The final GOP debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses was held in Johnston, Iowa yesterday. Nine Republican presidential candidates went head to head in a quick-fire, short-answer battle moderated by Carolyn Washburn, editor of The Des Moines Register which sponsored the debate.

The face-off was opened with a question about the financial status of the United States. Ms. Washburn asked, "The comptroller general has said the U.S. faces a tsunami of debt that is a great threat to our national security. Do you agree our country's financial situation creates a security risk? And why or why not?"

Rudy Giuliani believes it's a major problem, but he "wouldn't call it national security." He would call it "economic security. It's very, very important."

Congressman Duncan Hunter stated, "There are two debts that are a threat to national security; the budget deficit and the trade loss" and stressed the importance of bringing offshore jobs back to America, and he stated that the U.S. needs to stop China from cheating on trade.

Congressman Ron Paul said, "It's absolutely a threat to our national security because we've spent too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much, and we print too much. When a country spends way beyond its means, eventually it will destroy the currency, and we're in the midst of a currency crisis."

Representative Tim Tancredo said, "The reason why it becomes a national security problem is because the bulk of our imbalance of trade is a result of our importation of oil from countries that are not our friends."

Fred Thompson blamed China, saying, "Our country has a 9 trillion-dollar debt. A good chunk of that is owned by China. We're bankrupting the next generation without any question. Every economist in Washington who's looked at it will tell you that. It affects our national security; for one reason is because we're squeezing military spending. We're spending at below historic norms under these circumstances for our defense, and we're spending twice as much for entitlements."

Mitt Romney doesn't think we need ask Washington for answers. He said, "The best answer for our economic woes is to make sure we have good jobs for our citizens, good schools for our kids, good health care for everyone, and that we have policies that promote the growth of the nation. If you want to see a strong America, you don't look to Washington; you look to ways to strengthen the American people."

Mike Huckabee was more direct with his response, saying "It's most certainly a national security threat because a country can only be free if it can do three things. First, it has to be able to feed itself. It has to be able to put food on the table for its own citizens. Secondly, it's got to be able to fuel itself. If it looks to somebody else for its energy needs, it's only as free as those are willing for it to be. And it also has to be able to fight for itself. It's got to be able to manufacture its own weapons of defense -- tanks, airplanes, bullets and bombs."

Senator John McCain says, "Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue. We have many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. Obviously, we've been on a spending spree. We cannot increase taxes."

Ambassador Alan Keyes rambled on, saying "I think it's obviously a national security problem, but you have to understand what national security is. The Constitution defines it as...." (I stopped listening to him after that.)

Ms. Washburn delved a little deeper into the budget issue, asking the candidates what sacrifices they would ask the American people to make to reduce the national deficit.

The federal budget appeared to be the most important issue to Iowans, and discussions of taxes and cutting federal spending ruled the debate until the topic of global climate change was addressed. Wasburn dismissed the issues of Immigration and Iraq, which were barely touched upon.

Matthew Balan of News Busters writes:

Following up on Al Gore’s reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register asked the Republican candidates several questions on the issue of "global climate change" and related topics. At the beginning of the debate, Washburn stated "we won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They're important issues, no doubt, but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those."

Washburn asked for a show of hands as to who agreed that "global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity." Fred Thompson refused to comply, saying "I’m not doing hand-shows today," and asked for a minute to answer the question but was denied.

From Fox News:

At times, it seemed moderator Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register, was more the common enemy than Huckabee. The debate momentarily broke into a bickering match when candidates were asked how many of them felt climate change was a serious threat. “I’m not doing hand shows today,” former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said. “You wanna give me a minute to answer that?” Washburn responded no. “Then I’m not gonna answer it,” Thompson said, prompting laughter and applause.

The Tennessee Guerilla Women were very upset about Thompson's refusal:

Fred Thompson flat-out refuses to answer the GOP debate question about the climate crisis. Freddie doesn't want to talk about global warming and neither does Mike Huckabee. But elsewhere Freddie Thompson says he does in fact believe that Pluto is warm. These wackos are genuine flat-earthers. Every other Republican candidate has stated that he believes in the climate crisis.

It appears many viewers disliked the debate moderator. Bloggers spout-off more about Carolyn Washburn than they do about the candidates' performances.

Michelle Malkin writes:

The Des Moines Register’s Carolyn Washburn (a.k.a. Schoolmarm) is the moderator of the debate. She’s no plant, but she sure is a stick in the mud. Her line of the debate so far: “A little snappier, gentlemen!” An hour into the debate, there’s no pile-on on Huckabee. There’s no time for one. Schoolmarm won’t allow it! She did, however, find time to show time-wasting videos of the candidates answering questions from Register reporters–even though the candidates are standing in front of her on the stage.

Toni of The Bear Creek Ledger writes:

I watched some of the debate (at least in between phone calls). Because the moderator is from the local Des Moines rag the whole debate was geared towards what’s important to Dhimmicrats, not Republicans or Conservatives. So, once again, Republicans were treated to a debate which addressed Democrat concerns but not Republican concerns.

Dee from Conservatism with Heart writes:

This is the first debate I watched live since we are stranded by the ice storm. The consensus seems to be that many didn't like the moderator Carolyn Washburn. The Fox News Panel compared her to Nurse Ratched. I didn't think she was too bad because this debate enabled me to clarify where I stood with each of the candidates and why I view them the way I do.

Andrew Romano of Stumper writes:

The most telling clash this afternoon was not between any two candidates--it was between the Des Moines Register debate staff (led by the schoolmarmish editor/moderator Carolyn Washburn) and the bellicose Beltway chatterati (led by Chris Matthews and Co.)

Libby of The News Hoggers had a different opinion:

Well, much to my surprise, I made it through the whole thing and found the format if not perfect, at least far improved from the circus atmosphere that usually has me reaching for the clicker. Since it's customary to do so, I'm declaring the winner to be Carolyn Washburn who did a great job on the moderation. She was unobtrusive, but asked good serious questions and kept the time hoggers gently but firmly in line.

The debate itself lacked any fireworks. There were very few direct confrontations between any two candidates, and the format of the debate was dull. It was more like a scripted monologue of each candidate's positions on the deficit, global warming and trade policies.

The International Herald Tribune called the debate a sleepy affair:

The debate was nearly over when one of the less-known candidates, Representative Tom Tancredo, decided to mount an attack on one of the leading candidates. "I have to say it, because you're leading the pack now, and congratulations to you, Governor," Tancredo began.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who has devoted the most resources to winning Iowa, straightened at his lectern. "No, no, no, pointing right over there," Tancredo said, gesturing toward Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who has come from behind to show great strength in recent Iowa polls.

So who won?

Forever the Romney supporter, Hugh Hewitt says:

"Romney swept nearly the entire room. If that group reflects the GOP primary electorate, Romney helped himself immensely today."

Eighty-five percent of YouPolls readers believed Ron Paul won the debate.

Little Green Footballs polled his readers, and 29% say Fred Thompson won.

BlogHers, what do you think?

----------

Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.