10/21 GOP Debate Thoughts

Well I must admit, aside from a few things, I was pleasantly surprised with tonight's Republican debate. I think the moderators did several of things I talked about earlier----pointing out that McCain runs better against Hillary in General Election polls than Rudy and giving Huckabee adequate time to showcase his credentials to be president.

Huckabee was the star of the debate. He got in quite a few good one liners and was funny, charming and looked as if he was the only major GOP candidate who would be able to put America ahead of his party. McCain also had a good night. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, and I do disagree with them, you must admit McCain is an honorable guy who says what he means and means what he says.

I was disappointed that the moderators didn't press Giuliani on what makes him supposedly so experienced on foreign policy. I think McCain tried to bring up the fact that he is more experienced than Giuliani, but the moderators failed to follow up. I think its crucial, for this country's future, to point out that, on many issues, Rudy is simply a fraud. That was my first out of two major complaints about the debate.

My second complaint is, yet again, that Ron Paul got no respect for the other candidates, and especially the crowd in attendance. I can understand if they do not agree with his policies (which, by the way are the best of all the GOP candidates'), but to boo Paul is just rude and unnecessary. It shows the character of those GOP voters in attendance. I don't care what conservatives say about us liberals, we are polite and give candidates, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, respect.

Here are a few of my other thoughts: It is a shame that Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo probably only got 10 minutes combined. The moderators would rarely go to them with questions and that is just not fair to voters who haven't made up their mind. They are essentially being denied, by the media, an opportunity to hear from certain people. I'll also say Fred Thompson performed slightly better than last time, but still far from great. He has a serious problem getting his point across and just comes across as sloppy. Rudy did okay. My problem with him is that he makes things up as he goes along. Last debate he said Romney raised taxes (Romney actually lowered taxes considerably); tonight Rudy said that he wasn't like Hillary on abortion, gun control, and gay issues. Well in fact, Rudy is indeed just like Hillary, if not even more liberal, on those issues. And finally, Mitt Romney continues to do well. He did a good job tonight defending his "flip-flops" and he definitely made an attempt to win over the Christian Right. He, even more so that Huckabee, flaunted his conservative credentials. Now whether or not his positions are genuine is a different story, but Romney did do an excellent job of making himself look like the most socially conservative candidate tonight.

So here are my rankings:
1. Mike Huckabee----the most charming candidate and the one who best connected with the audience
2. John McCain------his "straight-shooter" attitude, along with flaunting his foreign policy experience, made this one of McCain's best debate performances
3. Mitt Romney------he continues to make the case for why he is a true conservative, and it worked tonight
4. Rudy Giuliani-----for some reason beyond my comprehension, he is a favorite among the crowd and (sadly) does a good job at fooling them into believing he is someone he is clearly not
5. Ron Paul---------his anti-war message might have been unpopular with the audience tonight, but as anti-war sentiment grows among moderate Republicans, Paul's performance proves why he is their candidate
6, 7, 8: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson---I didn't even get to hear enough from Tancredo and Hunter to rate them, but I do know that Thompson still performed far below expectations and his poll numbers will continue to show that these poor debate performances are having a negative effect

So there are my thoughts. If anyone saw the debate, I would love to hear yours.

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.

Jindal wins Governorship

I am sad to announce that Republican Bobby Jindal has won the election for Louisiana Governor. I don't think there could be a worst person for the job. Bobby has agreed with everything President Bush has done----including his handling of Hurricane Katrina, and everyone knows that was a disaster.

One of the reasons for Jindal's clean, easy victory was his name recognition. Jindal represents the New Orleans metropolitan area in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was also a candidate for governor in 2003 against Kathleen Blanco. Blanco, deciding not to run for re-election, essentially left the seat for the taking of Bobby Jindal.

Big name Louisiana Democrats such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu(who by the way easily won re-election tonight) and former U.S. Sen. John Breaux decided not to run. These democrats could have won the election, but by not running, they left Jindal with virtually no big-name opposition. Democratic State Senator Walter Boasso was Jindal's only true competition, yet Jindal had millions more to spend and hence won the Governorship.

All I can do now is pray that, regardless of party affiliation, Jindal will do the right things for the people of Louisiana, and that means standing up to his good 'ole friend, Pres. Bush, and actually helping the state, unlike the President. Unfortunately, I don't think Jindal will do that. All you have to do is look at his Congressional record. He was ranked 432th out of 439 places on terms of leadership and effectiveness representing his people. Can Jindal get past his partisanship and actually help those in Louisiana who are desperate for change? I surely hope so, but sadly, I think not. He has proven, like many other Republicans lately, that he cares more about his own party, than the people he is elected to serve.

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.

The Four Ring Circus

Republican Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are going at each other as to who is the real conservative among them.  These children, dressed up like adults, are a sad bunch representing the Republican party who are trying to attract their base----those who prefer to wear the mantle of moral and family values. 

 

History has proven those who talk most about having family and moral values are the one who often violate those values.  We have seen many of them exposed in the last few years.  The people who really believe and practice family and moral values very seldom have to speak about those values because they live them.  In other words they lead by their deeds.

 

Has anyone heard this circus talk about being an American first?  I would bet not; their ideology and political persuasion comes first.  They think of being an American only when they need the extra votes.  The election of any one of these four children as President will just be an extension of the Bush administration with more reckless behavior and more reckless decisions, more attacks by Al Qaeda on the U.S., and more unnecessary wars.

 

Mr. Bush and his tough talking neocon friends failed to protect the country and its people on 9-11 from the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil.  And now this circus of four neocon's running for President are also trying to talk tough.  The American people are well aware of which party can best protect our country and people, and it is not the Republican Party.

 

It is almost laughable when you see them go after each other.  They can't live up to their positions on the issues, and when all else fails, they invoke the name of Reagan.  It must remind them of the Iran-Contra scandal.  Maybe that is why they are so casual about going to war with Iran.  Their motive must be to get back those weapons Reagan sold to Iran. 

 

Lets see, Giuliani likes to cross dress and hide behind the podium during the debates; Thompson is an actor with an undistinguished record while serving in Congress; McCain's wheels of his straight talking express came off a long time ago, and Romney is still trying to explain his positions. What a four ring circus with these children leading the Republican field for their party's leadership.

 

Are any of these four the best candidates to lead our country in the future?  The present administration has already set America back a decade with its reckless behavior.  When introducing the candidates for the next debate, maybe the moderator should just sing, "Send In The Clowns."

 

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.

Failure At the Top

President Bush's job approval rating, according to a poll released October 17, stands at 24%.  Last month it was at 29%.  Those who watched Mr. Bush's performance at his news conference that same day can easily understand why.

 

The President was childish at times, then reverted to his scare tactic of fear and spoke about "WWIII" as if we are headed directly for it.  No Commander in Chief should speak of war so casually.  Our past Presidents have a record of doing what is necessary to avoid war if at all possible.  When one thinks about the troubles this President has brought upon our country and our men and women in uniform the only conclusion is that he is unfit for the office. 

 

When he can't or doesn't want to deal with reporters' questions, he tries to be funny.  His answers are scripted and gets off the subject matter with long drawn out answers unrelated to the questions.  Deep into the fifth year of war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist, he still can not tell the people how this war will end, when it will end, nor what will Iraq look like if it ever ends.  Even though it is the United States who is training the Iraqi's, he still can not tell the nation when the Iraqi's will be ready to take over the security of their own country.

 

Our nation is without a true leader at a time when our country needs leadership to face the challenges that the free world is exposed to.  Reckless and incompetent decisions have put America and our Armed Forces in harms way and now Mr. Bush is talking about WWIII.  History will not wait 15 to 20 years to judge Mr. Bush's presidency as he has said so often.  The facts have been revealed and the people have already spoken.  The Worst President and Commander in Chief in History, and sadly, the most childish is George W. Bush. 

Israel: Just Another Middle East Menace?

The major obstacle to peace between Israel and  Palestine are the leaders of Israel and those who support their loose cannon strategy.  The leaders of Israel order so called preemptive strikes against the Palestinian people and kill innocent men, women and children in their attacks and then just shrug it off and say those things just happen in war. 

 

If one listens closely to their talk you would think Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the Palestinian people are responsible for the holocaust.  Israel is a nuclear power with stock piles of WMD.  They won't admit it and America and other world leaders don't talk about it, but it is a fact.  They refused to join the Non Proliferation Treaty that requires open inspections of Nuclear facilities but they want other nations to comply.  It is time for world leaders to demand that Israel join the N.P.T. ditto India and Pakistan.

 

The leaders of Israel are not friends of America.  They would love to see the U.S. go to war with Iran, just like the U.S. did in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  They love when we adopt their preemptive policy regardless of the loss of innocent life.  They would like nothing more than for America to stoop to their level in order to justify their own actions.

 

The leaders of Israel like to use their military power with impunity.  That is an indication of unstable leadership, lack of moral values, and a disregard for human life.  They have created more terrorists with their actions much like our invasion of Iraq did.  If anyone has any doubts about the leaders of Israel I suggest reading the book "Body of Secrets".  It tells the story about Israel's attack on the United States' ship Liberty and acts of Israel against Egypt.

 

America needs a President who will reassess our relationship with the leaders of Israel.  And America needs a congress that will reassess what military equipment and supplies we sell to Israel.

 

Bush Warns about "World War III"

Our great President, "Dubya", has said many outrageous and ignorant things during his presidency, but this one has to be near the top of the list:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

You just don't talk about a World War, especially one that would be nuclear, that lightly. It's irresponsible and foolish. There is no reason why Iran could or would start a World War. Iran is no threat to the U.S. or Israel currently. If the U.S. or Israel wanted, Iran could be wiped off the map in an instant. And, if Bush's argument is that Iran can not be in control of nuclear weapons, then I agree. I don't think any politician, Democrat or Republican, wants Iran to have nukes.

But the thing is, and this is where Republicans and Democrats differ, we don't need to start a war to keep Iran from getting WMDs. We need to first try tough sanctions and rigorous diplomacy. It looks like it is working with North Korea, so why can't it work with Iran? And, if Iran still doesn't comply, then all we have to do is an air strike on the nuclear facility. We don't need to invade Iran, or attack its civilians. By just taking out the nuclear reactor, we essentially solve the problem---quickly, safely, and without conflict. And it's not exactly like Iran would be capable of attacking the U.S. back. But, before we even think about a military strike, we must try strong diplomacy, but at the same time, letting other countries know that Iran know that they mustn't be allowed to get WMDs. Why?----simple, they themselves would not launch an attack, but they would give WMDs to terrorists who would use it in Israel, Western Europe, and eventually the U.S.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is restoring our standing in the world with countries such as Russia. Russia is becoming an ally with Iran and is supporting their nuclear development program. The U.S. can argue with Russia and Putin all we want, but the fact is that the foreign policies of the Bush administration have alienated Russia(and many others). With the next president, we have got to work hard and quickly to restore our standing in the eyes of the world. We have got to regain our allies. The time of "cowboy diplomacy" must end.

Again I repeat: We can not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, but there are so many things we can and must try before resulting to a military strike. And even then, there is no need for a war, just an air strike. Talking about WWIII is not even relevant, and if, God forbid, there is a World War in the near future, it will be the fault of President Bush and his policies. Perhaps that is the saddest though yet----that the U.S. could be responsible for a World War---but then again, those are not my words, there the President's.