The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part I of III)

The U.S. economy is in the news yet again with many economists and business leaders predicting a recession in the near future.  Some say it will be short lived; others say it will be deep and prolonged.  The candidates who are running for their party's nomination have already put their two cents in.  

 

If a recession does occur, it will be the second one on this President's watch.  The first occurred in 2001.  That leads to the question, which party's President, in the last 28 years, has had the best economic policy for the economy and its people?  The undisputed answer and fact is the Clinton Administration.  That is one of the main reasons Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest approval rating of any President in modern times. One could go back 40 years and the Clinton economy would still come out on top.  

 

Reagan-Bush served 12 years, Clinton 8 years and G.W. Bush 8 years.  Those 3 republican presidents served a total of 20 years.  Reagan was the first of the neocons who championed an ideology that claimed the GOP was best at balancing the budget, creating jobs, lowering unemployment, cutting the budget, managing the economy, and lowering crime.  But sadly, those 3 republican presidents were reckless with the people's money and (1) Failed to keep their promises to the country and its people; (2) Betrayed the voters; (3)  Created massive debt for our children and grandchildren; (4) Placed in jeopardy our democracy by being in bed with Corporate America, and (5)  Deliberately tried to put the U.S. government's financial situation in jeopardy with debt in order to bankrupt social security, medicare, and other social services on which millions of Americans depend. 

 

One will not have to be a deep thinker to absorb the facts.  The actual numbers will tell the story because they are already written in the history books.  There are those who have lived through the 28 years and will still not believe the facts.  They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they do not have a right to call those 3 republican presidents fiscal conservatives, nor do they have a right to call liberals big spenders.  The facts will show just the opposite.

 

George Bush said the tax cuts of 2001 and the stimulus package that was passed by Congress ended the recession of 2001.  Now he is talking about another stimulus for the predicted recession to come soon.  The reader needs to keep in mind the republican problem.  They have, through the years, a tax cutting policy but not an economic policy.  They believe in the trickle down theory.  On the other hand president Clinton had an economic policy to deal with the 12 year fiscal mess Reagan-Bush left the country in. 

 

An economic policy is lasting and covers a broad spectrum while a stimulus package does not answer the real problem and, in fact, comes after the fact.  Ditto for the tax cuts that the republicans propose because they favor the most wealthy people.  Simply put it: trickle down economics is a fairytale. 

 

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate running for president who has spoken about fiscal responsibility, while the other republicans have talked about emulating Reagan and Bush.  Senator Clinton is the only democratic candidate for president who talks about getting back to fiscal responsibility as the best way to deal with the economy and our other problems. 

 

Sadly, the massive spending and debt the republicans have put the country in is never discussed by the journalists in the news media.  Stay tuned because part II will deal with the Reagan-Bush years and part III with the Clinton and Bush years.

Ron Paul Parody

Here is a great, hilarious video I came across that pokes fun at Ron Paul's comments on last week's Meet the Press concerning Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement.  Enjoy!

Ron Paul----My Take

Today, I continue the "My Take" series with a look at internet phenomenon, Ron Paul. Paul is a Texas Congressman and was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. Paul is currently running as a Republican, although a much different Republican from every other GOP contender in the field. Recently, Paul's campaign has been energized by raising $4.2 million in a single day (setting a new political record) as well as the fact that Paul is on the rise in New Hampshire polling (currently ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee at around 8% support).

The truth is that I have very mixed feelings about Ron Paul. I love the fact that he is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and wants to bring our troops home. Paul is also 100% correct on issues such as domestic surveillance and the Patriotic Act. However, on most other issues, Paul is dead wrong.

For example, I completely disagree with Paul's position that the U.N. and NATO are evil and that we need to immediately withdraw from them. Also, while the abolition of the income tax is a grand idea in theory, when it comes right down to it, where is the government going to get the money to do the things that the government needs to do? We would be forced to borrow even more money from foreign countries which leads to a host of all other kinds of problems.

A huge issue I would question Paul on is the issue of abortion. His position seems directly contrary to his Libertarian and Constitutionalist values. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee an individual his/her right to privacy? Doesn't the government have no place to get involved in a individual's personal life according to the Libertarian platform? If Paul believes in the Constitution, why is he staunchly opposed to a woman's right to choose, which is protected under the right to privacy? I don't think anybody is personally in love with the idea of a woman having an abortion, but it is a fact that abortion is a necessary choice for a woman to have.

Another issue that Ron Paul is dead wrong on is the issue of universal healthcare. Paul has said that if the government just stays out of the healthcare world, then somehow more people would be able to afford healthcare. It is simply insane to think that the healthcare crisis will simply fix itself; it won't. As far as I'm concerned, healthcare should be a constitutional right guaranteed to every American. It is literally a life or death matter. To think that there are people who die because they do not have access to quality healthcare is something that everyone should be outraged at. I admit, sometimes the government gets involved where it shouldn't, but healthcare is one area where it is essential for the government to act and act quickly. Universal healthcare is long overdue in this country and I can only hope that in 2008 America elects a President who will bring about it.

I'll close by saying something else positive about Ron Paul besides his opposition to the Iraq war and domestic surveillance. Paul, unlike most of the GOP candidates, is someone who I feel is being true to himself. Paul's positions have been consistent and he's not afraid to speak his mind and speak it forcefully. Although I may disagree with him on many issues, I truly have a lot of respect for his honesty and boldness. America needs a leader who is not afraid to stand up for what he/she believes in and, love him or hate him, Paul does just that. In fact, Paul may be the only Republican in years to do that. Thats why I feel it really is a shame that Paul doesn't have a chance to do better in the nomination process. For once I would like to see the Republicans nominate someone who at least tries to work for the good of the American people. The last thing I'll say though is that I don't think Paul is just going to go away. As I've said before, I could see him running as a third party candidate in the general election, which would be interesting to say the least.

Face the Nation---A Sad Source for Information

This past Sunday, Bob Schieffer, moderator of "Face the Nation",  had Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul on as his guests.  Both are candidates for the Republican Party  Presidential nomination. 

 

Mr. Schieffer was cordial with Mr. Huckabee and asked soft questions concerning his stand on several issues.  He explored Mr. Huckabee's rise in the polls and good crowds that he was drawing at various events.  However, I did not learn anything new by the questions asked of Mr. Huckabee.  The program is only 30 minutes split between the two candidates.  You would think Mr. Schieffer could ask at least one question concerning the difficulties faced by the next President and what he would do.

 

Then came Ron Paul's turn for questions.  I thought he was treated unfairly with silly questions about 10 issues that Mr. Paul is against.  Mr. Schieffer framed the questions that gave the impression that Mr. Paul was anti everything and anything.  Mr. Paul had to point out that there is a pro side to those issues.  For instance, Paul's position on government spending is to live within our means instead of running up record federal deficits that are taking place in this administration.  That is a "pro" position.  Mr. Schieffer went out of his way to describe Mr. Paul as being against everything and tried to cast him in that vein instead of asking Mr. Paul for his "pro" comments on those issues.  Then Mr. Schieffer seemed to enjoy suggesting to Mr. Paul that he could not win his party's nomination.

 

After 40 plus years as a journalist, Mr. Schieffer's show is not about seeking answers from candidates that would inform the American people about a candidate's likely actions if they became president.  Clearly, this segment of the show with Mr. Paul was to put him down and treat his positions on the issues with disdain.  It is such a shame to see the media become like this.  

***NOTE: My (John Lucia) posts will no longer be written in a different font than those of Joseph***

Ron Paul: 2008's Nader?

Although Republican Congressman Ron Paul has a slim to none chance of winning the GOP nomination, I could still see Paul shaking up the election come next November. I could truly see Ron Paul running as a third party candidate. Ron Paul could be the conservative version of 2000's Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader ran as an alternative to those who were unhappy with Gore or Bush. Ron Paul has a chance to do the same next year.

While Paul would have a zero percent chance of winning the general election, he would take away votes from both the Democratic and Republican candidates. Which party he takes more votes from will depend on how he positions himself come next year. Nader, in 2000, positioned himself to the left of Al Gore and therefore attracted more Democrats than Republicans. If Paul runs solely on his anti-war position, then clearly that would hurt the Democrats. It would provide a second option for those who dislike Hillary, or for that matter, dislike whomever the nominee may be. The money, so to speak, however, lies with Paul running as the social conservative alternative if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Ron Paul is clearly not seen as a typical "christian-right-wing" politician, but he is, possibly more than any other candidate, socially conservative. He has a 100% pro-life voting record----And, by the way, I should also point out that the official pro-life position states that unnecessary war is a big no no, so in that sense, Paul might be the only pro-life Republican candidate. Paul would also prove to be a challenge to Rudy on Rudy's pro-gun control position in states where that issue is very important. If Ron Paul ran as this type of candidate, he would definitely detract voters from Guiliani and would likely prove to be like Nader in yet another way---he would cost the Republicans the election, much the way Nader cost the Democrats the election in 2000.

One big difference between Nader and Paul is that Paul has money. In just one day, Paul raised $4.3 million. That broke the record for the most money any Republican has raised in one day. Ron Paul has a huge following and slowly, but surely, he is getting his name out there. Paul's ability to raise a lot of money would be a huge asset if he does indeed decide to run as a third party candidate. What I'll look the most for, though, is seeing how Paul will define the central message of his campaign---would it be solely anti-war, which would hurt the Democrats, or would it be a socially conservative alternative to Giuliani? The latter, as I mentioned, would almost guarantee that a Republican wouldn't win the White House. The GOP will need every last vote it can get in '08, and a conservative third party option would undoubtably throw a wrench in the GOP's already damaged plan if Giuliani wins the nomination. So I say to all those Ron Paul fanatics----keep up the hard work and you might just see your candidate on the ballot in '08.

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.

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 True Conservative Republican?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul---He chooses to be an American Above All ( a special editorial by John Lucia)

Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Candidate for President has been described as a Conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a Libertarian but most importantly he is an American first, which is the way it should be. His republican opponents are just the opposite. Mr. Paul continues to be the voice of reason on Iraq for the republican party and his position and comments on Iraq receive more applause from the audience than the other candidates.

Mr. Paul understands this war was a war of choice over WMD that did not exist and was not a necessary war that affected our national security. His opponents have no answers to his position on the war except the same worn out status quo and are unable to articulate how a war over WMD that did not exist turn into a civil war with our troops in the middle. They have also hinted the war may last 10 years.

Now Mr. Paul's opponents are openly talking about attacking Iran and starting a war there. He rightly points out that Iran has not attacked or occupied any other country and a U.S. attack would be at odds with our stated principals as a nation and would also constitute illegal action by our country. Can anyone remember a time in our recent History where so many republicans try to talk tough and are so willing to commit our nation and men and women in uniform to war so casually?

I hope Mr. Paul keeps speaking his mind and that he stays an American first. Our constitution backs his position on war. The republican party needs a sound person like Mr. Paul who puts his country and its people first. Its no accident that Mr. Paul has won most of the republican debates as shown by the online and text-in votes of ordinary people.

Quick GOP debate wrap-up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WINNERS:
-McCain
-Paul

LOSERS:
-Guiliani
-Romney

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

The GOP Candidates' major flaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Iowa Straw Poll: who finished strong, and who's going home?

Well one day after the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, one thing is clear, Mitt Romney's win was neither surprising nor meaningful. With the top 3 front-runners, Guiliani, Thompson, and McCain, not participating, Romney was the only candidate with a significant amount of money in his pocket. And it is actually pretty sad when you have to spend $3 to 5 million just to come out on top when your biggest threat is Mike Huckabee. Guiliani and McCain were smart; they knew that if they didn't take take part in the poll, they would de-value a Mitt Romney win. Now people look at Mitt Romney winning and can say, "so what? Rudy, McCain, and Fred weren't even there, he was the default choice." While I don't agree with Guiliani or McCain skipping the Straw Poll, they knew that they couldn't afford to be beaten by Mitt Romney and without them there, Romney's win would mean a lot less.

Now onto the other candidates. Mike Huckabee did well, yet he was always the favorite to come in at number two. He had been polling increasingly well in Iowa, most recently tying with John McCain. His win was no doubt a shot in the arm that could help his campaign, but he still badly lost to Romney, who had nearly double his votes. Sam Brownback, who just for the record gives me the creeps, needed to take the second spot(he came in third). He's going to have a rough time continuing his campaign. He's a one issue man: abortion, and in this day and age, I just don't think the issue of abortion is important to main-stream america. We have a war, an immigration problem, a falling economy, a terrible infrastructure, a heath care crisis, and all Sam Brownback wants to talk about is how he is pro-life. If he wants to win the nomination or a general election, he's going to have to address some of these other issues.

Tom Tancredo surprised me a little. I did not expect him to come in at number four, more like 6 or 7. I guess it proves that the right-wing base loves crazy conservatives from Colorado. I was thinking he was going to drop out, but he may have enough steam for a few more weeks, at least until the next debate. Ron Paul, my man, came in at number 5, a little disappointing to me, but good none the less. For a man who has been polling at 0%, number 5 is okay...for him. I do actually hope he stays in the campaign to the end, just so republicans have a choice of becoming sane and choosing an anti-war candidate. Anything below number 5 is a sign you should drop out. Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and John Cox came in 6th, 7th, and 8th respectively. Tommy Thompson has already said that if he didn't finish at the top, he would drop out, so I guess its bye bye Tommy. Duncan Hunter has contributed nothing to the debates and hasn't made any impact what-so-ever on this campaign. Its time for him to go and I believe he will. And what can I say about John Cox? The man got 41 votes. When you can't even get 50 out of 14,000 votes, its a problem. I would say that he is going to drop out, but he's been holding strong even though no one has a clue who the hell he is, so maybe he's just going to stay in it to the end, hoping he'll get a spot in one of the debates once the other drop out.

Ron Paul...putting Mitt Romney to good use!

Ron Paul is a genius. He is the only person in the world that could find a good reason to keep Mitt "flip-flopper" Romney around.
"Ron Paul’s supporters are actively encouraging Iowa voters to take advantage of Mitt Romney’s offers of free transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on Saturday and then, once they are there, to vote for Mr. Paul."
(from the NY Times)

Not only is this a great way to get Ron Paul supporters to the polls, but it also limits the power of money in the Iowa straw poll. If people, who aren't Romney supporters, take the buses, Romney's financial advantage will be reduced. And thats a good thing, because in a democracy, money shouldn't decide elections.

A chance to break out: The Iowa Straw Poll

Well today in Ames, Iowa is the Ames Straw Poll. In the past, the Straw Poll has been able to give us a good indication of whom will win the Iowa Caucus. It also is the chance for one of the lower-tier candidates to break through the glass ceiling to become a front-runner. One can argue the validity of winning the straw poll. In all senses of the word, it is nothing but a money race. The candidate with the most money can essentially "buy" votes. This is one reason why Mitt Romney is expected to cleanly and decisively win the Straw Poll.

Now one of the reasons why someone could break out is due to the fact that three of the front-runners have decided not to compete. Those three would be Mayor Guiliani, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare his candidacy. One has to question their wisdom not to compete. Romney has been winning in Iowa Caucus polls with on average 10-15 percentage points ahead of Guiliani and McCain. Both may want to preserve the candidacy, for if they lost to Romney, they might have lost some national support. It would not do well for either Guiliani or McCain to be seen finishing in a distant second of third place. I still believe, however, that they should have competed. It has to feel like the two are shunning the Iowa voters. And who knows this could have been a chance for Guiliani to poll ahead of Romney. If your in it to win it, you should be in all the formalities that go along with running for president, and for the Republicans, the Ames Straw Poll is certainly one of those formalities.

With Romney expected to win first place, who will come in second, and how far behind first place will he be? Both Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Brownback are looking to capture second place. Brownback has been running ads in Iowa, criticizing Romney on his lack of leadership when it comes to abortion. Huckabee has been polling well in Iowa, most recently tied with John McCain. If either one of these men can score close to Romney's numbers, they could break out into the front-tier.

Ron Paul is my pick for the surprise candidate. He will either do extremely well, or extremely poorly, I just don't know which yet, although I hope he finishes strong. He has to be the favorite among anti-war republicans and has received massive online support. If that online support shows up at the Straw poll, expect Paul to do well, if they don't he will likely finish at the bottom of the pack.

As for Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo, both have gained support in Iowa. Expect them to finish somewhere in the middle. Duncan Hunter has not been doing well in Iowa, so expect him to finish second to last place. Now I'm not psychic, but I can and will tell you who will come in dead last. John Cox. And he'll finish last because most people have never heard of him. He hasn't even taken part in any of the debates.

With the Straw Poll today, it should be interesting to see who will break through, if anybody. I would not surprise me in the least if we see one or two of the "losers" drop out of the race after today. Some, in fact, have probably been planning to drop out, but will use the Straw Poll as an excuse. I plan on doing a follow-up blog after the results are announced.

Ron Paul: The Impact of his campaign

Ron Paul is possibly the only republican with any dignity. The man fights for what he believes in and I respect that. I might not agree with him on a lot of the issues, but on one thing we do agree: the Iraq War is a disaster and needs to be ended. Ron Paul is bringing that message to the GOP debates and with him on the campaign trail and it seems to be working. He reportedly has more money on hand than John McCain. He is without a doubt the most popular candidate on the world-wide-web. His website has more hits than any other Republican candidate. He is the change candidate as far as republicans are concerned, so why is he doing so horribly in the polls? Well for one thing he refuses to spend money. If he could get his message out in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could get a major boost. He is of course hated by the neo-cons. For what reason, I'm not quite sure, as I could never understand the reasoning of those crazy right-wingers. But whatever the case may be, Ron Paul unfortunately won't get the nomination. So what is the impact of his campaign?

Quite simply this man will be running as the libertarian in the general election. I can guarantee. And this gives Republicans another choice other than Rudy or Romney, who appear to be the two best in position to get the nomination. A lot of pro-life republicans might not like Romney's flip-flopping or Rudy's openly pro-choice stance, so here is their alternative. It also gives the anti-war republicans a candidate that is not a liberal democrat. The impact of Ron Paul is this, he is bad news for the GOP. He won't get a large chunk of votes in the general election, but we've seen how just a few hundred votes in a key state, can determine the election. If Paul picks up just a small part of the GOP vote in Florida, Ohio, or Texas,(which if you've seen my earlier posts show a virtual tie between Clinton & the Republicans) the electoral votes could go to the democrat. I almost see him doing what Nader did in 2000 in Florida. In this close race, every vote matters, and with the current state of the country, the GOP needs every vote it can get its hands on.