GOP Debate Analysis (11/28/07)

Ah, YouTube. These debates are always interesting because you never know what to expect. I’m still not sure if I like it or not. It’s like communism: an appealing theory on paper but once you put it in action, it’s a little disappointing.

Sure, Huckabee had a good night. He’s intelligent, he’s got a certain degree of charm. He probably would’ve made a better actor than Fred Thompson! But let’s face it: who wouldn’t do well if they were lobbed softball questions all night? The only difficult question he received was the “What would Jesus do?” when it comes to the death penalty. That’s a difficult but definitely loaded question. 

For the sake of being side-tracked, let me answer that in my own way: Romans 13:1-7. Verse four says “for he [ruler/governing authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant an of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” God struck people dead, folks. This “what would Jesus do?” nonsense when it comes to the death penalty is a faulty premise. And in case you weren’t aware: the federal government is not Jesus!

Huckabee answered it well with his “Jesus was too smart to be a politician” reponse. However, even though it was a very clever dodge to the question, it was still a dodge nonetheless. But since long and reasoned responses don’t make good soundbytes, the dodge works just as well.

Romney got tripped up on gays in the military, which was a direct torpedo from the Hillary campaign due to the fact that the questioner was working for her. While he did get tripped up, I must ask: who wouldn’t? On the big totem pole of Republican issues, gays in the military ranks pretty low. This was a swipe from the Hillary camp, which makes me think that Hillary’s people are afraid of Romney.

When it came to the immigration sparring match between Giuliani and Romney, Romney easily won. The “sanctuary mansion” comment from Giuliani was cheap and smart, but Romney’s explanation blew Rudy out of the water, especially when he pointed out that the illegal immigrants in New York had already broken the law by simply being illegal immigrants. In reference to illegals working for Romney’s lawn service, Romney asked Rudy if he was supposed to ask them if their workers were all legal. I can see Rudy right now: “excuse me sir, put down that weedeater and show me your green card!” Yeah right.

McCain was….good ole McCain. I have to say, he’s had consistent debate performances: he hasn’t gotten any better and he hasn’t gotten any worse. He went toe-to-toe with Romney on torture and waterboarding, a match that neither seemed to win. Both had well-reasoned positions but I agree with Romney’s more. Personally, I don’t see a problem with waterboarding. They tried it on a Fox News correspondent for crying out loud! Besides, if we know for certain that the enemy has information we need and they aren’t willing to give it, we should do whatever is necessary to save American lives, as long as we don’t do any permanent physical damage. However, I have to ask: is waterboarding specifically condemned by the Geneva Convention? If so, McCain has a valid point. If not, I say we have every right to do it.

I did agree with what McCain said to Ron Paul about his version of isolationism causing World War II. That was a good point and I’m glad somebody finally said it.

Thompson was a translucent figure on the stage. He didn’t really stand out or make waves as usual. He is such a dud when it comes to debates. It’s really sad. No wonder he put off joining the race as long as possible. Maybe he should’ve waited until late December before declaring his candidacy.

Ron Paul did say a few things that I agreed with. But this was not his strongest performance. The fact that he couldn’t name the Kurds to the North in Iraq is pretty sad. Even I could do that and I’m not a presidential candidate. I kept saying “Kurds, Ron, Kurds!” in my head, almost feeling sorry for him. It doesn’t matter, he won’t lose any supporters over it. But he definitely won’t gain any.

Duncan Hunter’s complaining about a gun being tossed to the guy in that gun question video was just a little bit lame. It was done for effect, Duncan! Yes, of course you should hand the gun over to somebody, but let’s face it: that just doesn’t look as cool as catching it. Obviously, the guy in the video didn’t look very bright for doing it that way, but it’s not a good idea to point that out to him on national television. I’ve said this before: Duncan Hunter should drop out of the race immediately. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but he’s just not pertinent to this race.

Tancredo is still irrelevant. I didn’t quite get his “out-Tancredo Tancredo” remark. Maybe he thinks that other people are copying him on immigration. Okay, Tom. Think about this: other candidates have platforms. And their platforms have planks in them. One of their planks is immigration. You, on the other hand, are just walking the plank.

When it comes down to real candidates in this race, Huckabee and Mitt had the best night; Rudy and Ron Paul had the worst night. I’m just wondering how this debate will affect the rest of the race.

The Selling of Pat Robertson’s Soul

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani today, which actually surprised me. I figured the same guy who said that Muslims were worse than Hitler would pull for someone other than the most liberal man in the GOP race.

Robertson is supposed to be a champion for evangelical ideals. It seems only right to me that he would support a pro-life candidate that takes a hard stance on gay marriage. Instead, he does the exact opposite. Is this because he’s afraid that Giuliani is the only one that can beat Hillary? If so, that’s a poor excuse.

Pat Robertson has officially and publicly compromised the very principles he is supposed to support. How can anyone take him seriously now when he touts the pro-life cause?

I honestly didn’t even expect Robertson to support Giuliani in the general election, much less the primaries. At least James Dobson still has some sense of scruples. Apparently, Robertson will toss his principles out at the drop of a hat as long as Hillary Clinton isn’t in office.

Of all the people he could have endorsed including Mike Huckabee (the Baptist preacher), Mitt Romney (the Mormon with the exceptional family life), or Fred Thompson (member of the church of Christ with a great pro-life voting record), or even Episcopalian-turned-Baptist John McCain, he endorses Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay mayor of New York City.

I guess it just goes to show that in the realm of presidential politics, even the most prominent of evangelicals have a price on their souls.

Giuliani: My Last Resort

I like Giuliani. I really do. He has outstanding leadership qualities. He has a rather favorable fiscal record. His Twelve Commitments even make him sound Republican. But is that enough?

When I think of the Republican party, I think first and foremost of our values. We’re the party of life. We’re the party of fiscal responsibility. We’re the party of family values. We’re the party that supports strict constructionist judges. We’re the party that cuts taxes. We’re the party that gives the most support for Second Amendment rights. These comprise some of the most important parts of our platform.

But can all of these values be reflected in Rudy Giuliani? No, they cannot.

Now certainly, some of these values can be seen in Rudy’s record. And the fact that he does not adhere to the party platform does not diminish the admirable achievements of his career. However, I will not support him in the primary.

The presidential candidate for a party is supposed to be the champion of that party’s principles. He is the image-bearer for everything we stand for. He is our best foot forward for that election year.

So what does it say for us if we are nominating an individual that isn’t true to the values we hold so dear? It’s saying that we will compromise our own values. It degrades the importance of our platform. This a matter of placing a supposed victory in 2008 over being true to who we are as Republicans.

When it comes right down to it, many will vote for Giuliani as an act of desparation. “He’s the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton.” That’s taking the focus off our party and what we have to offer America. And by doing that, we’re putting more emphasis on defeating our enemy than sticking to our guns (pardon the pun) and maintaining the nature of our party.

I have to be honest. If Giuliani is the nominee, I’ll vote for him simply because he is the lesser of two evils. I can’t think of a time when I would ever have felt as reluctant to vote for a candidate. And I don’t have to vote for him, but I’d rather see this country in his hands than Hillary Clinton’s.

Fortunately, in the primary I have the luxury of voting for someone who best reflects the principles and values that I believe in, which are the sames the Republican party believes in.

We can nominate a conservative candidate in 2008. And that candidate can win in 2008 as long as we rally together and act like Republicans.

Romney-Thompson: The Ideal GOP Ticket

Before you turn away, let me make my case.

As many of you may know, I’m a Romney fan. But I also like Fred Thompson, even though I did say that I didn’t think he was the next Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, I think both men have Reaganesque principles and values that reflect the true nature of the Republican Party.

I could go on and on about why I think Romney is qualified and why I think he’ll win the nomination, but I’ve pretty much done that already in other posts.

As it stands, Giuliani is the frontrunner of this race. Why? Because of his leadership on 9/11. Because he has governed one of the largest cities in the world. But most importantly, because many in the GOP believe he’s the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton. However, he’s not true to the platform of the Republican party. Even Giuliani himself has admitted that.

At this point, the more conservative electorate has been splintered between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson. This leaves Giuliani at the top since he doesn’t necessarily appeal to that constituency anyway. He is exchanging the social conservative vote for the moderate/centrist vote, which will likely be his downfall. Right now, evangelicals seem to be torn between Romney and Huckabee. Fred Thompson’s still got a large base of conservative followers as well. But I believe that the momentum will eventually shift to Romney if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

Now, some fear that Romney’s so-called flip-flopping and his religious beliefs may alienate members of the base. Not to mention that he’s a Massachusetts Republican (to many, that’s an oxymoron), which could cause Southerners to be skeptical about supporting him. What could solidify his chances at being competitive in the general election? A good running mate.

I hear so many calling for Huckabee to be the eventual running mate of whoever wins the nomination. And he may indeed be a good choice. But I suggest Thompson instead. Why?

Thompson is second to Giuliani in national polls. He’s got significantly strong support in the South. He’s a generally likeable candidate with very good values. He has a very consistent conservative record in the Senate. He could bring a certain degree of balance to a Romney candidacy.

So why would I choose Romney as the candidate with Thompson as the running mate and not vice-versa?

Romney is running a better strategy than Thompson by leading in early primary states. His organizational strength would be better than Thompson’s in a general election. Romney has governing and managerial experience that Thompson doesn’t have. Thompson doesn’t seem to desire the White House that much anyway. So being a Vice President might better suit his personality and abilities.

A Romney-Thompson ticket could unite the Republican base by appealing to evangelicals, moderates, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. They would have the same coalition that Reagan had. Personally, I think a ticket like this would be the next Reagan-Bush. And the last time that happened, things went very well for the Republican party and for the American people.

Note: I just thought I’d mention a few more smart choices for running mates: J.C. Watts, Mike Huckabee, and Condoleeza Rice.

The Truth About Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

Alas, someone has finally exposed Ron Paul’s foreign policy. On behalf of Republicans everywhere, I’d like to thank Mike Boyer for writing this.

 It was only a matter of time. This is one of many reasons why Ron Paul will not win the nomination. I wonder what will become of his devoted following after he loses this nomination to Romney or Giuliani. Who will be the new champion of the paleocons? Will his movement die? I hope not… Well I almost hope not…

Hey Hillary! If You Can’t Take the Heat, Get out of the Race!

I never thought I’d see the day when a major network (other than Fox) would give Hillary a tough time. Is there some type of weird tension between her and Tim Russert? Who knows?

So now it seems like everyone is saying that Hillary is going to play the “gender card,” claiming that every man in the race (Republican and Democrat), along with the news media of all people, is ganging up on the only poor defenseless woman in the race. This is an interesting strategy to say the least, but I personally think it’s a little pathetic.

This is the arena of Presidential politics. It’s not friendly. It’s not easy. It’s not all glam and softball questions. Hillary knows that…or at least she should.

So I don’t buy this whole “Little Red Riding Hood” idea where Hillary is naively prancing towards a “hard-earned” victory only to be attacked by the “Big Bad Wolf” of fellow contenders. She may think this will endear her to women voters, but I don’t think it will work other than being an excuse for women who were going to vote for her anyway.

If Hillary can’t take some jabs from her future running mate (Obama), she should have gotten out of this race a long time ago. But I like to think she’s a little more tenacious than her campaign is giving her credit for.

Hillary is tough enough to handle herself. Just ask Dick Morris or better yet….Vince Foster.