Veepstakes: My Prediction Time

Joseph made his predictions just a few nights ago and now I guess it's my turn: 

I believe Senator McCain will choose former Governor Mitt Romney because of his experience with managing and the economy, something Senator McCain lacks in both the reality and the public mind.

 

I believe Senator Obama will choose Senator Jack Reed.  Senator Reed has military and foreign policy experience which Senator Obama lacks.  

 

My own choice for McCain would be Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Richard Lugar.  Both have common sense and political and foreign policy experience.  They would bring some sanity to McCain's know-it-all attitude.

 

My own choice for Obama would be General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb, or Senator Hillary Clinton.  I once wanted to see Senator Joe Biden as VP, but now feel that he would be more valuable as Secretary of State in an Obama administration.  Clark and Webb have military experience and although Clinton does not, she has the overall experience to make a difference.

 

If I had to pick a potential surprise, a wildcard if you will, I would go with Senator Lindsay Graham for McCain and Governor Ed Rendell or former Senator Sam Nunn for Obama.

 

Whoever Obama and McCain choose, however, lets just hope the next President does not choose another Dick Cheney type.  Only time will tell.

Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

My Daily Rant---2/7

Here are just a few things I want to get off my chest.

More Media Bias

Everyone remember yesterday when the entire media narrative was Clinton's supposed money problems and the headline of every morning show and newspaper was the same?  I know I do.  But suddenly, you hear nothing at all about it.  Why?  Because just in the last day or two, Clinton has raised over $6.4 million.  So is it too much to ask of these same people who were burying Clinton last night because of those "money problems" to come out tonight and say that those money problems seem to be long gone?  Even the Huffington Post had on their homepage a huge picture of Clinton with the headline concerning money problems.  Where's the updated info tonight?  In a tiny box buried under the headline, not even in the main section of news.  Fair?  Balanced?  I think not. 

More Debates?

Sen. Clinton has called for more debates, one per week, from now leading up to the Ohio/Texas primaries on March 4. Barack Obama says no so far.  He says that people are tired of debates.  It really is despicable to me that in an election this big, this close, that a candidate would refuse to debate, which in essence denies the undecided viewer a forum to decide on whom he/she will vote for.  There has only been one 1 on 1 debate so far.  There needs to be more.  Although both Obama and Clinton are 100 times better than the Republicans, and I would support either over McCain, there are real, substantive differences on key issues.  The voters deserve to hear these candidates in a debate format---not a one-sided stump speech or biased media coverage, but a one-on-one debate centered on issues.  And all the talk about Obama being bad at debates and therefore needing to skip out on them....bull!  Although Obama may not be the best debater in the world, he has steadily improved and his last debate performance was his best yet.  But even if it wasn't, he still owes the American people a chance to hear the differences he has with Sen. Clinton.  

A Brokered Convention?

The phrase itself gives me mixed feelings.  On one hand, as a political junkie, a brokered convention is a dream.  But on the other hand, a brokered convention would surely divide the Democratic party at a time when we all need to be united behind our nominee, whomever that may be, because he or she will be better than McCain any day of the week.  Howard Dean has proposed a plan, which I would go along with, where in mid-April to May, Obama and Clinton get together and essentially work out a deal.  The only problem I see---neither candidate is going to back down, and to their credit, there is really no reason for them to.  Clinton would surely never give up.  And I can't see Obama accepting a VP slot. But at the same time, Dean seems dead set on having this thing settled before the convention.  It's a good idea, and I hope it happens for the sake of this party, but the only question is, how?

GOP Split; A Dem Opportunity

This thing on the Republican side with McCain vs. conservatives is really getting heated.  With Romney out of the race, what are the right-wing looneys going to do?  From what it appears, they will continue their attack.  Tom Delay appeared on Hardball today and basically ruled out supporting John McCain.  He even went as far as saying he would consider backing Clinton or Obama.  We've heard the same thing from other right-wingers such as Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.  In fact, Limbaugh apparently claimed that if McCain is the nominee, he would not only vote for the Democrat, but fundraise for him/her as well.  One thing if for sure, this is good news for Democrats in '08.  If the GOP is divided and far right conservatives stay home, or better yet vote for our nominee, and Democrats stay united, we will surely win.  But that brings me back to my point earlier, us Democrats must stay united, whomever the nominee is.  I'm a Hillary supporter, and I do disagree with Obama on several issues, but when I compare Obama to McCain, the choice is obvious on who would be better for this country.  A vote for McCain would be a vote for 4 more years of Bush and a vote for a third party, or not voting at all, would essentially be a vote for McCain as well, and as we've established, that's unacceptable.  

Super Tuesday

The dust has settled from Super Tuesday and just now are we beginning to get a look at the full scope of what has happened. On the Democratic side, only one thing is certain: this thing will continue, for a very, very long time.  On the Republican side, McCain had appeared to have the nomination all but locked up going into Super Tuesday, but with a late southern surge from Huckabee and Romney's dominance of the mountain west states, this thing might not be as over as we once thought.

The Surprises

1) Massachusetts: As a Clinton supporter, Massachusetts had me worried.  Clinton has held a 15-20 point lead early on, but with the late endorsements of the Kennedys, I figured Obama had a real shot of winning.  In fact, the latest poll from Suffolk actually had Obama ahead with other polls showing an extremely tight contest.  But in the end, Clinton won Massachusetts strong, 56-41.  As Chris Matthews put it, in round one, the Clintons beat the Kennedys.  

2) California: Talk about  a state that had me, and the Clinton campaign, very worried.  All the latest polls showed Obama with anywhere from a 2-13 point lead.  In the end though, Hillary Clinton won California, and won it convincingly, 52-42.  

3) The South and Huckabee: Just before I sat down to watch the results start trickling in, I was over at Daily Kos and voted in a poll that asked how many states Huckabee would win tonight.  I, as many, voted for one (Arkansas).  But I was wrong, way wrong.  It seems the Huckaboom is not over just yet.  Sure, he can't win anywhere else but the South, but Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and North Carolina are all yet to come and I expect he could win some, if not all, of those states.  Indeed, last night Huckabee stole Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and West Virginia from McCain and Romney, who were the ones expected to be competing for first place.  And, also to note, Huckabee did come within 1% of winning Missouri.  With this kind of strength in the South, and McCain's weakness among evangelicals, expect to see Huckabee as VP on a McCain ticket.   

The "Not-So" Surprises

1) The Caucus States: Not Surprisingly, the caucus states went convincingly to Obama and Romney.  Simply put, they were always favored to win those states and they did.  The caucus states have very little delegates, but they do exemplify Obama and Romney's grassroots' strength.

2) The North East: The North East went overwhelmingly, with the exception of Massachusetts, to John McCain.  The benefit for McCain is that most of the NE states are winner-take-all and hence allowed him to grow his delegate lead significantly over Romney and Huckabee.  The downside is that McCain won last night in all the places that will be almost impossible for him to win next fall.  He won mostly blue states, with the exception of Arizona and Missouri. What good is a Republican nominee if he can't win in the South and mountain west?  That is why a McCain/Huckabee ticket makes so much sense----McCain needs the South.

Where do we go from here?

-The Republicans: McCain does appear to have this nomination locked up, but Huckabee could win the remaining Southern states.There has been talk from the Romney campaign of "frank discussions" concerning withdrawing from the race.  If Romney stayed in, he could potentially pick up a few more victories in places like Nebraska, Washington, and Wisconsin.  If he dropped out, McCain is likely to win those states.  

-The Democrats: Where do they go from here? Honestly I do not know, but this thing could end up at the convention.  The next few weeks heavily favor Obama with Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maryland, Virginia, DC, Hawaii, and Wisconsin.  With that said, if Hillary can survive those states and stay competitive, the following weeks favor her: Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania.  In the end though, with the delegates split almost even, how can one candidate reach 2025 with the proportional system?  I just don't see it happening.  

Photo Credit: AP

1/24 Republican Debate Analysis

"Wow!" was the headline I gave to Monday's Democratic debate, but if a similar headline were to be given to the GOP debate, it would be "Booooring".  Okay, maybe boring is too harsh of an adjective, but it was extremely mild considering the crucial Florida Primary is this coming Tuesday.

So who won?  Many in the media have given then win to Mitt Romney.  Others, although less numerous than the former, halied McCain the winner for simply not doing anything to halt his momentum coming out of South Carolina.  Here's my take:

After watching the debate, it is clear than any one of the Democratic candidates is a thousand times better than any Republican candidate.  With that being said, I have to point out some outright lies by John McCain.  As reported by NBC's First Read:

"Tim Russert asked him this: "Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' 

Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?"

McCain replied, "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from."

Well Sen. McCain, you did say that.  Here is what you said:

“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics that I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

That is the exact quote Russert read and that McCain denied ever saying.  Maybe he's losing his memory as he gets up in age, but McCain did, indeed, say that he is not experienced in economics.  In fact, just last month, McCain had this to say, further illustrating the lack of economic experience McCain now claims he has and has always had:

"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should." (Boston Globe)

McCain also claimed to have received a majority of the Republican vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  This is, again, factually inaccurate.  In New Hampshire, Romney won the Republican vote while Huckabee did the same in South Carolina.  On a side note, it should be interesting to see if McCain can win the Florida primary since only Republican voters, not independents, can vote in it.  If New Hampshire and South Carolina followed the same rules as Florida, McCain wouldn't have won.

McCain stated, in addition to the previous mis-statements, that not a single military official has said that the current troop levels in Iraq can not be sustained.  Well, in fact, many, too many to list, have said that it will be impossible to maintain current troop levels in Iraq for much longer.  Some of those military officials to which I refer include Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. George Casey.  

Well now that I'm done picking apart McCain's apparent lies, let me move on to the analysis.  

Obviously, I'm not a Republican, but I figure to at least try to analyze this crucial debate, I need to get in the mindset of conservative Republicans who make up the bulk of Florida GOP primary voters.  When I do that, I can indeed see why so many in the media have pronounced Romney the winner.  Joe Scarborough was the first pundit to declare Romney the winner and I agree with his analysis.  He is, after all, a Florida Republican---he should know how his own people think and how they vote.  

Why do I think he won? Because: Romney came off seeming knowledgeable concerning the economy, which is the top issue for Florida voters.  Compare Romney's detailed answers on the economy to McCain's, "let's get some people together and work this thing out" approach and Romney was the clear winner.  And the fact that the majority of the debate focused on the economy, and not foreign policy, was a huge plus to Romney and a huge minus for McCain.  

Rudy, in much contrast to Romney, came off looking the worst.  It's as if he has already ceded this race and just wanted to fade away quietly (which is probably a good idea).  Rudy probably said some pretty wacky stuff last night, as he usually does, but to be honest, I just can't remember anything he said.  His performance was forgettable, literally.  

With all that being said, here are my top 3 winners of last night's GOP debate:

1st place: Mitt Romney

2nd: Mike Huckabee (although he's a crazy religious right-winger, he is charming and that goes a long way in a debate)

3rd: John McCain

Dems Worst Nightmare: An Obama-McCain Race

As both the Democrats and Republicans edge ever so slightly to choosing their respective nominees, I have often speculated and analyzed, perhaps overly so, the most likely match-ups come the November general election.  

As far as things go on the GOP side, I see either Huckabee or McCain getting the nomination, which of course makes my prediction a few months ago, that Romney would be the nominee, completely wrong.  Truly, what a difference a month and a half can make----we saw the meteoric rise of Huckabee and the comeback of McCain.  We also saw the fall of Romney and Giuliani.  So, out of Huckabee and McCain, who will get the nomination?  My guess is McCain.  He looks poised to either win or do extremely well in Michigan, which he did win in 2000.  If that happens, the only real place I could see McCain being stopped is South Carolina, whose evangelical population could give Huckabee a huge win.  But even then, it's still a McCain race to lose, and in the end, I strongly believe he will be the Republican nominee.

Now, as far as the Democrats go, I have no idea.  It's clearly a 2 person race, and, at this point, I say both Clinton and Obama have a 50-50 shot at the nomination.  I could see either a Clinton or Obama win Nevada, with Obama more than likely capitalizing over his racialization of this campaign to pick up a win in South Carolina, where half the voters are African Americans.  And when you go to Super Tuesday, again, all bets are off.  Clinton looks poised to win the delegate-rich northeastern states, while Obama is looking very good in the South.  The tipping point could be California, which, by my sense, is leaning towards Clinton, but not by much.  It could very well be the determining state in this race for the Democrats.

So while I'm analyzing the potential match-ups for the general, I see Clinton and Obama being able to best just about any Republican, except McCain, where I see a huge problem for Obama.  As the latest CNN polls, just out yesterday, show, both Clinton and Obama would beat all the Republicans, with the exception of McCain, by about the same margin and by double digits.  McCain, however, is a complete different story.  Clinton beats McCain by just 2%, while Obama is statistically tied with a 1% lead.    

What's even more indicative of the troubles of a McCain candidacy for the Democrats, particularly for Obama, is evident when you take a look at the latest polling from key swing states----Ohio and Florida.  The latest Survey USA poll from Ohio has Clinton and McCain tied.  That same poll, however, shows McCain beating Obama by a large margin---47% to Obama's 38%.  In Florida, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Clinton defeating McCain by 3%, while Obama is tied with McCain.  That trend is also echoed in other states, where in fact, Clinton always outperforms Obama when matched up with McCain, although she may not when matched up with any other Republican.

The reasoning behind Clinton's edge over Obama when competing against McCain?  It's the one word Obama wants you to be scared about----experience.  Although we hear little about it in the primary campaigns, foreign policy and national security will be one of, if not the, top issue come the general election.  And when people go to the voting booths voting for a President, they want one that will make them feel safe.  Obama simply can not match up to McCain on matters of national security and foreign policy.  Regardless of whether McCain is right or wrong, the narrative going into next November will be that if you want a President who can keep you safe, choose McCain, he has the experience.  Now, again, I'm not saying it is right, but we all know that it will, without a doubt happen.  Obama's experience will be called into severe question and that, I promise, will hurt his chances with moderates and Republicans, who want a change in direction, but also want to feel safe with a candidate of experience.

Clinton, on the other hand, is the only Democrat left in the race who could stand up to McCain and say, "You may have experience, but I have that too".  When people are asked in general election polls who they trust most on foreign policy and national security, Clinton always tops Obama by a hefty margin.  Clinton can stand up to the GOP and actually counter their arguments about experience; she has experience too. 

And, god forbid, there is another terrorist attack, either here or in Europe, between now and November, the Republicans will seize that opportunity to paint Obama as inexperienced and unqualified for the job of Commander-In-Chief.  If that were to happen and Obama was the Democratic nominee, I can assure you that the Democrats will lose again if McCain is our opponent.  Clinton, in contrast, would be able to stand up and make the argument that she has just as much experience as McCain.  The country wouldn't be scared into voting Republican because the Democrat would be just as experienced.  The GOP's argument just wouldn't work against Clinton.  

So while I am fairly confident that Obama can defeat Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, etc., I am confident that he would suffer a devastating defeat going up against McCain.  Indeed, if McCain is the GOP nominee, Clinton is the Democrat's best bet.  

ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

Hillary: Strongest Dem In Key Swing States

Here are the results of two polls that don't seem to be getting much play by the Obama-loving media. They clearly show, as many other polls do, that Hillary is the Democrat best positioned to win in 2008.  The polls that are shown by the media show Obama and Edwards doing better across the board, in a popular vote scenario.  But Obama and Edwards do little to nothing to win states that weren't won by Kerry and Gore in the previous two elections.  As we all know, it is not the popular vote that will matter in November, it is the electoral vote.  And when you look at the two most important swing states---Ohio and Florida---it is clear that Hillary has the advantage.

Florida Quinnipiac Poll (full polling here):

-Hillary 48%      Rudy: 41%

-Obama 37%       Rudy 45%

-Edwards 39%    Rudy 43%

Although it is highly unlikely that Giuliani will be the GOP nominee, poll results are similar when the top Democrats are polled against McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.  Hillary beats McCain by 7%, Romney by 14%, and Huckabee by 15%.  Edwards and Obama either lose or win by a much smaller margin.

Ohio Survey USA Poll  (full polling here):

-Hillary 49%     Rudy 40%

-Obama 40%     Rudy 46%

-Hillary 51%      Romney 40%

-Obama 43%     Romney 42%

-Hillary 51%      Huckabee 39%

-Obama 43%     Huckabee 42%

-Hillary 45%      McCain 45%

-Obama 38%     McCain 47%

Sorry Edwards supporters, he was not polled here, but as is demonstrated yet again, Clinton can win those swing states; it would be much harder for Obama to do so.  And if these Ohio polls weren't convincing enough, Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, has said that Clinton has the best chance to win Ohio and also said he would campaign heavily for her.  

Another potential victory for the Democrats, if Clinton is the nominee, is Virginia, a state that has not been considered a swing state in years.  But, as a new Survey USA poll shows (available here), Clinton beats Giuliani 47-46, Romney 51-41, and Mike Huckabee 52-28.  In Kentucky, another GOP stronghold, Clinton also does surprisingly well.  She beats Giuliani 47-45, Romney 50-41, and Huckabee 49-39.  

So remember when voting on who's most electable, that it's the electoral vote that matters, not the popular vote.  So while Obama and Edwards may do better across the board with Republicans, they do not win over any states that Clinton doesn't, but Clinton does win over states that they do not.  

Religion And Politics (Part II)

Religion, the separation of Church and State, "In God we trust", are all words that bring out the best and worse depending on one's persuasion.  America, the land of tolerance, has been hijacked by the "holier than thou group" who question other people's faith and religion.  It has become a litmus test cast down on those who seek public office to explain their faith.  And no matter how much explaining is done, it is never enough.

 

This "group" is the extreme right, the neocons, and some evangelicals who demand proof of one's faith and religious beliefs.  They use one's faith and religion, or a lack there of, to judge a person's fitness for office or life itself.  They can't articulate what they themselves stand for, so they attack others to divide and conquer.

 

President Kennedy answered their warped minds after he became the Democratic nominee in 1960.  They wanted to know if he would take orders from the Pope or follow the constitution.  Of course, they knew the answer because he had  served in Congress and they already knew his positions.  But the zealots would not let go.  On the day he arrived in Dallas and was assassinated, the right wingers greeted him with a newspaper ad and poster that read, "Wanted for Treason." 

 

Now it's Mitt Romney's turn to have to answer questions about his religion, despite being a governor where his positions have been well known.  I have said before that when some one questions another person's character, it is the person who is doing the questioning that has the character problem.  Same is true for questioning one's religion or faith.

 

God gave Moses the 10 commandments of life and living.  There was no religion involved in following those words of wisdom.  In fact, we are told on the day of judgement he would be the one to judge.  But the "holier that thou group" wants to be judge and jury of one's faith and religion.  The American people need to realize them for what they really are. 

The Tide Is Turning: Huckabee Surges

Once only considered a contender in Iowa, Mike Huckabee is now in second place nationally and, according to one poll, is beating Rudy as the choice among all Republicans.  

So what does this mean for the Republican field?  Well, for one, it means that Rudy is no longer the sole "frontrunner".  Just a month ago, Rudy held a commanding 15 point lead over his nearest opponent.  But now, that lead has shrunk to 3-5 points, and in one case, as I mentioned above, he is no longer ahead.   This change in momentum is clearly reinforced by the media.  Rudy used to be the only GOP candidate to get any serious "buzz" in the media, but not anymore.  For the last two weeks, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have sucked up most of that media attention.  And, to make matters even worse for the falling Giuliani, the little attention paid to him has been negative to say the least.

  

Although I am sure Huckabee is gleeful for his sudden surge, he might not want to be so quick to celebrate.  For the previous 11 months of the campaign, Huckabee has been able to dodge the tough questions by simply not being considered a  serious contender.  But, with his newfound frontrunner status, comes newfound tough questions.  

If the past week is any indication, Huckabee might not be ready for the tough questions.  When asked what he made of the latest NIE, Huckabee responded that he didn't know what the reporter was talking about.  The reporter then had to go on to explain what the NIE was and it was then that Huckabee admitted to not knowing about it or what it contained.  This interview was a full day and a half after the report had been released; Huckabee had ample time to read and analyze it.  

Huckabee also came under a firestorm of criticism from the Huffington Post, who reported on a story that Huckabee, as governor of Arkansas, released a serial rapist who went on to kill a women.  Huckabee handled the situation rather poorly.  Instead of stating his reasons, if there are any sane ones, for this man's release, Huckabee more or less blamed the media for "getting it all wrong".  Blaming the media for everything is no way to handle a campaign; that line is old and people simply don't buy it anymore.  Huckabee would have done himself much better to just have said that he made a mistake and that he deeply regrets what happened.  Everyone makes a mistake; the public can accept that.  What the public can't and won't accept is baselessly blaming the media for, in essence, doing their job.

Possibly the biggest problem for Huckabee is his lack of money.  To my knowledge, Huckabee has around $2 million on hand and has recently spent much of that money on air time in the early primary states.  While $2 million may seem like a lot to an ordinary person, it is nothing in the brutal world of Presidential politics.  How can Huckabee be competitive when Romney can write himself a $10 million check when ever needed?

The last thing that I see being a huge problem for Huckabee is the New Hampshire primary.  Huckabee seems to be a safe bet to win Iowa.  But, if there is one state Huckabee does poorly in, its New Hampshire.  New Hampshire, I would estimate, has about half the evangelical voters that Iowa and South Carolina have and evangelicals are Huckabee's base.  Mitt Romney still looks poised to win New Hampshire.  The next big primary is South Carolina, where Huckabee's evangelical base could give him a win, but at this moment, that seems unlikely.  Romney still does very well in South Carolina and the momentum from a New Hampshire win (and subsequently Michigan and possibly Nevada), could prove to give Romney the win in South Carolina and hence knock Huckabee down and out of the race.

In short: Huckabee has come a hell of a long way in just a few weeks, but he still has a hell of a long way to come.  

Romney Talks Faith And Politics

Earlier today, at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, gave a great speech on the topic of his Mormon faith and politics.  Well, I should technically rephrase that, as the speech was more on faith in general than Romney's Mormonism, but nonetheless it was a compelling address with several points that were spot on and one that was not.  

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions."

The above statement was made by Romney and is one that I think everyone can agree on: an individual's personal church or any church should have zero influence on the happenings in the White House.  Romney was also quite impressive when he said:

"They (some in the public) would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.  I will be true...to my beliefs."

I was happy to see Romney stand up for what he believes in.  Too often these days, candidates try to distance themselves from their religion in an attempt to appease the public, but today, Romney did not.  Its refreshing to see a candidate basically tell voters, "hey, either like me or don't, but I'm not changing."  (Of course Romney has changed on just about every other issue to gain votes, but thats a different story.)

The final thing, and possibly the biggest, that could prove to help Romney out in the Republican field was when he talked about different faiths and their respective appealing qualities.  By saying the following, Romney was able to shift the focus away from his Mormonism, to faiths in general.  

"In every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

However, the above statement also paves the way for the message of Romney's speech which was, quite frankly, slightly offensive.  Throughout the speech, Romney talked highly of all faiths, stressing their importance.  But while doing this, he also sounded derogatory to those who do not have an organized faith and/or do not believe in a religion.  It would have been much better if Romney would have come out and said that principles and values, not religion, are important qualities in Americans.  He proceeded to make this outrageous claim:

"Freedom requires religion."

The truth is, freedom does not require religion.  It is the state, not the church, that gives us Americans our freedom.  Not only is that statement an insult to those who aren't religious, somehow saying that they don't have freedom, but it is a complete contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.

Nonetheless, overall, I have to give Romney an "A" on this speech; not because I necessarily agree with it, but because of what it did for him as a candidate in the Republican field.  Romney, regardless of the content of his speech, looked and sounded presidential.  And, considering he is running for the Republican nomination, the content of his speech isn't likely to offend those who he is trying to court. The benefit of this speech was that for today, and likely for the coming days, Romney has been able to move the "spotlight" off of Giuliani and Huckabee and onto himself, something that can only benefit him this close to the primaries.  Its because of that, the fact that this speech is likely to help Romney regain momentum in Iowa and gain national recognition, that this speech can be considered a success for now.  However, if you look forward to a general election, there are undoubtably some who would get offended by this and thats the danger Romney has put himself in.  It's not that there are a tremendous amount of non-religious affiliated voters, but Romney doesn't want to put himself in the position of appearing bigoted to the many Americans who feel that religion does not and should not matter and that a non-religious individual is just as much of an American as one who is religious. 

Photo Credit: Ben Sklar / Getty Images

Romney To Address Mormonism

Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has decided that he will finally address his faith in much the same way JFK did back in 1960. Romney will the give the speech, titled "Faith in America", at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas this Thursday.

My first thought when I heard this news is that this could be a mistake on the part of Romney. I'm not quite sure why Romney has decided that now, at the pinnacle of his strength, is the best time to give a speech. As the saying goes, why mess up a good thing? Romney is ahead in Iowa (discounting the latest poll that has Huckabee just a few points ahead and well within the margin of error), ahead in New Hampshire, and ahead in South Carolina. Indeed, a big reason for Romney's boom in South Carolina, that brought him from 4th place to 1st in about a month, is the fact that evangelical voters are finally warming up to him. So why go out and remind them of your Mormonism?

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is with faith. We're not electing a leader of a church, we're electing the leader of America. But, unfortunately, a particular faith is something that is very important to many voters, especially in strong evangelical states in the South and Mid-West. So why, if he's doing so well, is Romney going to risk throwing his success away? As I said in the past, once Romney gets the nomination, he might need to make a speech, but right now, during the Republican nomination process, I'm not sure if its a good thing to remind the strong evangelical (bigot) voters of his faith, which many believe is a cult.

But, maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong. Not because I like Romney, but because I would like to see a stronger acceptance of all faiths. Too long have people been looked down upon just because they believe something different and that is something that should never happen in America.

Of course, there's also the possibility that, if presented well, this speech could be a real turning point in the Romney campaign. If delivered with emotion and pride, Americans will look at Romney in a different light. Currently regarded as a slick, stiff businessman, Romney now has the opportunity to open himself up to America. The only question is, will America open itself up back to Romney in response? For that, we'll just have to wait and see. I know that I will be watching intently Thursday night and I look forward to seeing how Romney is received. I just hope that Romney isn't elected because of his faith; there are many other issues for which he shouldn't be elected. His Mormonism isn't one of them.

11/28 GOP Debate Review: Romney Scores Big

Tonight, the Republican Presidential hopefuls gathered in front of a Florida crowd and answered questions from ordinary people via YouTube. With the Iowa caucus just a few weeks away, the candidates went all out to differentiate themselves from each other, and most of them were successful.

From the very opening of the debate, the fight was on between the two GOP frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. It was in that opening exchange, on the topic of illegal immigration, that Romney got the upper hand and set the tone for the rest of the night. To put it simply, agree with him or not, Romney creamed Giuliani. From that point on, Giuliani was mostly on the defense for the rest of the night, while Romney was red-hot. Romney is often called a "flip-flopper", but tonight he actually appeared the most socially conservative candidate. While I might strongly disagree with Romney's positions, his statements tonight were right on point with the right wing of the GOP. Romney was unquestionably the winner of the debate and I am even more confident in my earlier prediction that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Two other candidates who I thought had a great night were John McCain and Mike Huckabee. McCain gained major points in my view for standing up to the other candidates and the traditional Republican view that waterboarding is okay. McCain made it clear that waterboarding is indeed torture and is indeed illegal and indeed should never be practiced by the U.S. On that issue I have major respect for McCain. Huckabee, yet again, was the most charming candidate on the stage. He is consistently able to make his point and state his positions without appearing negative. He also had the best line of the night when he said that Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics.

As far as the losers, I would say that there were two big ones. The first loser was Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson needed to re-establish his frontrunner status, but he utterly failed. I have yet to see Thompson come out firm on a single issue. His debate style is also lacking to say the least. Thompson has a problem with taking long, odd pauses during the middle of his responses or taking several seconds to stare into space while trying to think of a response. If anyone is wondering why Thompson is doing so poorly, just watch this debate and you'll quickly realize why.

The biggest loser of the night, however, was Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy's worst debate performance. Romney completely destroyed Rudy during the immigration debate early on and also later when it came to Rudy's pro-gun control stances. With Romney gaining on Giuliani in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now leading in South Carolina, tonight was Rudy's chance to gain back some of that support. He didn't though. If anything, Rudy did more to lose support to Romney than he did to win it.

I am going to point out one thing that was said that I take absolute exception to. Duncan Hunter said that the majority of people who join the military are conservative. I take great exception to the claim that liberals don't stand up to serve their country. The fact is that the military is just as diverse as America is as a whole. To imply that liberals don't serve their country is disgraceful and frankly Rep. Hunter should apologize.

The tide is turning on the Republican side. I think in the coming weeks we're going to see the decline of Rudy and the rise of Romney. Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win South Carolina and then have enough momentum to propel himself through Florida and beyond.

Should Romney Address his Mormonism?

The fact the Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon is a fact that has dogged Romney throughout the campaign. According to a recent poll, 1/3 of all Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for President. And no surprise, many of those intolerant bigots are people from the religious right of the Republican party. Now again, I do not support Romney or his views, but by no way do I think that any candidate should be judged by his religion--or for that matter his or her race, gender, etc.

There has been talk about Mitt Romney giving a speech to address doubts about his faith and supposedly the speech is already written, just waiting for Romney to give it. There is reportedly great debate withhin the Romney campaign on whether or not to give the speech. Here are my thoughts:

Right now, I don't see Romney needing to give the speech. He is far ahead in Iowa, his lead in New Hampshire has grown even more, and he is now ahead in South Carolina. If Romney is asked about his faith on the campaign trail, then surely he should answer it, as he has done. But to say that Romney needs to give this huge speech just doesn't make sense to me at this time. Why mess up something that is going so well? What exactly is Romney going to say anyway?

His religion doesn't seem to be hurting him yet; it is his values (genuine or not) that are actually helping him appeal to conservative Republicans. Now, of course, the general election is a different story. As more and more Americans pay attention to the Presidential race, Romney might need to address his Mormonism, much as J.F.K. did in 1960 about his Catholicism. But Romney should determine that when and if the time comes. Right now I would advise Romney to do keep up whatever he is doing, because it is working, and there is no need to jeopardize that.

You Heard It Here First

With all the talk of how Rudy Giuliani will undoubtably be the Republican nominee, I find a need to interject myself. Rudy is indeed the national frontrunner, but so was Howard Dean on the Democratic side back in '04, and we all know how that turned out. I see a very similar thing happening this year with the GOP race.

It looks highly improbable that Rudy will win the Iowa caucuses on January 3. That honor will go to Mitt Romney. Romney is already ahead in New Hampshire and an Iowa win would just propel his campaign even more there. I predict that Romney will move on from a win in Iowa to win the New Hampshire primaries. At that point, the national media won't be able to get enough of Romney and Rudy will be all but forgotten.

Up next on the tumultuous primary calender is South Carolina. Now, if you asked me a month ago, I would have said South Carolina would be where Rudy could stop Romney. But now, I just don't think so. Romney has gained several key evangelical endorsements and his popularity in the south is on the rise. It seems as if southern evangelicals might be getting over their fear of Romney's Mormonism. Romney has been ahead by a decent margin in the last several South Carolina polls. This leads me to believe that Romney's momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire would propel him to a huge win in South Carolina.

Florida comes up about a week after South Carolina and most people who have studied politics, including myself, believe that as goes Florida, so goes the GOP nomination. In other words, whomever wins Florida will be the Republican nominee. But this is where I differ from just about everyone else in my views. I keep hearing that because Giuliani is ahead of Romney by about 15% in Florida, Romney will be stopped dead in his tracks. To those who think that, I would just like to ask them why they're so willing to throw out everything history has taught us about Presidential primaries. Momentum is key. If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, there is no way he could lose in Florida. The polls that matter the most right now are those in the early caucus and primary states, and those show that momentum is with Romney. Giuliani will not be able to go almost an entire month without winning a single key primary and still stay in the fight. Nobody wants to or is going to vote for a loser.

That is why, right here, right now, I am predicting that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. Trust me, I can't wait to rub it in the media's faces when their crowned prince, Giuliani, loses.

Romney on the Rise

Many have already ceded the Republican nomination to Rudy Giuliani and are planning for Clinton v. Giuliani in '08. However, if the latest caucus and primary polls are any indication, Rudy may well not be the nominee. That honor might go to former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney.

The two most important states in determining a nominee have historically been Iowa and New Hampshire, and there's really no indication that it would be any different this year. And, as far as polling is concerned, Romney is well ahead in those two key states. The latest poll for Iowa shows Romney at 27%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 19%. Rudy comes in third with 16%. New Hampshire polling has Romney at 30%, followed by Rudy at 23%. If this trend continues and Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will replace Rudy as the frontrunner. As we saw with John Kerry in '04, the media buzz could be enough to propel Romney into South Carolina, Florida, and beyond.

The latest polling from South Carolina, however, shows that Romney may not need the media to pick up a win here. Conservatives from all over South Carolina have been endorsing Romney and Romney is on a fast rise there. The latest polling has Romney leading the pack with 29% followed by Rudy at 23%. Just one month ago, Rudy had 26% in South Carolina and Romney had a very weak 9%. But what a difference a month can make. It appears that Christian conservatives are flocking to Romney and his name recognition is growing and he is becoming more and more popular in South Carolina.

If Romney was to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, I see no way in which he could lose the nomination. Now, say Romney just wins just two of the three and Rudy wins the other one----then I say Rudy could still get the nomination. But with all the media buzz that would surround the Romney campaign with three huge wins, Rudy would essentially become forgotten overnight.

This demonstrates how interesting the GOP race is because of its fluidity. Rudy might be the national frontrunner but Romney has the potential to steal the spotlight in a matter of a couple of weeks. Many have already written off Romney, but I am convinced, now more than ever by his growing South Carolina support, that Romney could win the nomination.

Listen To the People Who Know Them Best

What's interesting when you look at potential general election match-up polls is that the several Republicans running for President are highly unlikely to even win their home state. I always have said, when looking to see how a candidate would govern as President, all you have to do is look at how he/she is favored by the people whom he/she served. Any candidate can craft a national image; thats why it is always important to look to the people who have the right to judge the leadership qualities of the candidates.

The perfect example is Rudy Giuliani. Nationally, he is, for the most part, well liked. In New York, however, it is a different story. In a head to head match-up, Sen. Hillary Clinton convincingly defeats Giuliani by 25 points: 58% to 33%. 64% of New Yorkers have a very favorable view of Clinton while only 46% feel the same about Rudy. Now while this may not be seen as a big deal because New York has a history of going Democrat, in a way, it is. Giuliani has based his campaign on the notion that he "can put states such as New York, New Jersey, and California into play". Well the polls show just about the same result in those states as they showed in New York---Clinton would easily win. What is even more interesting is that when you go into New York City itself, where Rudy was mayor, people have even a less favorable opinion of him. While nationally Rudy is seen as the 9/11 hero, in New York City, where the attack happened, people feel that Rudy has and is using 9/11 for his own gain. They also feel like he is exaggerating his heroism. So I don't know who you will believe: the Giuliani campaign or the actual citizens of New York City, but I choose to listen to the people who were actually there and witnessed Rudy in action.

Another prime example is Gov. Mitt Romney from Massachusetts. The latest poll shows Romney losing terribly to Sen. Hillary Clinton: 65%-31%. The Romney campaign has tried to spin this as "expected" because Massachusetts is "a very blue state". And while that is true, there is no way to downplay a candidate losing by over 30 points in his own state. Massachusetts wasn't too "blue" to elect Romney Governor. Why have people in Massachusetts suddenly turned on Romney?---because he hasn't stayed true to himself. While running for Governor, Romney had the complete opposite views he now has while running for the Republican nomination. If Romney would just have stayed true to himself, he would be better liked in Massachusetts. No body likes it when a candidate clearly changes all his positions just because it is politically convenient. The people of Massachusetts know that Romney has flip-flopped and it's about time the rest of America realizes that.

It is also interesting to look at the state of Arkansas. Hillary Clinton was First Lady there for 8 years and the people loved her then, and they apparently still do. Clinton leads all Republicans, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, by at least 25 points in all the polls. This is a good thing for Clinton and is a little surprising to me. Arkansas has been trending more and more Republican. It has safely voted for George Bush in the last two elections. In 2008, however, if Clinton is the nominee, it appears Arkansas will once again be going Democrat. Clinton is favored by 66% in Arkansas. What is even more intriguing is looking at where Clinton draws her support. Among conservative Republican women, Clinton has an edge of 23 points over her nearest rivals. She also is the favorite of conservative Republican men, who say they would vote for Clinton over any Republican by about 13 points. We see this same type of Republican support for Clinton in New York, where Clinton won all but 4 of New York's 62 counties, including many of which are strongly Republican. This demonstrates that once Republicans get to know Hillary, they like her, or at least, they don't hate her. This is why I urge Republicans not to think of Clinton as an easy target because of her unpopularity with Republicans. Much of her unpopularity is due to the Republican's false stories about her. Once Republicans get to hear what Clinton herself has to say, they might not think she's that bad after all.

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.