In this, the longest, the strangest, the most expensive, perhaps the most important Presidential campaign season in history, Republican candidates from Rudy to Ronnie seem to be spinning their wheels, trying to find an issue where they can successfully get off the defensive and attack their opponents.

So far, they aren’t doing too well.

The tried and true liberal attack lines of the past sound old and strangely out of place. Pointing out that Hillary is anti-capitalist as one candidate did at last night’s debate is silly. Of course she’s anti-capitalist. She’s a liberal Democrat. And the problem is that the right has done an excellent job over the years of defining liberals in such a way as to make their stupidity on economic issues plain as day. Weak foreign policy, ditto. The American people don’t need to be reminded of these things because two decades of conservatives have successfully tagged the Democrats for what they are; a statist party in love with big government, tax raising, and the idea that everything in the world that can be blamed on America, should be blamed on America.

If this is the best a Republican nominee can do in what is sure to be a battle royale over the future of this country then Republicans will almost surely lose. For in the end, the American people will not only want a candidate to offer concrete solutions to our problems but also verbalize the spirit and optimism that denotes a “can do” attitude toward the future. This, after all, is what Presidential campaigns in this country have always been about. Coupling political attacks with a vision for where the nominee wants to take the country – a powerful, positive, optimistic vision – usually spells the difference between victory and defeat.

The Democrats, God bless ‘em, will spend the next year and a half telling the people how badly the Republicans have screwed up. In this, they will have plenty of evidence and ammunition. In fact, the real danger for the Democrats is that they get so caught up in their GOP/Bush bashing that they forget about that “vision thing” as George Bush #41 put it and fail to articulate a positive message that will give the people an idea of what kind of country they want the United States to be.

But that may still be enough for victory given the paucity of ideas coming from Republican candidates in these debates. Of course, part of the problem is the way the debates are structured. But outside of Duncan Hunter’s “Zero Tax” on American manufacturing and a few scattered initiatives from Romney, McCain, and Guiliani, no candidate as yet has been able to break out of the pack with a clear conceptualization of what kind of nation they want to lead.

This time out, it is not going to be enough to simply point at the Democratic nominee and scream “LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL!” The last eight years will have given the American people a sour taste about the Republican party and any GOP nominee will have to remove that unsavory memory by making people look to the future and think about our security, our economy, and our culture in ways that are optimistic and positive.

A very tall order, that. There’s always the danger of overdoing it and leaving oneself open to counter charges of being too Pollyanish about the future. But there is little doubt that a bit of cockeyed optimism can blunt some of the more outrageous criticisms that will come the GOP’s way via the Democrats who can then be portrayed as being too grouchy, too negative about the future to deserve the reins of government. A delicate balance to be sure but one that the Republicans must seek out if they are to have any chance at all of recapturing the Congress.

As for the debate last night, Romney may have come closest to articulating a positive vision of the future. But there’s a reason he’s mired in 3rd place behind Guiliani and McCain; there’s just something too set, too perfect about his delivery and his personae. Not that he should seek to be some kind of rough hewn good ole boy, backslapping and “aw shucksing” his way to the nomination. But he exudes little warmth and less humanity. He comes off as a competent technocrat and not much else. Mitt could’ve used that “Rudy Moment” last night in going after Ron Paul for his obscene statements about 9/11. It would given him some personality.

Rudy did much better than he did last week in California. He needed to. He may have benefited most from the fact that the adults at Fox News were asking terrific questions designed to flesh out a candidates position on a particular issue rather than trying to create a “gotchya” moment as Chrissy Matthews constantly strove for on MSNBC the week previously. His answers were smoother and more intelligently formulated than the sputtering responses he gave the week before. And of course, his flash of temper at Ron Paul was the viral video highlight of the evening. I think Allah nails it here:

A more thoughtful response would have been to ask him what his studiously noninterventionist “constitutional” option would have been when Saddam invaded Kuwait. But that’s all gravy; Rudy’s answer suffices as an expression of the palpable disgust most Americans (or at least most conservatives) felt at that moment for that Bircheresque crank, which is why he got the reaction he did. You can hear Mitt at the end over the din demanding that Rudy not be given the extra 30 seconds he requested, and with good reason — he might have walked away with the nomination right there.

I mentioned last night while liveblogging the debate at Heading Right that Rudy’s Moment was reminiscent of Reagan’s loss of temper in Nashua, New Hampshire when the Publisher of the Nashua Telegraph, Jon Breen, sought to cancel a debate between he and George Bush because Reagan had invited other candidates to the event – an event he ended up paying for when the Telegraph bowed out of sponsoring it. When Breen ordered the microphones turned off, Reagan, in a flash of temper, grabbed one of the mikes and said “I’m paying for this microphone, Mr. Green (sic).” With those words, Reagan’s campaign destroyed George Bush’s “Big Mo” and he went on to victory. So Allah’s thought that Romney’s demanding Rudy be denied his extra 30 seconds lest he grab the nomination then and there is probably true.

Did Rudy “win” the debate? For that moment alone, he stood out and therefore probably did himself the most good. Better yet, he matches a similar viral video bit with Fred Thompson absolutely skewering Michael Moore over an open pit. Thompson’s piece has taken the righty blogosphere by storm and from what I can tell, Rudy’s bit has equally electrified conservatives.

And what about The Absent One? Despite Thompson’s response to Moore, the longer he stays away from debates and delays formally declaring for office, the more he risks appearing wishy washy about the whole idea of being president. It may be time for Fred to jump in with both feet and begin the race in earnest. Right now, he’s not damaging himself by staying away and may even be doing himself some good by not suffering by comparison with the other candidates. But that glow around him won’t last much longer. Eventually, he’ll have to commit. And the sooner the better.

McCain also did much better, again largely as a result of the kinds of questions that were being asked by the Fox journalists. I thought his response to the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario was especially good. As a man who himself experienced torture, I thought his answer regarding whether a president should order torture for captured terrorists with knowledge of an impending attack especially poignant and morally defensible. It may not have sat well with some conservatives but I know quite a few who aren’t holding his position on the issue against him.

As for the rest – forget them. With the possible exception of Duncan Hunter who I believe would make an excellent conservative Vice Presidential candidate for either Mitt or Rudy, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee (who gave the most spirited anti abortion defense among the lot), and Sam Brownback failed to distinguish themselves in any way and a couple – Tancredo and Thompson – should look at a tape of that debate and then withdraw quietly. Not that anyone would notice anyway.

Ron Paul should not be invited to any more Republican debates. His truther position on 9/11 is so far beyond the pale of rationality and logic that including him does a disservice to the entire presidential selection process – and not just for Republicans. We have to find a way to place people like Paul so far out on the fringes of American politics that they fall off of a cliff and disappear. And not inviting him to another debate would be a good start.

This time out, a little better, sharper focus by all the top candidates which made them look slightly more “presidential” but failed to excite too many of us. I’m anxious to see a smaller field so that some of the candidates answers can be fleshed out more and we get a better idea of the quality of their minds. Right now, they barely have enough time to relay their talking points on the issues. A little more depth, please.

And a note to Fred!: C’mon in. The water’s fine.

UPDATE

Hugh Hewitt has some interesting thoughts about the debate last night, specifically John McCain’s trouble with responding to Mitt Romney’s criticism of McCain-Feingold:

Few analysts have focused on Senator McCain’s nearly incoherent response which asserted that there was too much money in politics and that money had corrupted the GOP. Both assertions are simply false, and though the MSM nods along, GOP voters absolutely reject both assertions. There isn’t too much money in political campaigning, they think, there’s too much money from the hard left represented by Soros. Further, the party faithful don’t think of themselves as corrupt, or even of the party generally. They believe that the GOP’s corrupt Congressmen weren’t corrupted by soft money or campaign donations but by cold cash and perks in exchange for favors.

That much is true – as far as it goes. McCain will get no praise from me for his ideas on how campaigns should be regulated. His ideas, as Hugh makes clear, are anti-Democratic and fly in the face of conservative thought.

But most Americans recognize that something must be done about the way that money is raised. In my review of the new book on the Duke Cunningham scandal, I point out that earmarks are not just being used for pork barrel politics but rather as a way to fill the campaign coffers of Republicans (and soon, Democrats) with hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. That “cold cash” Hugh speaks of makes its way into campaigns via lobbyists in exchange for favors (earmarks) – as close to bribery as you can get without actually being frog marched out of the Capitol Building and straight to prison.

McCain’s presecriptions are draconian, restrictive, and Professor Hewitt says unconstitutional. I defer to his knowledge and experience in that regard but find his defense of the GOP ringing hollow. It has been Republican strategy since 1994 to use the Appropriations process to wring contributions from lobbyists by selling earmarks. This is not a secret nor is it illegal. But it stinks to high heaven and has corrupted the budget process. And as Duke Cunningham proved, it can corrupt individual congressmen as well.

Is there a “conservative” reform program for campaign finance? Unlimited contributions with immediate and full disclosure is about the only idea I’ve heard regarding FEC reform. To say that this is a prescription for permanent incumbency is a given unless the earmark process is reformed as well. And there are too few lawmakers – McCain is one of them – who sees the need to reform both parts of the whole.

So yes, skewer McCain for his folly. But recognize the problem and figure out a way to do something about it before what little integrity our political process and government have left disappear.