Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

And to think I cut out of the NRLC Christmas party early to watch this! "This" being the final debate among Republican presidential candidates before the potentially crucial January 3 caucuses in Iowa. The gathering was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast Wednesday by Iowa Public Television. (I saw the debate on CNN.)

The good news is that, among others, pro-life former Senator Fred Thompson, who has been endorsed for President by NRLC, did very well. On matters of substance--especially on so-called "third rail" issues that take enormous courage to tackle--he continues to be without peer.

As almost everyone has noted, when the tedious and obnoxious moderator--Des Moines Register Editor Carolyn Washburn--tried to insist that all the participants raise their hands to signal whether they agreed with a statement she made about a very complex issue, Thompson flatly refused.

Had I been Thompson, I would have added something along the lines of, "We are not school children who need to ask permission to explain our position on global warming with something more nuanced than a raised hand." But I digress.

Everything else about the way the debate was conducted is bad news, although you'd never know it by the Register's breathless coverage, especially on its web page. You would have thought the nine men had gone toe to toe on THE most pressing issues of the day. In fact, Washburn inexplicably ruled that questions about Iraq and immigration--among the hottest of the hot button issues of the day--were off the table.

You could tell we were in for a long day 15 seconds into the broadcast. The way the studio was lit, when you looked at Washburn, it was as if she was standing in front of a black sheet. The audience, sensing the stilted (and information-killing) format, was largely silent. The "debate" was as eerie and cold as it was boring and lifeless.

Every four years David Yepsen, the Register's chief political correspondent, is afforded almost iconic status. Yepsen has covered politics for the newspaper for over 30 years. His assessment, in this instance, was right on the money.

"The biggest problem with the debate was that it wasn't really a debate," he wrote for this morning's edition. "Candidates got almost no opportunity to grill one another. Often they ran out of time and were cut off just as they started to probe an opponent."

Put another way, offering candidates 30 seconds (and sometimes 15 seconds) to answer guaranteed the only thing the candidates could do was to try to cram in as many talking points as possible into their response. Texture, depth, shades of meaning, not to mention disagreement over substance--no time for any of that.

We can hope the Register does a better job this afternoon when it hosts the Democratic presidential candidates. But even on the off chance that it does, the newspaper squandered an important opportunity on Wednesday to further illuminate the points of agreement and disagreement among the nine Republicans.

After all, ultimately isn't that what these gatherings are supposedly about? Providing the public with information about the candidates' positions on crucial issues and how they handle intense cross-examination by their opponents?

It's hardly news that the sentiments of Iowa caucus-goers--whether Republicans or Democrats--are in flux. The leaders a month or two ago are scrambling to hold on to their exalted positions. Whoever appears to be ahead today may not be when Iowans caucus in less than four weeks.

Equally unknown is the order in which the candidates who are now jockeying for third through fifth position will finish January 3. As the field looks forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina, that could make a big difference.

One other thought. Although Iowans have a reputation for having little patience with negative campaigning--specifically personal attacks--as the campaign takes unexpected turns, some candidates are willing to take the risk.

As you would have predicted, leading the charge is Hillary Clinton's campaign. Over the years the Clintons have (so to speak) elevated sleaze and gutter politics to an art form.

The thought of those two ethically-challenged politicians jointly leading our nation is enough to send chills up and down your spine.