The to-and-fro in the Corner about Rudy Giuliani’s defense of his lawsuit against the line-item veto has been intellectually stimulating, but I must say I think it is entirely beside the point. I am flabbergasted that Giuliani devoted so much energy at a GOP debate to attacking an idea traditionally associated with Republican fiscal conservatism, and personally with Reagan. To the extent that the exchange with Mitt Romney actually affected a significant number of Republican primary voters, it likely they went away thinking: “Is Giuliani really against vetoing wasteful spending?”

Which was surely Romney’s intended outcome.

The episode ought to make Republicans slightly nervous. Giuliani, for all his rhetorical skill, proved to be easily baited. He should simply have said, “I thought that bill was unconstitutional,” and changed the subject to talk about his mayoral record on spending or how he’s cut wasteful spending in Washington. To the extent that debates matter at all, they create telling moments that get repeated by earned and paid media. Controlling yourself is far more important than making legalistic arguments or even being eloquent. Another way to think about it is that debates are jury trials. But participants and analysts sometimes get sucked into thinking they are in appellate court. It causes error.