First off, I’d like to say that this debate was world’s apart from Chris Matthews’ liberal piece of crap debate last time. Brit Hume and company were absolutely fantastic in leading the debate and shaking things up between the candidates.
The Big Three
I really don’t think there was a clear winner tonight, though I think there are a few candidates that benefitted from tonight’s events. First off, Rudy Giuliani had a huge moment when he rebutted Ron Paul’s argument that our interventionist policy in the Middle East promoted the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That exchange will be seen on the networks all this week. Unfortunately, I think Ron Paul has now lost any credibility he had as a strong candidate and instead will be promoted as the GOP’s version of Mike Gravel. Overall, I don’t think Rudy scored any legitimate points with social conservatives by promoting his abortion stance or trying to dodge questions about his conservative creditials.
John McCain had a decent performance, though not as strong as I thought he’d be. I think his campaign will be more negatively impacted by his support for comprehensive immigration reform and a steady support for McCain-Feingold. McCain mentioned that he thought waterboarding, an enhanced interrogation technique was a form of torture, though many of his rivals did not think that way. I personally think by saying he’d work “across the aisle,” McCain is just too lovey-dovey with the Democratic elite, especially Ted Kennedy.
Mitt Romney was my favorite coming into tonight’s debate. He impressed me on a number of issues, including expanding the role of Gitmo, pledging not to raise taxes, and streamlining the federal government by introducing sound business and accounting practices. He was well spoken and came out much more aggressive than the last debate. Unfortunately, he affirmed his support for an assault weapons ban and supports the role of the federal government in education, i.e. the Department of Education - two issues that may not sit well with the GOP base. It didn’t sit well with me either.
The Others
Ron Paul is an obvious loser tonight. Most of his statements will be misinterpreted in the media, though I believe he was much too apologetic to the major terrorist organizations.
Tom Tancredo had a better night, speaking out on problems with our immigration system, which of course is his main issue. He also came out against many unconstitutional programs, including No Child Left Behind. I’m glad somebody else besides Ron Paul actually mentioned the constitution.
Duncan Hunter, while strong in defense trade issues just failed to impress. He’s a good candidate with a good record, but just doesn’t have the “IT” factor.
Mike Huckabee didn’t impress me at all tonight. I felt he was the most rehearsed and didn’t really speak naturally at all. Something just isn’t right with him. Doesn’t he have anything better to add to the discussion than his distain for abortion? Ugh.
Brownback, Gilmore, Thompson: They all just seemed to generic for me. Gilmore just looked like a generic talking head tonight. Thompson looked like he had to take a crap the entire night and really had nothing legitimate to add to the discussion. Brownback, while a strong social conservative, really did not show any foreign policy creditials and I think that hurt him.
Overall
Like I said, I don’t really think there was a clear winner tonight, though I think Giuliani, Romney, and Tancredo had pretty strong nights. Ron Paul could be finished.
I’m really looking forward to tonight’s GOP debate from South Carolina. I don’t really know what it is about the primary season, but I’m always excited to see the differences in candidates’ stances when it comes to real issues. I’d love to see the second and third tier candidates like Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul stand out against the front-runners, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Personally, Romney is my favorite coming into this debate, but I am also hoping Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, and Tom Tancredo make some steady inroads tonight with the GOP base.
What I’m looking for is a candidate who doesn’t back down during tough questions and is bold enough to offer real solutions to our republic’s greatest problems. I’m looking for an optimism about the future and a confidence that the candidate can offer real change in Washington, not more of the same.
The one thing that is bugging me however, is that during the last debate, each candidate tried to use Ronald Reagan as an example in explaining their own political views. Let me get something perfectly straight - no candidate on the stage tonight is or will ever be the next Ronald Reagan. Invoking his name every other question is simply a way to pander to the GOP and most people don’t really buy it as genuine. So here’s a tip for all the GOP candidates tonight: be bold, be proud, offer solutions to our problems - but DON’T try to be Ronald Reagan; be your own person.
I found a funny YouTube video that kind of explains what I’m talking about:
The GOP debate will air live on Fox News at 9 p.m. eastern time.
The more I read about him and his political beliefs, the more I can’t get past the idea that Ron Paul could do great things for the Unites States - specifically, putting traditional Goldwater conservatism and the principle idea of federalism back on the map. Unfortunately, the last few years have seen the rise of “compassionate” big government conservatism, a conservatism that rejects its own core beliefs about the role of limited government, spending, and taxation.
Ron Paul would be the perfect candidate if it wasn’t for his anti-global positions. And I’m not talking about the United Nations or the role of international law in wartime. I’m talking about foreign isolationism and economic protectionism. Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s official 2008 election website:
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
First off, the International Criminal Court was something that was never signed off by President Bush nor ratified by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, the ICC issue is null and void at this point in time. Second, free trade agreements are actually a good thing.
Times have changed economically around the world. The world is no longer made up of limited, pocketed financial markets like it once was. Global information technology and the ability to travel overseas has increased our ability to communicate and trade with foreign peoples. As it was to the advantage of the Europeans to trade with America in the 1700’s, it is to our advantage to trade worldwide, with the least trade barriers. NAFTA and CAFTA are making it easier for the United States to participate in global trade, knocking down barriers to trading markets and foreign investment. Protectionism in these times simply does not work because the worldwide economic environment is not conducive to a protectionist philosophy. The reality is that the United States cannot economically isolate itself on the world stage. The consequences of such behavior could promote economic slowdown not only in the United States, but other countries as well.
Update: For an interesting take on Ron Paul, check out this article.
In today’s modern society, we all hear about the clashes in Kansas and elsewhere regarding the ongoing battle between evolution and creationism. Unfortunately, those on any one side often seem unable to compromise when it comes to answering the question about where humanity came from or how the universe actually began - it’s always either evolution or creationism, nothing else. To many, evolution is not compatible with creationism, nor is creationism compatible with evolution. Personally, I wonder, why not…why aren’t these beliefs compatible? Why can’t evolution be a natural process of God’s creation? Why can’t evolution be just another law of nature God placed into existence when he created the world? Why would God limit the ability of his creatures to adapt and change depending on their environments or other genetic factors?
I found a post on Wizbang that addresses this question and I totally agree with its author:
I’ve always been a believer in science. It doesn’t always come up with the answers right away, but it has a consistent record of finding the right answers — eventually — that no other approach comes close to. It’s tangible, it’s logical (if often counterintuitive), and it’s verifiable.
Some have taken science to be their substitute for religion. They sink all their faith and belief in science, and hold the devout (and their beliefs) in contempt. It’s mysticism, it’s self-delusion, it’s fantasy.
On the other side, there are those to whom their faith is all they need. Scientists are godless heretics, meddling in matters Man was not to trifle with and playing God.
Then there’s the middle, where the vast majority of Americans live.
At its core, I don’t think there is anything fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and science, between the Bible and natural history. All it takes is a little application of common sense and logic.
-Snip-
Science, to the devout, is not about disproving God or replacing Him. It’s about seeing how He did what He did, discovering the laws and rules that He set down and then followed. It’s about learning the laws of God that He didn’t spell out in the Bible, but had it written down by Newton and Einstein and Edison and Galileo and Copernicus and Brahe and Tesla and Watson and Crick and Hawking and Ptolemy and Archimedes and uncounted other seekers of truth.
But back to the original point: is there anything heretical in believing in evolution? No. It, like pretty much every other scientific theory or principle, is simply a study of how God works, learning the rules that He set up for His creation. Or it’s simply the way things developed, because it was the most efficient way.
Personally, I believe that evolution or simple adaptation (genetic or environmental) is just another natural law God put into place for the governance of nature and the sustainment of his creation. But that’s not the point. The point is that people should educate themselves and not limit themselves when it comes to exploring our origin. I think people have forgotten that God has put into place universal laws that are easily confirmed through scientific exploration. These laws at one time, were thought of as blasphemy and simply discarded, like when it was first discovered that Earth actually revolved around the Sun. We must not limit ourselves to “popular” understandings, but decide and interpret the data for ourselves and decide for ourselves what the truth is. Frankly, we’ll never know where we came from until we die. But until then, we can always try to understand our creator and the laws he put forth for the governance of his creation.
President George W. Bush was set Monday to flesh out a plan to slash US “addiction” to foreign oil by cutting gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years, the White House said.
“The president will make an announcement about his directing the administration to take action to implement his ‘20 in 10′ plan to reduce the nation’s addiction to oil,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
“He will announce his latest efforts to ensure that the nation is taking aggressive steps to reduce gasoline consumption,” he told reporters.
-Snip-
The US leader wants Congress to pass legislation setting fuel economy standards that would result in quintupling the current consumption of renewable and alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons (133 billion liters) by 2017.
I’ve said it before in my State of the Union liveblog and I’ll say it again - this is a sure way to help tank the economy. It seems that politicians don’t know how laissez-faire economics should work. It’s called “hands off,” not “let us legislate our will on the market.”
The problem in this country is that too many politicians are either worried about the risk of affecting the habitat of caribou in Alaska or want to legislate high prices away. However, additional legislation and red tape is almost always a hindrance to the market, driving up prices or making it inherently more difficult for companies to distribute or promote their products and services. How about we open up ANWR to drilling, reduce gasoline taxes, reduce the required blends of gasoline, and build more oil refineries for starters. Enacting additional legislation requiring auto makers to make vehicles more fuel efficient is just asking the consumer to pay higher prices on vehicles. Hell, it’s not like auto makers aren’t having a tough time these days anyway. Additionally, taxing oil companies on their profits at a higher rate is another incentive for the price of gas and other oil-based products to rise nationwide, causing even higher amounts of inflation.
In my opinion, President Bush is completely wrong here.
These videos are enough to get people thinking about two GOP front-runners, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
For conservatives, these views are troubling. If these two GOP front-runners have more in common with Democrats than Republicans when it comes to social issues, then the GOP is in trouble in 2008 when it comes to restoring traditional conservatism to Washington.
Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access “worldwide” to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
-Snip-
The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends.
Even though the media is hyping this up as a new policy decision, it’s really not. In my experience, every base has its own network policies, with each having its own say as to what sites are blocked or restricted. When I went to Iraq, MySpace, YouTube, and even this blog were restricted. Here in the states, those sites are almost *expected* to be blocked for security and “official duty” concerns on government-owned computers and computer systems.
There is a simple reason why I won’t be voting for John McCain in either the GOP primary or a general election in 2008 - his stance on campaign finance reform. It’s not a bad idea to attempt to take out the big money donations that political campaigns are funded with, but it’s worse to limit groups’ 1st Amendment rights by banning targeted “issue ads” 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. This is what McCain-Feingold has done. Frankly, the act needs to be repealed or amended to do away with 1st Amendment restrictions.
A summary of what McCain-Feingold bans in terms of targeted communications under section 204 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001:
Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) proposed an amendment that prohibits non-profit corporations exempt under sections of 501(c)(4) and 527 of the Internal Revenue Code from running “targeted communications.” A targeted communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication run within 60 days of a general election (or 30 days of a primary election) featuring the name or likeness of a candidate whose audience primarily consists of the residents of the state associated with the identified candidate in the advertisement.
I think the following video clip helps explain why many conservatives don’t trust John McCain with the White House:
The Washington Post is reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is looking to bring back last year’s broad immigration bill back to the Senate floor:
The legislation — which couples a border security crackdown with a guest-worker program and new avenues for undocumented immigrants to work legally in the country — passed the Senate a year ago this month with the support of 62 members, 23 of them Republican, only to die in the House. With Democrats now in control of Congress and with the president eager for an accomplishment, immigrant rights groups believe the prospects for a final deal are far better this year.
This is all well and good except for the fact that most Americans don’t support comprehensive immigration reform. What makes the situation even worse is that for the sake of political expediency, some major GOP’ers are coming out against it, when in last year’s GOP-controlled Congress, they actually came out for broad-based immigration reform. I can accept this from the Democrats, and actually, I expect it. But I am disappointed when I see such political pandering from the GOP:
And, this year, the issue is tangled in presidential politics. One White House hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), has all but renounced a career-long stance favorable to immigrant rights. And the co-author of last year’s bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has been largely absent from this year’s negotiations, as he soft-pedals his pro-immigration stance.
For such a crucial issue like immigration reform, you can’t just have a certain stance one day and completely change your stance when you run for president (think John Kerry). Not only am I disappointed in the above presidential hopefuls, but this kind of flip-flopping gives the GOP a worse reputation than it already has.
When will the insanity come to an end? Maybe when we enact term limits for Congress.
When I was a kid, my first ever “political” memory was watching footage of the first Gulf War. Sitting on the couch with my dad watching ABC News (with Peter Jennings), I remember seeing tracer rounds light up the Baghdad sky. Looking back, I never knew I would serve my country in Iraq sixteen years later.
There’s a special feeling that comes with knowing you served your country. Fortunately, I served my country in southern Iraq. I wasn’t in a combat role, but I did provide communications support for those who were in combat or those who were providing security for convoys. I did my part to keep my country safe and I’m proud I served.
These days, I’m disappointed with what the Democratic Congress is doing with military spending, especially the supplemental called for by President Bush to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a conservative, I was disappointed that Democrats rose to power in Congress after the 2006 midterm election. In fact, upon hearing the election returns I literally lost my morning appetite. I was hopeful however, that the Democrats (with influence from moderate “Blue Dogs”) would actually keep their promise to their constituents to do everything in their power to protect the American people. Unfortunately, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the leftist kooks in Congress are walking a fine line between opposition to the president’s policies and full-blown treason.
The U.S. Constitution defines treason as “levying war against them [The United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” With their pandering to the far-left socialists in this country and spouting defeatist rhetoric, the Democratic leaders are dangerously close to treason as defined by the U.S. Constitution. By continuing to play politics with war appropriations bills that they know President Bush will veto, Democrats are in fact affecting America’s war-fighting capability and helping our enemies gain strength. Terrorists may never be able to defeat America’s military capabilities, but they know that by breaking public support for the war effort, Al Qaeda and other organizations will gain the upper hand just as the communists did in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
I am confident any traction the Democratic Party gained in national security during the 2006 election season has been absolutely wasted by pandering to the far-left. If Democrats in Congress somehow force U.S. troops to “redeploy” from Iraq, not only will Iraq erupt into chaos, but the Democratic Party will be finished as a legitimate political party. For the safety of the troops, the United States, and the Middle East, let us pray the Democrats will wise up to their ways and be willing to compromise with the commander-in-chief.