCain's victory party burst into laughter. "Who's it about?" said one reporter. "His wife," said another.

Official answer: "the country." Go figure.

Final Pre-Primary Polling Average: Fourth Place, 14.6 percent
Current National Polling Average: Fifth Place. 9.3 percent

Thompson has staked his entire bid on South Carolina, so the only thing that keeps him in contention is a win.

It would revive his moribund campaign and send him into Florida with unrivaled momentum. But it probably won't happen.

Thompson has only topped 20 percent in one recent poll--and it still showed him trailing Huckabee and McCain by five to 12 points. He typically lags by more. If Thompson wins--again, unlikely--he'll replace Huckabee, his rival for the right wing, as the fourth man in the Florida free-for-all on Jan. 29. If he finishes second--still a serious upset--he'll stick around for Florida, but unless he triumphs there, expect him to drop out soon after. And if he gets the bronze or worse tonight, Fredheads should prepare for an immediate withdrawal (and an endorsement of old friend John McCain).

"I’ve always said I have to do very well here," he said today during a brief chat with reporters at Lizard's Thicket restaurant in Columbia. "I stand by that." Asked what his plans were for Monday, Thompson repeated the question.

"Plans for Monday currently?" Thompson said. "Depends on the outcome. We'll see."

CLEMSON, S.C.--Imagine a wiry little man with a flop of gray hair. He's wearing a brown leather bomber jacket. Medium build. Every word he says, he shouts. Like he's half deaf. Sounds like an irate hillbilly, even if he's not. (He could be.) After each sentence, he pauses, lifts his chin, then plunges back in. Theatrical. Now imagine him saying the following to Fred Thompson at the Stable Steakhouse in Prosperity, South Carolina, with one hand resting on the back of his booth and a portrait of a horse hanging over his head: 

Thompson: Yes, sir. 

Man: Fred, I drove over 500 miles to see you.

Thompson: Bless your heart. Let's give this man a hand. (Applause, cheers)

Man: I came over Finch Mountain in a snowstorm. (Pause) May I call you Fred?

Thompson: Absolutely.

Man: That's okay until January and I can call you Mr. President. (Laughter, more applause). Now, I've got a question.

Thompson: Yes sir.

Man: (Pause) I'm looking for a tall man who will stand tall for America. (Pause.) Who will cut the ears off of earmarks! (Pause.) Stop dead illegal immigration! (Pause.) And pull the teeth of activist judges...

Thompson: Yep.

Man: ... who take your house to build 7-Eleven! (Pause, then louder) And I want to know if you've got a Jim Bowie knife and a good strong pair (pause) of Channellock pliers! (Laughter, even more applause, calls of "That's right!" and "Hear, hear!")

Something tells me Mitt Romney doesn't field a whole lot of questions like that.

Thompson, for his part, answered with Southern-fried aplomb. "Did you ever see the movie 'Walking Tall'?" he said, referring to the 1973 action flick about Buford Pusser, a Tennessee sheriff who single-handedly rid his town of crime and corruption. "You know the ax handle that old Buford used to carry? I got me one of them. I knew Buford Pusser. His daughter gave me one of those ax handles and I still got it. I thought about it many, many times. There's a lot you can do with that."

I hate being a Yankee.

Being a pack-minded member of the national media, I was ready to interpret this as a sign of Thompsonian lethargy--the theory being that the former Tennessee senator doesn't rack up delays because he only makes one or two stops a day (unlike, say, John McCain, who typically makes five to seven). There's some truth to this. "I never intended on being a professional politician," he said at today's event. "Still don't." Not exactly the best way to quiet critics who say you don't have the drive to be president. And the opening movement of his stump speech--a drawn-out disquisition on the Founding Fathers--belongs in a high-school history classroom, not on the campaign trail.

But a funny thing happened before I could nod off: Fred got fired up. About halfway through, Thompson started detouring from his remarks to draw sharp--and, considering his campaign's ailing condition, necessary--contrasts with his rivals. First he slammed Romney. "I don't have to worry about reconciling my positions with what I've done in the past in order to be politically feasible," he said. "You know what I'm talking about. How you gonna tell where a fella's gonna be tomorrow if you don't know where he's been yesterday?" Then he bashed Huckabee, first on foreign policy--"It's not the time to have a president who needs training wheels"--and later on tuition breaks for illegal immigrants. Next up: Giuliani, who, according to Thompson, has the "ridiculous notion" of "having to say he'll appoint judges [he doesn't] agree with" on abortion. Fred even took a veiled shot at McCain, an old friend, on amnesty. 

But the best was yet to come. At the end of the requisite Q&A session, a local supporter stood up and, in thanking Thompson for his "commitment to pro-life issues," mentioned that "a lot of folks around here [have gotten] some negative calls the last couple of days that misrepresented your record on life."

"Really?" said Thompson. 

The crowd murmured. "Oh yes. Mmmhmm. Yep."

"Can I ask you to raise your hand if you got a phone call like that?" About 25 hands went up.

"Wow. Half the people in here have gotten... who do they say is calling? Do they say anything good about any candidate?"

"Huckabee!" the crowd shouted. It seems most of them had received calls from Common Sense Issues, the pro-Huckabee group that's conducting negative push-polling throughout the state.

"I hope people are taking note of this," Thompson said, glancing at the press gaggle (we were). "They're calling up and touting Huckabee and then they ask who you're for and you say Fred and then they say... as I understand it, one of the things is that I supported partial-birth abortion.

More murmuring. "Yeah. Yep. That's right."

"So they're picking the most outrageous, easily disproved things they can come up with."

"Desperate!" yelled a supporter from Los Angeles.

"It's amazing to me that it's so ham-handed," continued Thompson, noting that he compiled a "100 percent pro-life voting record in the Senate." "I call on the governor"--Huckabee, that is--"to put a stop to this. You know, they did the same thing on his behalf in Iowa. And the governor can't sit back and say, 'I'm gonna stay above this, we need clean politics and, you know, can't we all get along'--and have this thing going on right under his nose in state after state. It's called responsibility." The applause, nearly all of it geriatric, would've overwhelmed a room twice as large.

We'll see how Huckabee responds. So far his spokesman has said that Huck would like the calls to stop--before reminding reporters that "it's a free country." That said, push-polling is probably the least of Thompson's problems. After disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, Fred bet all his chips on a South Carolina comeback. Now, with less than two days to go, he's still stuck in fourth-place.

Thompson may show up on time. But it could be that he started fighting a little too late.

Stumper, Jan. 1., 2008:
I mean, consider the evidence. Kerry also speaks--and according to some, "looks"--French (damn the political consequences). He was an establishment candidate (or the closest thing to it) who relied on early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire to propel him to the nomination. Now Romney is in the same boat. Both Romney and Kerry are from Massachusetts. Both grew up wealthy--which may explain why both lack the common touch. Both, for example, don't do well with "Average Joe" sports references. (In 2004, Kerry called the Green Bay Packers' stadium "Lambert" Field; earlier this month, Romney uttered the phrase "the Patriots win the World Series.") Both had fathers in government (George Romney was governor of Michigan; Richard Kerry was in the Foreign Service). And both are rather robotic in person, with stentorian voices permanently stuck on the "politician" setting.

Top McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, Jan. 16, 2008: 
Schmidt, a top official in President Bush's reelection campaign, told reporters earlier today that Romney's shifting positions are reminiscent of Kerry, who was dogged by charges of flip-flopping in 2004. "When you have a candidate like Mitt Romney who's been on both sides of every issue...it's a tremendous liability in a general election," he said

Told you so.

And that's not all. With Romney, McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson each staking their candidacies to varying degrees on South Carolina--the outcome here will bear heavily on Florida’s crucial Jan. 29 primary--the barbs are already flying fast and furious. And they're aimed mostly at Romney, who arrives from Michigan with the most momentum. Yesterday, Schmidt targeted Romney's "rather weak record" in Massachusetts, while McCain essentially accused Mitt of pandering in the Great Lakes State. "By promising that amount of money to the auto industry, at least he ought to be able to say where it's going to come from," he said. Thompson echoed McCain, calling Romney's economic pitch "misleading."

The Romney camp responded, of course--but I, for one, think that their comeback could use a little work. Sure, a spokesman accused McCain of "giv[ing] up on the future." And Romney himself called the Arizona senator "the clear frontrunner" in a blatant attempt to set unrealistically high expectations. But this is South Carolina, gents. You need to bring your A-game.

Which is why I've got two words for you, Mitt: "Walter Mondale."

You can thank me at your victory party.

From my wrap-up of Thursday's South Carolina showdown: 

You could almost hear them yawning. The pundits and prognosticators paid to talk endlessly about politics had little else to say. After an hour-and-a-half on stage in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Thursday night, the six leading Republican candidates for president had produced no fireworks, no slapfests, no real "news."

In a narrow sense, the chattering classes were right--nothing changed over the course of those 90 minutes. Mitt Romney didn't short-circuit; Mike Huckabee didn't levitate. But what we got instead what just as interesting--and probably more informative. After a one-two primary punch in Iowa and New Hampshire that only muddled an already confusing contest, the Republican race now looks more like a Rubik's Cube than a chessboard--a cluster of regional competitions with different contestants who each have different objectives, all moving at once.

Consider Thursday’s Dixieland debate a sneak peek at the dynamics that will define the next three weeks. Facing a burst of make-or-break primaries in three wildly dissimilar states--Michigan on Jan. 15; South Carolina on Jan. 19 and Florida on Jan. 29--the candidates revealed exactly how they expect to survive until Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5.

Read the rest here.

RUDY GIULIANI
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Fourth Place, 9.3 percent 

Despite finishing second only to McCain in terms of days spent in New Hampshire--41 to the Arizona senator's 46--Giuliani hasn't really been competitive here since September. Rudy has basically admitted as much, telling everyone who will listen that he's focusing on Florida and the Feb. 5 states instead. Which means that no one expects a medal finish. Still, it's not all upside tonight; Ron Paul, who's only one point behind, has a chance to top Hizzoner--an embarrassing headline. Looking ahead, these early losses will likely add up, affecting Giuliani's standing in the all-important big states; he's already ceded his national edge to Huckabee, and that could trickle down. Will it be enough to shatter his huge leads in California, New Jersey and New York? We'll know in a month.

RON PAUL
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Fifth Place, 8.2 percent

Paul's libertarian message is a natural fit in the state of "Live Free, or Die." And because he attracts new voters, he tends to do slightly better than polls predict (2.7 percent in Iowa, to be exact). But Paul isn't going to overcome McCain or Romney. On the plus side, expectations are at rock-bottom. If the good doctor beats Huckabee and/or Giuliani, the media will swarm, giving him the sort of attention he'll need if he later decides to run as a third-party candidate. That's the best-case scenario. Sorry, Paulites.

FRED THOMPSON
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Sixth, 2.2. percent

Thompson is toast. He's put all his chips on South Carolina--a state where Huckabee is now trouncing him by 20 points. Unless they find a hooker in Huck's pulpit between now and Jan. 19, it's over. Paging Dick Wolf.

By Holly Bailey 

It was supposed to be a smackdown between John McCain and Mitt Romney. But Saturday's GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, held three days before the state's high stakes primary, was something more of a four-on-one gang fight, with Romney as the target.

Struggling to regain momentum after losing the Iowa caucuses, the former Massachusetts governor spent much of the night on defense, coming under attack by nearly every rival on stage, except for Ron Paul. (And he, too, probably would have dinged Romney if he'd gotten the time.) Romney was slapped by his opponents for changing positions on immigration, health care and foreign policy--though the jabs didn't come unsolicited. Romney arrived on stage ready to fight, training his fire early on McCain and Mike Huckabee, who quickly fought back.

The fireworks started in the first minutes of the debate, which aired on ABC, when Romney trashed Huckabee's recent essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which the former Arkansas governor criticized the Bush administration for having an "arrogant bunker mentality" on foreign policy. In response, Huckabee pushed back, accusing Romney of echoing a similar opinion last year and of supporting a "timed withdrawal" of troops from Iraq.

"Don't characterize my position," Romney warned.

"Which one?" Huckabee shot back.

And that wasn't the only venom of the night. When Romney went after McCain, accusing him of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants (a charge Romney makes in one of his TV ads airing here in New Hampshire), the Arizona senator repeatedly denied the charge. "You can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, my friend, but it still won't be true," McCain said, referring to the millions of his own dollars that Romney has pumped into his campaign.

McCain's line elicited a loud cackle downstage from Rudy Giuliani, who has clashed more than once with Romney over immigration. Fred Thompson, a mostly quiet presence in the debate, went after Romney a few seconds later on the issue. "Didn't you say Republicans were making a terrible mistake if they were separating themselves with President Bush on the illegal immigration issue?" Thompson asked. Romney said he'd been misquoted, which prompted McCain to jump back in. "You're always misquoted," McCain scoffed. "When you change positions on issues from time to time, you will get misquoted." From downstage, Giuliani laughed again, and Romney was visibly irritated, accusing McCain of "personal attacks."

But Romney didn't get much of a reprieve. A few minutes later, Giuliani piled on Romney, reminding the audience that nobody in the field has a perfect record on immigration--not even Ronald Reagan, who Giuliani called "the hero of our party." "Ronald Reagan did amnesty," Giuliani said. "I think he'd be in one of Mitt's commercials. This time, it was McCain who laughed.

While Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani were clearly going after Romney out of their own self interest, it seemed at times as though they were doing McCain's bidding. The latest CNN/WMUR/UNH poll out Saturday night has McCain narrowly leading Romney in New Hampshire 33 percent to 27 percent, with the rest of the pack down by double digits. That means every slam on Romney, no matter who delivered the punch, benefits McCain.

With some exceptions--notably his talk on health care, which is not his best subject--McCain brought his a-game to the stage tonight. The Arizona senator has struggled throughout the campaign to seem more energized and engaged in debate formats, which clearly aren't his forte. But tonight, he broke out of the box, avoided repeating all-too familiar lines from his stump speech, as he has in the past, and was quick on his feet to engage Romney--though his last quip on Romney's flip-flops ("You are the candidate of change.") seemed a tad bit too pre-planned.

With the exceptions of their attacks on Mitt, everybody else faded to the background. Huckabee, who has made no secret of the fact he doesn't expect to win in New Hampshire, did little to call attention to himself, which might have been calculated, since a win for McCain here would also be a big win for him. Ditto for Giuliani, who is still apparently focused on winning the nomination through the Super Tuesday states on Feb. 5. Thompson, as he has been for most debates, was slow and steady. His answers were good on many questions, but he still didn't do much to help his cause.

Under attack from all sides, Romney wore down under the fire and appeared uneven and somewhat unfocused under the questioning. He never got the chance he needed to score points against McCain, his chief rival on Tuesday. Maybe he'll have the fire and fortitude he needs by Sunday night, when the Republicans debate yet again, on the same stage, this time on Fox News Channel.

DES MOINES, Iowa--Nothing says "Happy New Year" like a snapshot of the Republican race in Iowa. And we here at Stumper headquarters--i.e., the Holiday Inn in downtown Des Moines--are happy to oblige.

(Click here for an updated look at the Democrats.) 

Mike Huckabee (28.3 percent)
Brace yourself, Hucksters. I've got good news and bad news. The good news: last night, the Des Moines Register, the only outlet to correctly predict the top four finishers in 2004, released its final pre-caucus poll--and it shows Huckabee beating Mitt Romney by six points, 32 to 26. If you tuned out before the holidays, that might not seem like much of a headline; Huckabee held a double-digit lead going into Christmas. But over the past ten days, he's plummeted back to earth, and in some surveys, Romney even regained his lead. A nice bump in "The Only Caucus Poll That Counts"® effectively kills the "bursting Huckabee bubble" narrative in its crib. The bad news: the entire political press corps is laughing at him. After enduring weeks of attacks from Romney on immigration, crime and foreign policy that he characterized as "very desperate and frankly...dishonest," Huckabee finally snapped yesterday, holding a press conference at the Des Moines Marriott to decry gutter politics and announce that he had decided to pull an ad that would attack Romney's record. The only problem: he immediately "directed the attention of scores of reporters and television cameras to a movie screen, where he played the 30-second hit piece." As Slate's John Dickerson wrote, "a transcript of the event will show this response from the press corps: 'Bwahahahahaha!' [sound of reporters falling out of chairs, doubled over in laughter]." The press saw Huckabee's "change of heart" as a cynical/JV ploy to get them to air his ad (for free--it instantly made cable news) while allowing him to maintain the high road. Whether Iowans will agree, disagree or simply be confused--that's another story.

Mitt Romney (27.9 percent)
Iowans were never particularly comfortable with the businesslike, formerly moderate Romney, but he managed to preserve his lead for much of last year by dropping a ton of dough in the state. Huckabee burst that bubble in November, and the Mormon from Massachusetts never fully recovered. He's spent much of the last month attacking his rivals from Arkansas and Arizona (John McCain) on issues, like immigration, that he wasn't particularly "conservative" on until recently. As a result, his campaign has become more about them and less about him--which is the opposite of how Iowans like it. That said, Romney's tied with Huckabee in the polls (on average), and pulverizing him in the money, organization and infrastructure departments. And while Huck flies to Hollywood to appear on Leno and schedules only a stop or two here each day, Mitt is crisscrossing the state by bus and plane and pounding the pavement for every vote. Still the safest bet on caucus night.

The Rest
Only Romney and Huckabee have a shot at winning on caucus night. McCain polls at 11.6 percent; Fred Thompson follows at 11.3; and Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani lag behind at about six. But because there's no clear frontrunner nationally, third place is key. A typically lethargic campaigner, Thompson has gone all in here, running ads and covering the entire state by bus over the past two weeks. But McCain might have the upper hand. Reflecting his resurgence in New Hampshire, the Des Moines Register poll puts the Arizona senator at 13 percent to Thompson's nine. Seemingly surprised by the numbers, McCain just scheduled a last-minute, caucus-eve swing through the state.

The Bottom Line 
It's all about expectations at this point. A surprisingly sizable win would vindicate Huckabee, who often pits himself as the David to Romney's Goliath, and give him serious momentum going into South Carolina and Florida, where he currently polls well. But the more likely result--an inconclusive victory--would shock no one, muddling his mojo and making it difficult to survive losses in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, which precede those southern states on the schedule. Huckabee could probably limp along with a close second-place finish, but it won't propel him to the nomination. And if Romney crushes him, it's over. For Romney, a strong first would look like comeback; those headlines will help immensely heading into his home turf of New Hampshire and Michigan. Any sort of second place finish makes New Hampshire a must-win, and is great news for Giuliani (who isn't even competing here). If Thompson finishes fourth, he's out. Which means that McCain is still in--and looking stronger than ever in New Hampshire. He'll be praying for that result--and a Huckabee victory--on caucus night.

When Oprah Winfrey stumped for Barack Obama earlier this month, political wonks and book clubbers alike began speculating about the "Oprah effect." What kind of bounce, they wondered, could Obama expect from the Queen of Talk's endorsement? Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, was said to benefit from the backing of tough-guy actor Chuck Norris. Backing from high-profile celebs can help a candidate; at the very least they inspire fans to take a second look at the chosen politician. But a public endorsement from an adult-film star is a whole other kettle of fish. Check out some of the wacky D-lister endorsements of 2008 so far:

Hillary Clinton 

Marla Maples, former Mrs. Donald Trump, TV host
In addition to donating $2,000 to Clinton's campaign, the one-time Miss Hawaiian Tropic and, perhaps more memorably, former Mrs. Donald Trump, has urged others to jump on the Hillary bandwagon. In a mass e-mail to friends, Maples called Hillary "very clear, very focused, and I feel we will at last have a voice and be received with a welcoming and open ear."

Jenna Jameson, porn star
The adult-film actress and best-selling author of "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" reminisced wistfully in a May interview about Bill Clinton's White House years: "The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry, and I wish that Clinton would run again." Mr. Clinton may be term-limited, but Jameson is equally happy to support his wife.

Jerry Springer, talk show host
In the 2004 presidential elections the King of Sleaze TV supported fellow former Ohio mayor Dennis Kucinich (Springer served two terms as mayor of Cincinnati, while Kucinich spent two years as mayor of Cleveland). This time around Springer is backing Clinton. In March he made the maximum $4,600 donation to her campaign and told the Chicago Sun-Times in early November that "she is smart. I don't just mean clever. I mean smart."

John Edwards

Harry Belafonte, singer/performer
While campaigns typically tout celebrity endorsements, Edwards was not overeager to publicize that of Harry Belafonte (who admittedly isn't exactly D-list; Belafonte won several Grammys and an Emmy). Instead of sending out a media advisory, the Edwards camp quietly posted an item on its campaign blog. Perhaps Edwards wanted to distance himself from Belafonte (known for singing the "Banana Boat Song"), who in January 2006 called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."

James Denton, actor
The hunky "Desperate Housewives" star didn't pick his candidate on primary platforms alone. A native of Tennessee, Denton says Edwards is the only candidate who can win over Southern good ol' boys like himself. "We're all rednecks," Denton said after November's Democratic debate in Las Vegas. "Nobody I know would vote for anybody but Edwards."

Rudy Giuliani 

Ben Stein, comedian, political pundit
Remember the Comedy Central game show "Win Ben Stein's Money"? The show may have gone off the air in 2003, but four years later Rudy Giuliani is cashing in. In February the lawyer-turned-actor-turned-political-commentator donated $750 to Giuliani's campaign and has praised him for being "the most electable" candidate.

John O'Hurley, actor
Though best know for his "Seinfeld" role as Elaine Benes's neurotic boss J. Peterman, O'Hurley recently waltzed back into the public eye with a stint on ABC's "Dancing With the Stars." O'Hurley made the maximum $4,600 donation to Giuliani's campaign in March.

AFTER THE JUMP: Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson...