With all the talk of Al Gore possible endorsing a candidate for president, I asked myself, "Do endorsements matter in today's world?". Here are my thoughts:
Would a Gore endorsement help any candidate? My guess is not significantly. Remember, Gore endorsed Howard Dean in '04, and Dean didn't win a single primary except for Vermont. While a Gore endorsement might give a slight boost to either the Obama or Edwards' campaign, there won't be a long term impact. Voters are looking to the candidates themselves these days to determine who to vote for. They are not looking to another politician to, in a sense, tell them who to vote for.
What I just talked about was a "national" endorsement. There are "local" endorsements that do matter and are significantly more important to a candidate than a national endorsement. Local endorsements matter because the national candidate gets local resources. A perfect example of this is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I give a lot of credit to Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary for her rise in polls in Iowa. Just six months ago she was about 10% behind Edwards. Now she is polling 3-10% ahead of Edwards, depending on what poll you look at. Endorsements from mayors and councilmen give even a greater advantage to candidates. All their local connections and resources are essentially given to the presidential candidate to use at their disposal, and that can be a huge advantage in early primary states and in swing districts in the general election.
So, do endorsements matter? Yes and no. National endorsements don't really have a long term effect. Local endorsements, on the other hand, can make a difference. Thats why it is always more important to look at the local organization of these campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, than their national organization. The perfect example of this is the situation between Rudy and Romney. Rudy might have many national endorsements and might be leading in national polls, but Romney has much local support in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. And, if Romney can use that localized support properly, he can, despite Rudy's large national lead, win the GOP nomination. My point: national endorsements are often nothing more than symbolism; the local endorsements are the ones that win elections.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
We Are All Americans (special editorial by John Lucia)
**Note: from now on, all posts written by John Lucia will not have his name in the title, but his name will appear at the end of the posts as a signature**
Through all walks of life, the American people have always wanted what is best for themselves, their children and grandchildren. A steady job to earn a decent wage, a home, those things that are necessary to live life and the safety to move about freely without harm.
So why are we such a divided country? Are we not all Americans first and foremost? Our political persuasion may be Liberal, Conservative, Moderate and etc, but we all seek the same security and freedom for our family. We are supposed to be in the age of advance technology, how can this be happening? Is this the future we are passing on to our children and grandchildren?
We are bombarded 24 hours a day by the news media, especially television and it is sad to say, but the news is more negative than positive. Why? And why do we accept that? Why do we believe everything we hear even though they are too many times when no evidence is offered to support the stories? Why not tune out the negative news media?
Our political system has become poison in the last 20 or so years. Personal attacks rule the day. It is standard procedure now for some politicians to attack others character and patriotism just because they disagree. The worst part of it all is that it works. Has it produced better leaders? I think not, with the President's approval rating at 29% and congress even lower. So what has divisive politics accomplished for the people and our country?
Has it made our country fiscally sound? Not even close. Has it made our country safer? Not a chance. Has it produced a better quality of life for our people? That also would have to be answered in the negative. Will we continue to choose division or ideology as a way of being governed? Or will we stand up and be counted as Americans first. The choice is ours to make and I hope we make the right one.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Relevance of JFK (a special editorial by John Lucia)
The American people realize that President Bush has the most secret administration in recent memory. In fact, I go back to the WWII generation and can't remember a more secretive one. That is the way he and V.P. Chaney operate; it is part of their culture. They don't believe in the checks and balances of a Democracy and they use the tragic events of 9-11 and fear to deceive the country.
The problem is compounded by the news media in general and more specifically by T.V. journalists and their networks. They have been intimidated by Bush and Chaney and have failed to investigate and report the many misdeeds by them. They failed to seek the truth about the so called threat from Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation of that country. They actually promoted Iraq as having WMD on their own with out asking or seeking proof. And now we know that those weapons did not exist.
Journalists only started to report the falsehoods and the facts after several books were written about the failures of Mr. Bush especially concerning Iraq. Then the election of Democrats to congress in the November 2006 elections opened them up a little more.
The news media, the President, and the Vice President failed the American people. The following is a statement made by President John F. Kennedy in February 1962 on the twentieth anniversary of the Voice of America.
"You are obliged to tell our story in a truthful way, to tell it, as Oliver Cromwell said about his portrait, 'Paint us with all our blemishes and warts, all those things about us that may not be so immediately attractive.'
We compete with those who are our adversaries who tell only the good stories. But the things that go bad in America, you must tell that also. And we hope that the bad and the good is sifted together by people of judgment and discretion and taste and discrimination, that they will realize what we are trying to do here.
We seek a free flow of information. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Those words of President Kennedy over 40 years ago are more timely and relevant today than ever before. If Mr. Bush and the news media followed his words America and its people would be much safer and better off today.
The problem is compounded by the news media in general and more specifically by T.V. journalists and their networks. They have been intimidated by Bush and Chaney and have failed to investigate and report the many misdeeds by them. They failed to seek the truth about the so called threat from Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation of that country. They actually promoted Iraq as having WMD on their own with out asking or seeking proof. And now we know that those weapons did not exist.
Journalists only started to report the falsehoods and the facts after several books were written about the failures of Mr. Bush especially concerning Iraq. Then the election of Democrats to congress in the November 2006 elections opened them up a little more.
The news media, the President, and the Vice President failed the American people. The following is a statement made by President John F. Kennedy in February 1962 on the twentieth anniversary of the Voice of America.
"You are obliged to tell our story in a truthful way, to tell it, as Oliver Cromwell said about his portrait, 'Paint us with all our blemishes and warts, all those things about us that may not be so immediately attractive.'
We compete with those who are our adversaries who tell only the good stories. But the things that go bad in America, you must tell that also. And we hope that the bad and the good is sifted together by people of judgment and discretion and taste and discrimination, that they will realize what we are trying to do here.
We seek a free flow of information. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Those words of President Kennedy over 40 years ago are more timely and relevant today than ever before. If Mr. Bush and the news media followed his words America and its people would be much safer and better off today.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore: A True American Hero
First of all, I would like to say congratulations to Al Gore, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize. He is truly an American, and in fact, an international, hero. Some might be afraid to admit it, but Global Warming is real and the reality is scary. We've seen some of its frightening affects already: rising temperatures, longer summers, shorter winters, rapidly melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, etc. The world can not afford to ignore Global Warming any longer and we can credit Gore for bringing this once taboo topic to the forefront of issues being discussed globally. It might sound very "superman-like", but I can truly attest that Al Gore is trying to save the planet(and us) from its own destruction. He, more than anyone else, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and I know that he will continue to work for the betterment of our planet and for that, we all owe Gore a huge thank you.
Secondly, I want to talk about the possibility of Gore in '08. Many want Gore to enter the race for the presidency, and I too wouldn't mind it. He is ready to be president, and should be, as he DID win in 2000. But thats another story. Back on topic, I honestly don't see Gore running in 2008. He would technically have to enter in the next few weeks to have any shot at winning the nomination. The problem is that democrats are satisfied with their current candidates and Gore doesn't want to, and shouldn't, come in just to lose. Hillary Clinton, polls show, has 53% of democrat's support. Obama and Edwards are also strong candidates. There just doesn't seem to be a niche for Gore, and I'm sure Gore recognizes that. He can probably have just as much influence serving as an adviser to the next President on environmental issues and serving as an environmental ambassador around the world as he would in the Oval Office himself.
So to end, I would just again like to say thank you to Al Gore for all his work and congratulations on his much deserved award. Keep up the good work, Al, the world needs you to.
Secondly, I want to talk about the possibility of Gore in '08. Many want Gore to enter the race for the presidency, and I too wouldn't mind it. He is ready to be president, and should be, as he DID win in 2000. But thats another story. Back on topic, I honestly don't see Gore running in 2008. He would technically have to enter in the next few weeks to have any shot at winning the nomination. The problem is that democrats are satisfied with their current candidates and Gore doesn't want to, and shouldn't, come in just to lose. Hillary Clinton, polls show, has 53% of democrat's support. Obama and Edwards are also strong candidates. There just doesn't seem to be a niche for Gore, and I'm sure Gore recognizes that. He can probably have just as much influence serving as an adviser to the next President on environmental issues and serving as an environmental ambassador around the world as he would in the Oval Office himself.
So to end, I would just again like to say thank you to Al Gore for all his work and congratulations on his much deserved award. Keep up the good work, Al, the world needs you to.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A message to Barack Obama: Shut Up!
Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama, is at it again. And by "it", I mean he is attacking Hillary for something he didn't even take a stand on. First he attacked her for voting for the Iraq War, yet he wasn't even in the Senate then, so who knows how he would have voted. And to add to Obama's inconsistency on attacking Hillary on that issue, he continued to fund the war and go along with Bush when he was elected to the Senate. And to top it all off, it was Hillary, not Obama, who exhibited leadership when she asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
10/9 Republican Debate (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tuesday's Republican debate in Michigan was billed as the debate about economics. Some one should have told moderators Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiroma that because, to the delight of the candidates (except Ron Paul), it was never mentioned that this Republican administration and the Republican controlled congress (first 6 years) were the biggest deficit spenders of all time.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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.
-----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.
Fox News: The Tragic Network (a special editorial by John Lucia)
It seems that every day the Fox News Network is promoting going to war with Iran. Their ticker that moves cross the television screen carries statements from neocons and others who propose striking Iran. They interview the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq and now want their adventure to extend over to Iran and other middle east countries.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
A Big Mistake for Some Democrats
Today was the deadline to withdraw your name from Michigan's Jan. 15 Presidential Primary and thats exactly what some candidates did. Every Democrat except for Clinton and Dodd will not be competing in the Michigan Primary, something that could turn out to be a huge mistake.
Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.
Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.
If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.
Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.
Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.
If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)