Here is how I scored the debate with my objective analysis:


Romney: B+; Unfortunately, Romney was too lofty. He had a real opportunity to address the tangibles of a pending Presidency, but failed to do so. He preemptively acknowledged his "flip-flops," although his excuse was very poor. Ah hum, I am pretty sure President Reagan and Bush were pro-life. His stage presence was so good that nobody dared challenge that directly.


Brownback: C+ to B-; He is an intelligent, nice, likable man who simply had no business on that stage. He had the opportunity to point out differences in opinion, set himself apart, and indirectly attack other candidates with his forte, social issues, but did not. If he was going to act Presidential, he should have stayed with his strengths, and gone on the attack. Not much was expected by the American people, and with Brownback, they were satisfied.


Gilmore: A ; Same yesterday, same today, and same tomorrow. Outstanding delivery by the former Governor from V'ginia. Despite obvious bias from Chris Matthews, producers, and cameramen he was still able to give knowledgeable, well-thought, how-to, point by point responses for the given questions and scenarios. For example, he was asked what he would do differently than President Bush. Romney answered a lofty answer only praising President Bush that made little sense to how he would act differently. Gilmore answered with a bang. He said, "Here are four ways I will be different..." Chris Matthews abruptly cut him off. I am the most anxious to see the rise of Governor James Gilmore.


Hunter: A; A great performance from the California Congressman. He is the member of Congress who has the greatest chance of winning the election. Hunter has a friendly demeanor and carries himself with a curious appeal. With direct answers and informed responses, he impressed on my mind Presidential demeanor. Although candidates were given a short amount of time, I am anxious to hear what else Congressman Duncan Hunter has up his sleeve. He is sure to be an exciting figure to watch in the months to come.


Huckabee: B; Carried himself very well. He was not given as much time as maybe the other governors, but I liked what he had to say and how he said it, for the most part. He spoke of trusting leaders and empowering the War effort to those who have "Mud and blood on their boots, and medals on their chest." That type of rhetoric makes ideas like “strategy” tangible for the American voters.


Thompson: C-; Governor Thompson had no real business being on the stage. He is obviously an intelligent diplomat who would be great for the United States in a role that deals with domestic policy. He has been a first-rate governor for Wisconsin, but I am afraid last night was as close as Governor Thompson will get to his own Presidential aircraft. His presence was not as commanding and he carried little charisma while in the spotlight.


McCain: A-; Honest, direct, commanding and forceful. I could tell John McCain was in the race to win. This stage presence overcame his aged exterior. He again seemed as if he were a maverick. But, he was overly gregarious when he spoke of siding with the Democrats. To be the candidate of the Republican Party, he should have shown faith in the superiority of partisan ideology. Last week, the Democrats were unrelenting in their attack on the Republican Party. McCain, as well as the other candidates, had an opportunity to promote their legitimacy and really take a shot at Senator Clinton on the question about President Clinton. I was waiting for a candidate to give the rationale that if Hillary Clinton was President, “I would not be President, and that is not the best path for American voters.” Something more commanding than cordial would have been appropriate. Senator McCain’s presentation was lacking, but he did a good job overall.


Paul: A; Presented himself as a champion of freedom. He felt no obligation to prove himself, and therefore did not invoke the memory of Reagan. He had his own ideas, and used his proven record to validate those ideas. He has no executive experience, but is sure to make things interesting by holding other Presidential candidates accountable, just as he holds Congress accountable every single day. Ron Paul was “sticking to principle.”


Giuliani: B-; This candidate had the most to prove, and just did not do it. The Mayor has apparently been taking dancing lessons, rather than debating lessons. I was disappointed because I hoped to see a man who could command the stage and tell America that he is again rising to the occasion of service to his country. I knew his answers would not be Conservative, but I thought he would be the candidate to directly admit his past beliefs and use Reagan’s 80/20 quote utilized by Senator Brownback. I was unimpressed, and I think the front runner was passed tonight. Rudy must make drastic changes to his debating style before he is again put to the test.


Tancredo: D; I probably agree with Congressman Tancredo on the overwhelming majority of the issues, but he had no business being on the stage last night. He is a champion of immigration reform, and I really had great expectations from this typically lively debater. He was the dark horse who could have made a difference and a run for the Presidency, unlike former Senator Gravel of the Democratic Party. Congressman Tancredo was uncomfortably nervous and he stammered and stuttered through the debate giving unintelligible answers. He did not appear to understand the format or the premise of the event until the majority of the debate had passed. I do not know if that is his fault, or the fault of those who attempted to prepare him. I do not expect to see Congressman Tancredo in the next debate


In my personal opinion, despite the media bias, time constraints, rigorous debate format and presentation, I declare Governor Jim Gilmore the winner of the first Republican Primary Presidential Debate.

David A. Ferguson serves as President of the American Conservative Student Union. He can be reached at president@conservativestudent.org.