Thursday night’s prime time debate on Fox News was entertaining and revealing. Before I get into the meat of what really mattered, a few broad observations:

• I look forward to the next debate, when the pointedly smart and principled Carly Fiorina will probably be up on stage, replacing (I hope) the drab, self- congratulatory John Kasich. She sounded like the college teacher everyone hoped to study with. He came across like the lackluster pastor of a fading suburban church. Kasich was simply awful on same-sex marriage, completely ignoring threats to religious liberty, and suggesting that it is conservative Christians who are unwilling to abide by the new “law of the land” and live and let live in a non-judgmental fashion.
• I’m not sure if Donald Trump has peaked, but his manic glee seems to be curdling into petulant self-assertion. Threatening questioner Megyn Kelly with unspecified retaliation, and insisting he might betray Republicans by running third party, did not come across as presidential so much as sophomoric. A man in his seventh decade who calls women “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” will in turn evoke his own associated epithets in the minds of voters: “verbally abusive first husband” and “psychotic first boss.”
• Commentators are overpraising Marco Rubio, whose statements were mostly fine but who seemed not ready for prime time. His youthful good looks actually detract from his gravitas. He looks ready to be president … of the local Kiwanis Club.
• Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax is an interesting idea, with potential small-government and populist appeal. I hope it gets more attention. However, he let Chris Christie clean his clock on entitlements.

What should interest us most about the debate, however, are two critical issues where Republicans are closer to public sentiment, but far from elite opinion: Immigration and unborn life. Immigration will determine whether America will be saved as a viable country, abortion whether it deserves to be saved.

Here’s my scorecard of those candidates who answered questions on either topic.

Donald Trump

On immigration, a subject on which he has flip-flopped that is now his signature issue, Trump could not produce the “evidence” he’d earlier promised that the Mexican government is purposely shipping criminals north of the border. Rubio nicely corrected him, pointing out that Central Americans from further southeast now outnumber Mexican immigrants to the U.S. Calling the American government “stupid” and the Mexican government “smart” probably wasn’t the smartest political move. Trump’s claim that no one would be talking about immigration except for him rang hollow with Ted Cruz standing up on the podium, as Cruz wasn’t slow to point out. Worst of all, Trump laid all his emphasis on illegal immigration, ignoring the problem of unskilled workers coming here legally, suppressing working class wages. Had Santorum made this debate, he could have called Trump on this. Someone should have.

On abortion, Trump explained that he went from favoring even partial birth abortion to being pro-life because friends of his had considered abortion and changed their minds — and the child whom they raised turned out to be a “superstar.” Only Donald Trump could offer a eugenics-based argument against abortion. Even Margaret Sanger wanted “more children from the fit.”

Jeb Bush

The former Florida governor doubled down on his nauseating assertion that illegal immigrants came to America as an “act of love,” when they had “no other choice,” essentially turning lawbreakers into legitimate refugees. No wonder he wants to offer them a “path to citizenship” after “paying a fine” and jumping through some unspecified hoops. He mentioned the important E-Verify program that lets employers check workers’ status, but his actual plan does not make it mandatory — which is the only way it will work.

On abortion, Bush highlighted some legitimate pro-life accomplishments, such as funding crisis pregnancy centers, banning partial birth abortion, and fighting euthanasia (though he didn’t actually mention poor Terri Schiavo). But he utterly failed to explain away his presence on the board of the Bloomberg Foundation that shoveled millions to baby butchers Planned Parenthood. That answer really hurt his image as someone we can trust with Supreme Court appointments.

Scott Walker

The Wisconsin governor faced a tough set of facts on immigration, having supported amnesty just a few years ago. His answer was forthright and smart: He “listened to the American people,” visited the border and changed his mind. Most voters can probably live with that, especially since he talked about immigration’s negative impact on working class wages, suggesting that like Rick Santorum, he’s open to reforming the number of legal low-skill immigrants, as well as securing the borders.

On unborn life, Walker was refreshingly unflinching in the face of a really tough question from Megyn Kelly about “life of the mother” exceptions. But not terribly persuasive. Someone needs to take Walker aside and explain to him how this exception was routinely abused before Roe v. Wade, so that any pregnant woman willing to claim that she was suicidal could get an abortion in many states. He needs to understand the medical side of this issue, and explain how doctors should at least make an effort to save the unborn child, while protecting mothers’ lives.

Mike Huckabee

He wasn’t asked a question about immigration, so it didn’t come up in his answers. In 2008, he showed significant squishiness on this issue, but few voters are likely to remember that — and his position has firmed up in the meantime.

On abortion and other court-driven abuses of the Constitution, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee showed political courage by saying that he would invoke the 5^th and 14^th Amendments to protect unborn life despite bad Supreme Court decisions. That prospect should hearten everyone appalled at justices legislating from the bench. He was firm and powerful on Planned Parenthood, aptly comparing its organ-trafficking to automotive chop-shops.

Ted Cruz

The Texas senator did not disappoint, offering clear, firm, and persuasive answers about immigration, pointing out his long record of seeking border enforcement even in the face of a reluctant Republican establishment. He was smart to mention the “Gang of Eight” amnesty proposal, to which he led the opposition. He probably ought to have cited the fact that Marco Rubio was one of the eight, for the sake of the non-wonks in the audience.

On unborn life, Cruz could point to his longtime, firm pro-life position and strong record of activism against Planned Parenthood and legal abortion. As a highly skilled attorney and debater, Cruz’s voice in the pro-life cause is one of the most eloquent and intellectually substantive. He came out of the debate looking more likable, but no less formidable.

Marco Rubio

As a candidate who is tied with Jeb Bush for the worst record on immigration, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio highlighted his new, firmer views — emphasizing the importance of fairness to legal immigrants, like his working class Cuban parents. He endorsed a border fence, and spoke to the feeling Americans have that they are being “taken advantage of” by neighboring countries. It’s doubtful that he will ever erase the memory of his involvement in the “Gang of Eight,” but Jeb Bush’s unabashed advocacy of amnesty-in-all-but-name will take heat away from Rubio on this issue.

On abortion, Rubio was bold and principled, correcting a questioner’s mistake by insisting that he had never favored “rape and incest” exceptions. He spoke passionately and sincerely on the subject, warning that future centuries will consider us today “barbarians” for “murdering millions of babies.” Bravo! Those are words from which a candidate simply cannot walk away, making Rubio a hopeful choice for a reliably pro-life president.