Note: blogger has been acting up for me, so a few times in the post large blocks of text are large and bold. Apologies, I am not intending to yell or be obnoxious, I just can't seem to fix it.
Well, I must admit, some of the candidates that I detested are looking better, while quite a few really shot themselves in the foot.
So... I'm just going to showcase snippets of the debate, some high-points, and add some commentary, I'm not even going to try and remember all of the stuff, as most of it boiled down to just a few (though some candidates had multiple...) answers.
First, a brief overview and feelings from watching.
Overall, I thought the mood was good, and I liked the format of the videos - the questions coming from real people provided a more down-to-earth, actually applicable environment for the debate, which was enjoyable.
I do think, however, that it was biased towards some of the candidates.
Romney and Giuliani were given/participated in the most questions.
On average, Huckabee was given or allowed to take more time for his comments than the other candidates.
While Fred Thompson commented on the same number of questions as McCain, and only one better than Hunter, most of the questions he was asked were answered with a simple, short yes/no or one-sentence answer, and he was not asked/allowed to discuss his policies on a number of major issues that were presented to the other major candidates.
Overall all the candidates, except Thompson, kept getting caught up in personal arguments over statements, instead of just giving their view. This might have hurt Thompson, and contributed to his not having as much air-time as most of the other candidates.
Looking at a poll at the Washington Journal (here is the link) about who won the debate, I am surprised.
Fred Thompson jumped out to a huge lead, carrying 65% of the votes.
Then all the Ron Paul supporters came on all guns blazing about how Fred is so dead-looking, dead-acting, lazy, not conservative, war-mongering, you name it.
It is basically Ron Paul with 79% or so of the votes, and Fred is second. Huck got third, lagging by 12% behind Fred. No other candidate got above 3%.
What I found surprising is not that Ron Paul got the most votes, I expect that from every online poll, he has probably 5000, give or take, devoted fans who spend most of their time just trying to vote in every single poll they can find (I actually made this assertion about a week ago, check out how close it is to that in the poll...).
What surprises me is that among the people who aren't just voting for a candidate because it is "their" candidate, they are overwhelmingly saying Fred won the debate.
The comments on Fred all have reasons and explanations, half of Ron Paul's supporters just said, "Ron Paul", or variant thereof.
Now, some discussion on the major candidates performances.
Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy lost a lot of ground, IMO. He couldn't shut up, even when his time was up and the crowd was booing him. He didn't answer some questions, instead he opted for the good-ol' turn it back on your opponent technique.
When Romney commented about what Giuliani said in regards to NYC being a "sanctuary" city for illegal immigrants, instead of responding by clarifying his point, he launched into a tirade about how Romney had a worse record on it than he did, stating that there were "six cities that were sanctuaries while you were Governor" (a fallacy, there were in fact 4) and accused Romney of having a "sanctuary Mansion".
Though Romney did hire a company that employs illegals, he countered, saying it is not his responsibility to go out and confront the workers or the company over it, it is the companies and the states right and responsibility to deal with this.
In my opinion Romney is correct, doing otherwise would just increase racism.
When he actually answered a question, Rudy would be cryptic, lying or sometimes just incorrect.
He said that NYC was not a sanctuary city, except in 3 cases.
First, when an illegal went to a hospital to receive medical attention.
Second, if it is a child of an illegal they can go to school.
And lastly, they can report crimes committed to themselves or others.
Rudy stated that in all other circumstances NYC aggressively arrested/dealt with any illegal who had broken the law or was even suspected of breaking the law.
He totally missed the point that if they are here, they are breaking the law!
Thus, if they report a crime, receive medical aid, or try and enroll there children in school, they should be deported.
End of story. That is how you deal with illegals, unless you want to incarcerate them, but we have a big enough problem with our own criminals, thank you.
As a side-note, Rudy elicited the largest number of boos of all the candidates.
Mitt Romney:
Romney said everything right - mostly.
He bobbled a few questions, was undecided on a few subjects, but overall very good.
If only I could believe that he really, honestly changed as much as he claims he did. Then, then I would have him right up there with Thompson and McCain (and Hunter, but he will be withdrawing shortly, so it doesn't matter as much).
At least he didn't lie and deny that he was once pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage or any of the other accusations.
We will have to see what happens.
Mike Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee lost even more ground with me.
His wheels were spinning the whole time.
Even on questions he should have had a perfect answer for, like the one about "What Would Jesus Do" - he just deflected it with humor.
Yes humor is a good thing at times, but he employs it more than he does seriousness.
I believe the answer to the above question is yes, Jesus would support the death penalty, because he supported Biblical (Old Testament) law, which states that there are certain crimes for which one must judge and condemn a felon. And sometimes the only just judgment that can be given is death.
We can not judge someones intentions, that is not for us to know, those judgments are left to God.
But what God does allow us to know, and command us to judge, are peoples actions.
It is a great responsibility, true, and one we should not take lightly. But it is none-the-less one we must accept and perform.
Mike Huckabee then went on to say he would destroy the IRS. And then claimed he was not "being facetious". Either he is a nut who is just cracking up again, or he truly does not understand how our governments taxes work.
How does he expect to enforce the necessary taxes when he removes the organization that collects them?
When questioned about illegal immigration, and more specifically a bill he pushed as governor to allow illegal immigrants to get state discounts on college education, he basically flopped.
He stated something to the effect that, if an illegal immigrant brings their child with them, and that child goes through the school-system, they will be allowed to get a cheaper rate to college and be allowed to compete with other students for scholarships. They will also have an easier time becoming a citizen.
So... basically...
If you are an illegal alien, when you come here your children will get full benefits, they will have it easier becoming a citizen, and thus you will have it easier becoming a citizen.
And immigrants who are coming here legally will have to wait in a line, not get benefits, and have more red-tape to go through.
Instead of just deporting illegals, as is the law, you would want them to have an easier time coming here and becoming a citizen?
That is wrong.
I, and my children one day, should not have to compete with non-citizens for benefits that our tax-dollars, not theirs, are providing.
Ron Paul:
Ron Paul gave another crash and burn performance in my opinion tonight.
He covered a wide range of subjects:
- over-exaggerating support at his rallies,
- stating John McCain doesn't understand foreign policy,
- saying our Generals are lying to us when they say we are now winning in Iraq,
- stating that just handing back control of Iraq to insurgents would solve our problems with extremist Islam
He struck me as very unprofessional, and at times childish in his views and conduct.
And it shows, Ron received the second-most boos from the crowd, and the only reason he didn't get the most is because Giuliani seemed bent on making sure he took the prize.
First, he made the enormous assumption that people will just get along if they are left alone, that we have nothing to worry about from other countries.
How can you believe this?
History attests to the fact that when any nation becomes exceedingly large, has become more prosperous than it's neighbors, or when it has upset too many people, that country has inevitably been attacked, defeated, crushed and humiliated.
Look at WW2, which we entered when the Nazi's attacked one of our ships, even though we had trade-agreements, and some believe that we might have aligned with, Germany had they not provoked us. But instead we played isolationist, or at the very least non-interventionist.
The result, millions of casualties, genocide, and the creation of atomic weapons.
Or look at the War of 1812, which was started largely because when Britain went to war with France they didn't want us trading with them, thus they attacked our sailors, blockaded us, and supported groups that were trying to subvert our sovereignty.
Or look at the civil war. While this is not an international war, it was still started because there came about such a rift between the North and the South that there was no way to avoid war and still save the Union.
Or if you want countries outside of the US, look at the Mongols, they attacked everyone in their path, slaughtering even the most innocent of people in their lust for power and blood.
This is what has happened with the radical Islamic terrorists and the regimes that protect and assist them.
There is such a rift between us, deep-rooted hatred at the Crusades, a belief that they are superior, that they have the right and responsibility to conquer us, the absolute wish to not only conquer, but to annihilate every Jew on the planet, especially those residing in Israel.
These differences cannot be settled peacefully. They, not we, have decided that.
We try and settle it peacefully and they ignore us.
We compromise in one area to try and appease them, and they use that just to further there agenda, instead of coming to peaceful terms.
We offer them aid that they except, then spend there money arming terrorists and committing crimes against their own citizens.
They don't care if we are the most civilized, open, non-interfering country on the planet.
They hate us, we are the enemy.Later, he grew completely exacerbated when McCain hammered him on his views on Iraq, and the crowd went crazy cheering, and then when he tried to make a rebuttal they didn't respond the same way.
He stood there shaking his head like a child who assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar, and then accused McCain, who is probably one of the smarter and more informed of the candidates, that he doesn't understand the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
But, in the end they
are the same.
If you take a non-interventionist approach, then you will eventually be forced to either go into isolation to avoid a problem that affects you, or you will be forced to intervene.
And we are seeing a global threat that demands addressing.
Either we can run and hide, as Ron Paul proposes, or we can face it now, so our children can have a safer, brighter future tomorrow.
Later on he made the comment that, although the surge in the south of Iraq has resulted in less violence/fewer casualties, we have effectively lost there.
My immediate response was, "what do you define a victory to be?!?"
I have sent an email to Mr. Paul requesting his take on that - I eagerly await his answer.
John McCain:Well, I might not have agreed with everything he said, but none-the-less he is my runner-up to the debate.
He had no problems answering questions, no qualms about taking on the other candidates.
He seemed to be one of the most knowledgeable and reasonable of the candidates.
He seems to finally have found some Charisma, and he used it effectively.
I think he won the debate overall, and will get the biggest boost from it.
Fred Thompson:What can I say? He was himself and answered all the questions that came his way.
I'd say he comes a close-second for how well he did in the debate, simply because he wasn't given the same amount of time to express his views as the other front-runners.
On abortion he restated his view, and unlike other candidates didn't sugar-coat it.
And now, finally, the other candidates have come out with there views on abortion.
Rudy maintained that he is pro-choice, though flipped a little saying that partial-birth abortions and others should be illegal, and generally changed his mind mid-sentence.
Romney and Paul both echoed Thompson's opinion, that it should be left up to the state, a statement that was widely blasted when Thompson made it. Will Romney and Paul get the same treatment? I doubt it.
Post-debate:Well, some of my views have changed.
I just completed the "Find your candidate" calculator (
check it out here), and I am not really surprised.
I took it several times, trying to figure out the weighting system they were using.
In the end, every time I took the test my top 3 candidates were Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.
McCain and Tancredo usually flipped at 4th/5th.
Huckabee generally was in the 6th-8th spot, though once tied for third.
Giuliani and Paul never got above a 60% match for views, and often got into the lower 40's, with Joe Biden and, once, Clinton beating them.
The rest of the candidates were always below 40%.
Personally I would rank them:
- Thompson
- Hunter
- McCain
- Romney
- Tancredo
- Paul
- Huckabee
- Giuliani
- --the rest of the candidates...
The big differences being:
- I don't feel I can trust Romney, if his change is true, then fine, but never-the-less I don't want a candidate who will change his views at the drop of the hat. If he can give some solid, substantive reasons why he changed his mind, and if he no longer supports gay-marriage, then I will be forced to reconsider him.
- I trust Huckabee less even than Romney. Huckabee flat-out lied in the debate several times. He dodged questions. He claims things about his record that are false, embellishing the good parts and diminishing the bad - e.g. He claims he lowered taxes more than he raised, well he lowered them more times, but raised them by larger amounts. At least Romney has the guts to say he was wrong and he changed, Huckabee just ignores.
- I put Paul above Giuliani and Huckabee simply because, if it weren't for his horrible foreign policy, he has pretty sound policies, and I have the hope that when he tries to impose his isolationist approach it will backfire and he will quickly learn his mistake, but probably not.
Oh well.
Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul fell by the wayside, I won't vote for them unless it is a really close race. At least they are all better than Clinton and the rest of the "Democratic" Party.
Fred Thompson, the right choice if you want consistent, conservative ideals in an ever-changing and liberal world.
