What I Want to See at Tonight's GOP Debate

Tonight, live from Miami, Fox News will host another Presidential debate for the Republican candidates. I am looking forward to seeing if Fred Thompson can fix some of the damage done by his last debate performance. This could be make or break for Thompson and his campaign. He has got to show some enthusiasm and knowledge about running for President and he has got to energize the live audience and the viewers watching at home.

Also look for the feud between Romney and Rudy to continue from the last debate. Romney needs to set himself up as the conservative alternative to Giuliani, while Giuliani needs to gain strength in the early primary states where Romney is far ahead.

What I'm hoping most for is good moderating. I want the moderators to point out that there are real conservatives, like McCain and Huckabee, in the race. I have a feeling that a lot of the time being spent tonight will be on who the "true" Republican is in the field. The moderators can not just sit back, as they did in the past, and let lies spew forth from some of the candidates and not call them out on it. It is the duty of the moderator to point out facts and to speak out when one of the candidates claims something absurd.

The other portion of the debate, one would have to assume, will be devoted to foreign policy. It's highly unlikely, (seeing Fox's apparent love for Rudy Giuliani) but I would like to see Rudy questioned on what exactly he has done to give him experience on foreign issues. I don't see how Rudy can claim to have so much foreign policy experience when he was just a mayor. John McCain has a ton more foreign policy credentials than Rudy does, and that needs to be pointed out.

What also needs to be pointed out by the moderators, is the fact that while Rudy says he is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary, the polls show different. In head-to-head match-ups, John McCain either does just as well as Rudy or occasionally better. With Rudy as the frontrunner, he must be questioned more on his statements, as some of his are either ludicrous or just plain false. Fox News has no problem nitpicking every little thing Hillary says; they claim that she should be scrutinized because she is the frontrunner and people need to know her positions. Well, I only ask Fox to do the same for Rudy, and quite frankly, the other Republican candidates as well.

And lastly, I just hope the moderators and the other candidates show Ron Paul some respect. I was so disgusted at the last debate to see the obvious bias of the moderators against Ron. The others candidates were extremely disrespectful as well; Rudy could be heard laughing whenever Ron answered a question. Ron Paul is possibly the only Republican with real solutions, and the media and the other candidates would do themselves, and the American people, much good to pay some attention to him and his policies.

I hope everyone has a chance to watch the debate tonight and I look forward to reading some of your thoughts in the comments below. I'll be back later on tonight with a recap and review of the debate and who I believe were the winners and losers.

Romney Wins Over Conservatives.....Barely

At a Christian Conservative Conference, organized by the Family Research council, Gov. Mitt Romney won a straw poll with 27.6% of the "value voter's" votes. Mike Huckabee, who in my opinion is one of the strongest GOP candidates, finished at a very close second with 27.1%. Ron Paul came in third with 15% favoring him.

It proved to be a disappointing night for the two national frontrunners, however. Fred Thompson, who was hoping for the support of the Christian right to propel his campaign, only received about 9%. Rudy Giuliani, whose campaign banked on his (so called) national security credentials to overcome the social issues when it comes to winning over Christian conservatives, finished with under 2%.

Several important things strike me from the results of the straw poll. Now obviously, this isn't even close to all the Christian Conservative voters' support, but it is meaningful. It tells who the "value voter" community is drifting towards. First, I 'll be honest, I was shocked that Romney finished first. I thought for sure his flip-flop on abortion would keep him from being the favorite among Christians. Mike Huckabee, finishing a strong second, illustrates a trend in the campaign----his growing support. If Huckabee can finish strong in the early primaries, he might just be able to win enough Christian votes in the Southern states to win the GOP nomination. Another major upset has to be the fact that Ron Paul came in third. I could honestly see, if Rudy becomes the nominee, that Paul would run as a third party, anti-war, pro-life candidate and get the backing of some Christian conservatives. This could have the Nader effect on the GOP in '08 in some key battle ground states.

Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani can not be too happy tonight. If Fred can not rally up the Christian right, I don't see how he has a shot at the nomination. I think, as we get closer to January, that Huckabee will slowly over come Thompson in the polls and will prove to be the candidate of choice for the Christian Right. And finally we can see that Rudy is not winning over the social conservatives. Rudy himself has stated in the past that the way he will win the nomination is by convincing "value voters" that, while he might not be as socially conservative as they may like, he is the toughest candidate on national security. Well it seems that they're not buying it. I predict as we get closer to the primaries, and more people start paying close attention to the race, Rudy will lose some support once people know his positions.

One thing is for sure coming out of this conference----it is essentially a battle between Romney and Huckabee for the Christian Right vote in the primaries. Also it's clear that Rudy is not going to get a majority of Christian votes and that Fred is, slowly but surly, fading away.

Why Not McCain?

Throughout this campaign season, we are hearing more and more about how GOP voters want a social-conservative who, at the same time, can be super-hawkish when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East. Many social conservatives say they wouldn't normally vote for a man with Giuliani's past(pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control, pro-illegal immigration, etc.), but they feel he is the only man with "enough experience" to protect the country. Well, I wish these conservatives would wake up. There is already a frontrunner who is a social conservative and who does have experience on foreign issues. So I ask them----why Giuliani, why not McCain?

John McCain, regardless of how much I might disagree with him, fits the description of what I hear every "value voter" wanting---someone who has a clear record of being pro-life, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, AND he, by far, has the most foreign policy experience and knowledge out of any GOP candidate. I'd like to know how exactly some people think Giuliani has "foreign policy experience". How do you get foreign policy experience from just being a mayor? You don't, and people should realize that. The only past discrepancy that I see affecting McCain is his stance on immigration reform. But that still doesn't explain why they would so quickly turn from McCain, who was the early front-runner, to Giuliani who is even more pro-illegal immigration that McCain.

I suppose it just angers me to continue to see Giuliani rise in the polls for reasons that simply aren't true. I might not vote Republican or even share their "values", but I must admit there are better people out there to be president than Giuliani. Someone who exploits the lives of those lost on 9/11 does not deserve to be president. Someone who is so willing to commit troops to another war with Iran does not deserve to be president. Someone who will forget his past positions and adopt new ones, just to win an election, doesn't deserve to be president. Someone who speaks out against children getting healthcare does not deserve to be president. In case you haven't caught on, that "someone" is Giuliani. This man is a disgrace to America. I ask all you conservatives, if you are truly concerned with social issues and national security, do not look to Rudy. Look to McCain, he has stood for your principles for as long as he has been in politics, and you conservatives have literally paid him nothing but hatred in return. So don't go on the news and complain you don't have a candidate, you do, and his name is John McCain. Conservatives do have a choice; it's not like Rudy is being pushed down their throats. I just hope they realize their choices before its too late.

Is Giuliani Becoming Too Conservative?

The answer is yes, he is. Now most analysts would say that Giuliani becoming more and more conservative is a good thing. The truth is they are right, but only partially. In his attempt to get the Republican nomination, Giuliani has "modified" several of his positions to appear more in line with the GOP base. He has become, by far, the most hawkish candidate, drawing the nickname of "Bush on steroids". He has refined his pro-choice by stating that he would appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Instead of being very pro-gun control, Rudy now says that he respects the 2nd Amendment. All of these policy shifts have put Giuliani more in line with the Republican base, but it could hinder one of his very important arguments for being the nominee------that he could put some traditionally "blue states" into play.

By becoming more conservative, Giuliani is clearly hurting his chances among moderate voters in states such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and even California. The "old Giuliani" had a better chance to win these states than the "new, conservatively improved Giuliani". Its highly unlikely that he will draw support from Independents who are overwhelmingly against this war and for withdrawal. Pro-choice, pro-gun control urbanites are already showing dissatisfaction at Giuliani's new stances. Polls show many feel Giuliani is selling his soul, so to speak, to conservatives just to get the nomination.

Polls reflect this showing as well. While 6 months ago, Florida and Pennsylvania Independents were leaning towards Giuliani; now they lean significantly towards Clinton. Giuliani's new found conservative nature might get him the support of the Republican base, but it is already losing him the support of many moderates. By the time the 2008 election rolls around, Giuliani may be getting the onslaught from two key voting blocks-----strict social conservatives who say they would never trust Giuliani and moderate Independent voters. Take those two voting blocks away from Giuliani and you make it impossible for him to win the White House.

The True Conservative Republican?

The week has only just begun, but the battle of words is already in full swing. What we have this time is a sort of four-way argument between Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Thompson on who is the true conservative in the race. The battle stems from a comment Romney made, stating that he is the only candidate that represents "the Republican wing of the Republican Party". This, along with the rest of his speech, was an obvious jab at Giuliani. Romney consistently challenges Rudy on his liberal social positions, his illegal immigration positions, and his multiple wives, citing that he(Romney) is a "family man" while Rudy is not.

Yet after Romney's comments about being from "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", another candidate jumped in the mix. Sen. John McCain's campaign responded with the following:

"Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."

McCain has also been bringing up Romney's change of position on issues such as abortion, essentially branding Romney with the stereotypical "Massachusetts-liberal" label.

And then, of course, we had to get the "new Reagan", Fred Thompson, to join in on the fun. Fred brought up that he "was a conservative Republican in the Senate, (he) is a conservative Republican today, and will be one as President." Fred also stressed that he is the only "true Republican" in the race.

The truth is, there is no ideal, true conservative in the race among the frontrunners. Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until his "revelation" that came just in time for the 2008 election. McCain's most questionable past issue was his recent attempt at immigration reform where he was accused of being "pro-amnesty". Even "the Reagan conservative" Thompson is not as strict of a conservative as many would like. He is divorced, married to a trophy wife, he has stated that he doesn't go to church, and he has lobbied for pro-choice groups.

What strikes me as odd is that you have all these Republican voters who say they aren't happy with their choice of candidates because there is no "true conservative" or "true Republican". But the truth is, there are "true conservatives" and "true Republicans" in the race. Mike Huckabee is extremely conservative and there is nothing questionable about him from his past. Possibly the most conservative candidate is Ron Paul. He is very conservative on all social issues, he is a fiscal conservative, he wants smaller government, AND he embodies the good old Republican ideal of non-interventionism when dealing with foreign countries who don't pose a threat to the U.S. My point: There are real choices for Republican voters so I don't know why they complain when they have everything they want right in front of them.

New Polls Show Clinton as the Strongest General Election Candidate

Just as previous years' elections, it appears that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida will be the deciding states in 2008. It was Florida that ultimately decided the 2000 election; Ohio did the same in '04. It is also interesting to note that a Republican has never won the presidency without winning Ohio, and it appears unlikely that one could do so this time around. Here's the latest polling data from Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll:

-----Hillary leads by significant margin in all 3 swing states-------
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42

Other findings from Florida:
-Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42, Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39, and Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37
-Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 and edges Edwards 43 - 41
-Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 and Romney 43 - 36, but trails McCain 41 - 39

Other findings from Ohio:
-Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38, Thompson 50 -36, and Romney 51 - 34
-Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39, Thompson 44 - 33, and Romney 47 - 31

Other findings from Pennsylvania:
-Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41, Thompson 50 - 39, and Romney 49 - 37
-Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent
-Obama beats McCain 45 - 41, Thompson 45 - 37, and Romney 49 - 33

Obama and especially Edwards are going to have to change their tune about saying that they are more electable than Clinton; the numbers show differently. The GOP should also take a warning: they are not going to easily beat Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than Gore and Kerry. Couple that with the fact that Americans agree with her policies, she has an excellent chance to win in '08, and polling shows more and more to prove that every month. Clinton's lead is ever widening. She lost to all Republicans in those swing states in polling earlier this year. Now she convincingly defeats them and there is no sign of her lead shrinking. Expect it to grow.

10/9 GOP Debate Review

Today, CNBC and MSNBC hosted yet another GOP Presidential Debate. If there was any one story coming out of this debate, it was Fred Thompson's debate debut. Also interesting to note was a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. So how did the candidates stack up? Here's my review:

First I'll start with Sen. Thompson. I know many of you disagreed with me when I said Thompson has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Well for all those who disagreed with me, just go watch this debate and you'll see why I said that. He lacks style. At times he mumbles, at other times he takes long, awkward, pauses, and other times he just completely fails to articulate a clear, understandable sentence. Thompson isn't just a bad debater/speaker, he's horrible at it. If anything, debates are supposed to make a candidate look strong, but for Fred, mark my words, it will unravel some of the support he has.

As I stated earlier, Romney and Guiliani had an interesting little exchange over taxes. Now while I do hate to defend Romney, I'm going to have to do it. Some of the claims Guiliani made against Romney were, from my knowledge, completely false. I love watching two candidates go at it, but I hate when one candidate makes false claims against another, whether I agree with that person or not. Thats exactly what Guiliani did with the issue of Romney and taxes. Whether Guiliani would like to admit it or not, everything I know suggests that Romney was a much stricter fiscal conservative than Guiliani ever was.

If I had to rank the GOP candidates based on style, content, and overall ability to debate, here is how I would rank them:

1. Mitt Romney----had a strong showing
2. John McCain----although a little uneasy at times, he stayed calm and collective and made some good points
3. Ron Paul-------if it wasn't for him getting a little uneasy at times, he would be #1 as I agree with a lot of his ideas
4. Mike Huckabee--he is by far the most charismatic and most well-spoken GOP candidate and he demonstrated that again tonight.
5. Rudy Guiliani----he had his facts messed up and failed to answer most of the questions

6-8: Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo: I group these men together because they all failed to leave me with an impression.
9. Fred Thompson--for all the reasons mentioned above; an absolutely horrible showing

30% of Americans "definitely would" vote for Clinton

The latest ABC/ Washington Post poll shows that 30% of Americans have made up their mind that they will definitely vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she is the nominee. 28% say they would strongly consider voting for Hillary. 41% say they would not vote for her.

If the 30% number is accurate, then Clinton is well ahead of fellow competitors when it comes to having firm supporters. The next candidate out of both Republicans and Democrats to come close to Clinton's 30% is Republican Rudy Guiliani with 17% of people saying they "definitely would" vote for him. Rudy is also higher than Clinton on the question of would someone "definitely not" vote for him. He has 44% while Clinton, as mentioned earlier, has 41%.

This may not seem significant, but it does show something very important. Clinton is often painted by Republicans as being unelectable. Well, according to this poll, she would probably win over Guiliani rather convincingly. The poll also shows that Guiliani arguably has more negatives than Clinton. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this: Republicans are vastly underestimating Clinton; they really have no idea what they might be getting themselves into.

Yup, Guiliani's at it again

Well it had seemed as if Mayor Rudy Guiliani stopped using 9/11 to justify everything, but now he's back at it. When asked about why he took a call from his wife while in the middle of giving a speech to the NRA, Guiliani had this to say:

"Quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other. Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then. I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point."

Wow, not only is it rude to take a phone call during a speech (this was the 3rd time he did it), but its even more rude use 9/11 to justify it. Everything this guy does some way or another comes back to 9/11. I ask Republicans, when are you going to tell this guy enough? Why are you still allowing him to get away with exploiting 9/11?

This is it....the final quarter---my early predictions for the nominees

I think it just hit me today, this is the last day of the 3rd quarter for 2007. That means that we are essentially a little over 3 months away from the Iowa Caucus...and then New Hampshire....and South Carolina....and so on. This is the time when people really start paying attention and when candidates really get serious. Now, unlike the summer, there is absolutely no room for mistakes or slip-ups. With only a few more months to go, let me give you my predictions for what will happen in the January caucuses and primaries and the rest of the nomination process.

I'll start with the Democrats. Iowa will be the true battle-ground state, as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are virtually tied in polls and have been for quite some time. If Clinton can win here, it's all over. She has a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and its growing. She is also polling ahead in South Carolina and Florida. Even if Edwards was to win Iowa, I don't believe he could get the nomination. He wouldn't have enough money to compete with Hillary in New Hampshire and the other states. On the other hand, if Obama wins Iowa, Hillary would face some serious problems. He is the only candidate who could match her money-wise and he could essentially use the momentum from Iowa to catapult himself through New Hampshire and so on. So my recommendation for Hillary is to do everything humanly possible to win Iowa, or at least make sure Obama doesn't win. An Obama win wouldn't necessarily end her chances, but he would make her fight for the nomination, and I'm sure thats something the Hillary campaign wouldn't like. So my prediction for the democratic nomination right now is Hillary, but as Obama continues to gain in Iowa, he might be able to make me change my prediction.

Now onto the Republican candidates. First of all I will start by saying that the Fred Thompson excitement is gone. I will guarantee that Fred will not be the nominee. I'll also confidently say that I don't think John McCain will be the nominee either. It boils down to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Romney looks like a sure thing when it comes to winning the Iowa caucus. He is polling ahead in New Hampshire, but his lead there has shrunk dramatically and Rudy is gaining. If Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire then I see him being the nominee. However, if Rudy can win New Hampshire, or at least keep Romney from winning, then the race is wide open. Guiliani is stronger than Romney in South Carolina and Florida. They only way Romney could win those states would be to use the momentum from two huge wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, much like John Kerry in '04. So for my pick for the GOP, I'm going to go with Guiliani, but don't, by any means, count Romney out of this race. He could still very much win the GOP nomination.

And for my prediction for the general----I see a Democrat winning and I think Hillary has the best chance of any Democrat to do so. If Romney is the GOP nominee I see him being easily defeated in a general election. Guiliani would be a much stronger candidate and could potentially lead to a GOP upset in '08, although I am very skeptical it will happen.

The Latest 2008 General Election Poll

Fox News and Dynamics have just come out with a new poll concerning the 2008 general election for president. And conservatives might want to take note that their attacks on Hillary are not working. They are making her stronger. Take a look:

3 Way Race:

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 32%-----down 5% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 42%----up 3% from 3 months ago
-Mike Bloomberg(I): 7%----same as 3 months ago

2 Way Races:

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 39%----down 6% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 4% from 3 months ago

-Fred Thompson(R): 35%--down 3% from 2 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 48%---up 1% from 2 months ago

-John McCain(R): 39%----down 4% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 3% from 3 months ago

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 40%----down 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 41%---down 4% from 2 months ago

-John McCain(R): 38%-----up 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 40%---down 7% from 2 months ago

These polls show a clear distinction---in a general election, despite what some in the media say, Hillary is a much, much stronger candidate than Barack Obama. This has to be attributed to her experience and her foreign policy credentials. A lot of people will say poll numbers this early mean nothing, but I must say, they are dead wrong. More Americans are following this election closer than any previous election in history. Polls show as much as 40% of the country have already made a decision on who they're voting for. These polls show a clear trend---Hillary gains, Republicans fall while Obama falls and Republicans rise.

Rudy's secret to success...Bill Clinton?

During a speech in Louisiana, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani, had this to say:

"I have a letter...I keep it at home. It's a letter from President Clinton saying something like the crime bill couldn't have been passed if it weren't for me. I keep this letter; I'm going to use it at the right moment...You can imagine when."

Not only is that statement creepy in a way, it's also absurd for Guiliani to think that a letter from Bill Clinton means anything. If all it was about was a crime bill, what the hell does that matter? Nobody, not even democrats, deny that Guiliani got a crime bill passed when he was mayor. The thing is, as President, you have to have more on your record than passing a crime bill. A resume of taking hookers off of street corners can only go so far when running for president of this country. We need someone with experience in foreign affairs, and regardless of what Guiliani wants you to believe, he does not have that.

Clinton widening lead over Republicans; Obama falling

Many have wondered how Hillary Clinton would be able to fare against a tough Republican candidate, such as Guiliani, in a general election. The original consensus was that Clinton was too divisive and Obama would be a much stronger general election candidate than Hillary. The CNN/Research Corporation Poll, however has something different to say about that:

Hillary now beats Guiliani 50-46, up 3 points from June when she only beat him by one point, 49-48. Obama, however, has fallen when matched up with Guiliani. He now loses to Guiliani, 45 -49, while in June he only lost by 2 points, 46-48. Hillary has also greatly widened her lead over Fred Thompson, now 55-42, when back in June it was only 50-46. Obama and Thompson have stayed basically at a stand still, with it being 52-40 in favor of Obama in June, while now it is 53-41, still in favor of Obama.

This goes along with what I've been saying. Hillary is widening her appeal. The fact is, like her personally or not, she is the candidate who is most in touch with the American people as far as her ideas and policies are concerned. She, unlike many would suggest, is not some wacky liberal. She is indeed very mainstream and centrist in her views. Once people get to see the real Hillary, they like her more and more. No longer are they seeing what the GOP conservatives what them to see of her; they are seeing the truth.

This poll also shows something I've pointed out. Obama's inexperience is catching up to him. He several "slip-ups" in recent months have hurt him. Americans are looking for a leader, someone who has the experience to make the change happen. And I think, as the latest polls are beginning to show, Americans are turning towards Hillary to make that change and lead this country into the future.

Quick GOP debate wrap-up

Well I just got done watching a grueling hour and a half of what Fox News calls a debate. First off, I was hoping for a little less bias than usual, but I'm afraid we may have gotten more than usual. Ron Paul got hammered by the questioners, who had an obvious sense of disgust in their speech when talking with Congressman Paul. At the same time, good-ol Fox conservatives and even Rudy Guiliani were allowed to slide and dodge the questions. Paul got mis-quoted, stopped in the middle of his sentences, and was even had it implied to him that he supported al-Qaeda by one of the panelists. On top of all that, everytime Paul gave a response, there was a clear sound of laughter in the background. I would hope it wasn't the other candidates or Fox News personality, but whomever was laughing, must have been pretty damn close to a microphone. But anyway....here is a quick, candidate-by-candidate analysis:

-Rudy Guiliani: a horrible showing for someone who is supposed to be the front-runner. This man answers every question the same: he laundry lists what he did as Mayor. In a president, Americans need someone who will talk about what they bring to the table. I could have been up there listing what Rudy did and didn't do as Mayor. I want to know what he WILL do as President, not what he DID do as Mayor.

-John McCain: McCain had a good night. I thought his passion showed and he looked and sounded the most presidential. Whether or not this is going to help him rebound after a disappointing summer, we'll just have to wait and see, but, overall, he had a definite connection with the New Hampshire audience and I would be willing to bet he won himself a few more votes.

-Mitt Romney: Romney didn't answer one question clearly. He dodged every question and the commentators never followed up. By the end of this debate, I didn't know whether Romney wanted in or out of Iraq, whether he wanted a nationwide ban to abortion or not, or how he was going to deal with the immigration problems he has so often spoke out on. I'm not sure if he was flip-flopping again or what, but when I thought I had his positions figured out...well...now I'm not so sure.

-Mike Huckabee: Huckabee, as usual, came off as the most warm candidate. I thought he had an okay night. He didn't hurt himself, but yet didn't have that defining moment he could really use. He just got lost in the shuffle and, unfortunately for him, I don't think people are going to wake up tomorrow and remember Huckabee as anything more than just another candidate.

-Sam Brownback: All I have to say is that this man is a one issue candidate. Every question he got asked, he answered by blaming it on there not being enough emphasis on families. Brownback needs to be more than just a strict social conservative, he needs to be someone who is ready to lead this country and, in this day and age, you need more than just "family values" to do that.

-Duncan Hunter: Like Huckabee, Hunter will be forgotten. He should have dropped out this race a long time ago. He doesn't bring anything new or different to the discussion and as far as I'm concerned, he comes off as just wasting time.

-Tom Tancredo: He had on okay showing, maybe slightly better than last time, only because he covered some tough issues and went straight to the point. But at the same time, Tancredo fails to make an impact, and should just drop out.

-Ron Paul: I can't help but feel bad for Paul. He was bullied by Fox and still held his ground. What surprised me the most was that the audience, republican voters, had great applause for many of Paul's responses that were quite the opposite of those of main-stream republicans. Maybe there is a niche for Paul to still make an impact. Over all he did really good and did a lot to make himself appear the alternative to the "Bush-Cheney" like Republicans.

WINNERS:
-McCain
-Paul

LOSERS:
-Guiliani
-Romney

And everyone else, just stuck somewhere in between. For those who watched it, I would love to hear your thoughts!

An early look at the key swing states for '08

As we inch closer and closer to the 2008 Presidential election, most states are safe bets for Republicans or Democrats. For example the midwest votes almost entirely republican, while big states like New York and California are strongly democratic. States like these do not have a huge impact on the race, as they are considered "safe". Yet, there are key "swing" states that do not have an allegiance to either political party. These are the states that are key for any presidential candidate to win, because without winning them, you can't win the election. Here's a look at the most recent polls out of these "swing" states, pitting the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton against Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani:

-Arkansas: Clinton leads Guiliani 55-37
-Colorado: Guiliani leads Clinton 50-40
-Florida: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-44
-Iowa: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-41
-Michigan: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-40
-Minnesota: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-41
-Missouri: Clinton leads Guiliani: 46-43
-Nevada: Guiliani leads Clinton: 46-38
-New Hampshire: Clinton leads Guiliani: 44-40
-New Mexico: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-44
-Ohio: tied at 44%
-Oregon: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-41
-Pennsylvania: Clinton leads Guiliani: 45-44
-West Virginia: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-36
-Wisconsin: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-46

As seen, Hillary Clinton is leading in just about all swing states. If the election was held today, the electoral vote would go: 313(Clinton) to 225(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Guiliani OR 333(Clinton) to 205(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Clinton. Regardless of Ohio, if current polling is accurate on election day, Clinton will have a relatively easy victory as only 270 electoral votes are needed. Looking at these poll numbers, Clinton's campaign should be very happy, because just 2 months ago, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio all went by at least 5% in polls to Guiliani. Now Clinton either leads or is tied in those key states. Also interesting to note is Clinton leading in more conservative states such as Missouri and West Virginia. If these numbers hold up, expect to see a huge democrat victory in '08, not just for the presidency, but also in the House and Senate.

People unhappy with Guiliani 9/11 ceremony role

This year, at the annual 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York City, former Mayor Rudy Guiliani is scheduled to speak. Some people though are very unhappy about this:

-“I think it’s disgraceful that he’s going to be there,” said James Riches, a deputy fire chief who lost his son Jimmy in the attacks, and who said that he faulted Mr. Giuliani as not giving firefighters the proper equipment before or after the attacks. “It’s a photo-op for him.”

-Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, a firefighter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said: “I’m still very shocked and I’m very, very upset, for two reasons. Number one, the majority of firefighters and their families have made it clear how they feel about Mayor Giuliani. The second reason is that it’s totally unorthodox to have someone running for major elected office in the United States to have a forum like this.”

I must agree with the above sentiments. Rudy Guiliani has no place reading at the ceremonies. It is indeed nothing but a photo-op for him, a chance for him to make people remember his supposed heroic efforts on 9/11. Firefighters and policeman do not want the former mayor there. They were there on 9/11 and say Guiliani had left the FDNY and NYPD completely un-prepared for such an event. They also criticize his recovery efforts, stating that Guiliani used the tragedy to further his political career. The most disturbing piece of information that the firefighters present is the fact that Rudy called off the search for the remains of their lost friends as soon as he had found a vault with silver and gold in it that he had been looking for. Coincidence?....one would think not. Perhaps my favorite quote about Guiliani's "legacy" is when a New Yorker was asked by a conservative radio personality: "do you support Rudy Guiliani for president?" The man responded "no." He was then asked, "Why not, you're a New Yorker, you know what he did on 9/11" In reply, the New Yorker said, "Thats exactly why I don't support him, I am a New Yorker, I know what really happened"

Catfight!!!----Freddy vs. Rudy

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is expected to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination some time in September. Although I do believe getting in the race too late is going to be a great obstacle for Fred to overcome, taking shots like this one at his fellow candidates is a good way to start building you support base, without being "officially" in the race:

"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."

Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.

This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.

Update: Guiliani compares himself w/ the Rescue Workers

As former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani hits the campaign trail for his White House bid in 2008, he has been using his 9/11 record as his groundwork for becoming president. Last week when asked why he didn't warn of the health conditions posed to rescue workers working at Ground Zero, Rudy had this to say:

"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"

Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.

The GOP Candidates' major flaws

Just like the Democrats, Republicans do not have one ideal candidate. They each bring something positive to their party, but here I will take a look at each candidate's major problem in winning the primaries and a general election.

1. Rudy Guiliani- Rudy has so many past issues that could come up in a general election. Once his past comes out(such as the fact that his kids have completely disowned him), he is likely to become the most un-likable candidate from either party. His social views could also be a major problem in early key states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

2. John McCain- John's stance on two major issues have hurt him. And its not a surprise that both of those issues are related to George Bush. Bush's immigration bill, that McCain supported, greatly hurt him among the conservative base. McCain supporting this war so strongly has hurt his chances of gaining moderate republican support and independent support.

3. Fred Thompson- This guy has waited too long to get into the race. A lot of people have already made their mind up and know who their voting for and Fred has yet to even enter the race. The longer he waits to get it, the more people will have made up their mind on who their voting for, and thats more people who won't be voting for Fred Thompson.

4. Mitt Romney- Mitt is the ultimate flip-flopper. Every major issue important to the republican party, Mitt has flip-flopped on. His newly found conservative values may get him the nomination, but there is nothing the American people hate more than flip-floppers. Romney would be a disaster for the GOP, almost a sure shot that they would lose a general election.

5. Mike Huckabee- This guy has probably the most appealing personality of anyone running, but Huckabee just isn't a forceful guy. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, you have to be ready to take tough stands and go after your opponents. Mike is the nice guy, and while there is nothing wrong with being nice in politics, Mike has played it too nice. He is getting walked over by the others and is not breaking out of the pact like he should have already done.

6. Tom Tancredo- This guy is the crazy conservative. His past comments on bombing Mecca and Medina just about alienate him from getting the votes of any sane person. His tough stances on immigration make his chances of getting any hispanic support zero. This guy is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field, appealing to some, but just too far out there for most.

7. Duncan Hunter- Hunter just doesn't have anything to say. He's hardly heard from in the debates and has not said anything about how he would run the country. Its hard to earn votes when no one knows any of your ideas for moving this country forward.

8. Ron Paul- Paul is the ideal candidate for anti-war republicans and independents, but the problem is that the primary voting block in republican primaries is conservatives who are pro-war. Paul might do surprising well in a general election as the republican nominee, but his chances of getting there are slim to none.

9. Sam Brownback- Sam's "holier than thou" attitude is just a turn off for so many people. Sam has this arrogance about him when he talks, as if he's better than everyone else because of his religion. His other problem is that he's a one dimensional candidate, he only talks about abortion. In this day and age, I just can't help but to think that there are way more important issues to take care of than abortion.

10. John Cox- Ever heard of him? neither have I, thats his problem.

Well there is my round-up of the negatives of the GOP candidates. If you haven't already, check out my blog on the negatives of the democratic candidates.

Rudy flip-flops AGAIN!

Rudy Guiliani is trying to appeal to republican primary voters by appearing to be more conservative. His latest attempt to that has him planning on releasing a detailed plan on how to stop illegal immigration. Guiliani has recently said, "I promise I will end illegal immigration!" This is quite the opposite opinion of illegal immigration than he had in 1994, when the mayor had this to say:

"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”

All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.