This afternoon, I ridiculed Hugh Hewitt for his ‘analysis’ of the presidential race on the GOP side of things. I regret omitting my opinion of a rather important thing that Hewitt said. Here’s the section of Hewitt’s post that I should’ve opined about:

So as attention turns to Christmas and then football and resolutions, we are exactly where the GOP always ends up: gathering behind the most conservative, electable Republican, who this year turns out to be Mitt Romney.

Notice how craftily Hewitt doesn’t say that the GOP had gathered around the most conservative Republican. He knows that he’d be laughed at from coast to coast and border to border if he said that. Instead, he adds electable in as an additional qualifier.

Mr. Hewitt doesn’t say why Romney is the most electable candidate, just that he is the most electable. He also didn’t bother to explain why Rudy or Fred aren’t just as electable. Certainly, Rudy and Fred are more conservative than his boy Mitt, though Rudy isn’t appreciably more conservative.

Mr. Hewitt would have us believe that all that’s needed to be the next GOP presidential nominee is a fat bank account and a good makeup artist. The trouble with that is that that’s how Democrats pick their nominee. That isn’t how Republicans pick their nominee.

• We demand people of integrity, consistency and gravitas.
• We demand that the person be a statesman who understands the world and all its problems.
• We demand that that person also have the solutions to those problems.

Fred Thompson is widely credited with having the most detailed, comprehensive list of solutions to the major issues of the day, whether we’re talking about Iran, border enforcement, entitlement reform or the mortgage crisis. In addition, voters know that Fred Thompson is true to his word, that he’s consistent in his beliefs, beliefs that he’s held for 40 years, beliefs he’s held since reading Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative.

Let’s also remember Hewitt proclaiming Romney the winner of the DMR Debate:

I watched the entire debate on a JetBlue cross-country flight, missing only one answer where Romney said something about eduction that made the Luntz focus group needles hit the ceiling of approval. (The captain was updating us on landing time.)

I was also able to hear Fred, Morton, Brit and Nina chew on the results, but it was the collective reaction of the Frank Luntz focus group on the Fox News Channel that was most riveting.

Watch it for yourself. Romney swept nearly the entire room. If that group reflects the GOP primary electorate, Romney helped himself immensely today.

The problem with basing who won by what the focus group said is that there’s a big difference between the instant winner and the enduring winner. Here’s David Yepsen’s analysis of who won that debate:

Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday’s debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they’ve built.

But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.

He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the ‘raise your hand’ game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)

Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he’s elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is “getting to be a pretty good actor.”

Luntz’s group focused on who sounded best, which isn’t unimportant in and of itself. Yepsen’s opinion was based on meatier considerations, like who gave a great explanation on entitlement reform, who refused to play the moderator’s games, who set the example for doing what a leader does, not what he looks like.

UPDATE: I wonder how Mr. Hewitt will react when he learns that Fred Thompson handily won Michelle Malkin’s poll, more than doubling up Mitt Romney.

Technorati: Mitt Romney, Hugh Hewitt, Frank Luntz, Debates, David Yepsen, Fred Thompson, National Security, Immigration, Entitlements, Gravitas, Election 2008

Cross-posted at California Conservative