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

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.

Sen. McCain's Lack of Fiscal Knowledge

During Wednesday's CNN Republican debate, Senator McCain was asked what he would do to reduce the national debt.  The Senator's answer showed his ignorance of the subject matter and why he should not be taken seriously as a candidate.

 

McCain, in his answer, once again invoked Ronald Reagan.  McCain said that he would use Reagan's veto pen on excess spending to hold the line on spending while eliminating pork.  The Senator used the wrong President.  Ronald Reagan never balanced one federal budget in his 8 years in office and gave the country record deficits at that time.  The national debt increased $1.9 trillion on his watch and spending  was up over the previous administration (Jimmy Carter). 

If McCain plans to emulate Reagan on fiscal matters, he will instead increase the debt and give the country even more deficit spending.  For a person who claims to "shoot straight" and have experience, his answer indicates he is lost when it comes to fiscal matters. The American people need to understand that when Bush leaves office ,the last 3 Republican presidents will not have balanced one budget in the 20 years they served and have increased the national debt by over $7 trillion. 

 

The Republican plan can be plainly understood.  They want to bankrupt the country to eliminate social security, medicare, and other government programs that truly help the American people.  At the same time, they support corporate welfare for the richest corporations and tax cuts and other benefits that go to the most wealthy people. 

 

The Republican's hands have been laid bare.  The GOP candidates have proven (with the exception of Ron Paul) that they care nothing for being fiscally responsible.  Remember, it was Bill Clinton who turned 12 straight years of deficit spending by Reagan-Bush into record surpluses.  Also it was Bill Clinton's administration who paid down a net of $14.2 billion of the national debt.  The people should remember that when they vote in the next presidential election. 

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.

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.

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.

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

Republican Debate(a special editorial by John Lucia)

With the exception of Ron Paul, one has to feel like President Bush wrote the comments for the Republican candidates. Like Bush, they tried to sound tough, even Chris Wallace tried, but no one had a answer to Ron Paul when he said the same people who got us into this war and those who still support the war were wrong about everything that has happened in Iraq.

The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.

Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."

A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.

The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.

It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.