FederalRepublic.net

Last Wednesday, CNN and YouTube held a GOP Presidential Debate from St. Petersburg, Florida. That night I was one of 4.4 million Americans watching the GOP go at it in what I thought was the most combative Republican debate yet. My thoughts on the debate are as follows:

Rudy Giuliani: I like that Rudy is strong and steady when it comes to foreign policy. He’s out to kill some terrorists and all for that. But his “social conservatism” is quite unconvincing and his position on immigration is wanting. I don’t care if he feels undocumented children should be allowed to go to school or call emergency services. They’re still illegal aliens and need to leave the country. His “sanctuary mansion” line to Romney was childish and un-called for. He seemed a man in desperation because he knew Romney was right and he was wrong.

Giuliani: C+

Mitt Romney: Contrary to many political pundits in the blogosphere, I do NOT think Romney looked presidential or carried the debate. While strong on immigration and taxes, he finally admitted he was effectively pro-choice in Massachussetts and sounded absolutely horrible in his answers on gays in the military and torture. There were too many questions Romney just didn’t answer and left the audience (including me) wondering what he was REALLY thinking. The more I hear Romney get asked the hard questions, the more I’m starting to see why he’s being called a flip-flopper by both right-wing and left-wing ideologues.

Romney: D

John McCain: It’s no secret I’ve never liked McCain. He’s willing to compromise conservative ideals to work “across the aisle” and produce crappy legislation like McCain-Feingold and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. However, McCain stood strong on Iraq and the War on Terror in general. Though I disagree with his views about waterboarding and torture, McCain did not compromise and used his experience to his advantage. Overall good night for him; I suspect he’ll be gaining in New Hampshire because of it.

McCain: B-

Fred Thompson: Once again, Thompson impressed me to the point of boredom. While he offered good, constructive conservative answers to nearly every question, he didn’t give an answer that was really memorable. If he’s really a true federalist, I would think he’d be proposing plans that tout states’ rights. But in this day and age, federalism is only given lip service, including lip service from Thompson. This guy just doesn’t have the passion for the job. I guess he’d make a good governor or something, but I’m not sure about President of the United States.

Thompson: C

Huckabee: Huckabee had the momentum coming into this debate and it showed. Touting his socially conservative creditials and pushing his charismatic personality, I feel Huckabee will be doing very good in Iowa. He’s a Baptist preacher after all, so that should be enough to bring along the Evangelical block in early primary states. However, his record on taxes and spending is worse than Bill Clinton’s as governor and his views on immigration are horrible. I feel his “compassionate conservatism” includes pushing his morality upon the electorate in terms of higher spending and more stupid welfare programs this country cannot afford. He played the populist card in this debate, though it’s unfortunate many Americans will be duped into supporting him.

Huckabee: B

The Others: Except for Ron Paul, I don’t really remember what anybody else said. Tancredo is a one-issue candidate and Duncan Hunter just doesn’t have the “it” factor to be memorable anyway. I love Paul’s domestic ideas, but he’s just plain wrong on foreign policy.

The Others: F

Overall Feelings: Huckabee and Giuliani will remain in strong positions after this debate. The other candidates are a mixed bag, so we’ll see what happens. On a different note, the Clintonistas and the Obama/Edwards supporters made this debate look like a big joke. CNN just plain sucks at debates. Fox News definitely has nothing to worry about these days.

Even though I don’t agree that Mike Huckabee should be President of the United States, his new campaign ad is still pretty darn funny. Take a look:

So we all know that Mike Huckabee is rising in his poll numbers from Iowa, only trailing Mitt Romney. This, I think, is in large part to his socially conservative agenda that would attract traditional social conservatives along with evangelicals and pro-life supporters. While I do like his stances on gay marriage, abortion, the family, and many other traditional family values (he is a Baptist minister afterall), I think the following video is telling about his stance on big government and fiscal responsibility:

If this is the kind of “conservative” Mike Huckabee would be if he were in the White House, I’d rather pass. In a past GOP debate, he made no excuses for his tax hikes, saying he would not denounce his prior choice to raise taxes because Arkansas needed new roads. That position, in my mind, is foolish. The right way to raise revenue is to CUT taxes and REDUCE spending. Instead of acting like the *government* needs more money to close its budget gap, it’s about time politicians starting thinking of the money they bring in as *the people’s money* and quit spending more than they bring in.

If individuals and families are expected to be financially responsible, why shouldn’t government be as well?

Best exchange of the other night’s debate. I agree with Huckabee in that our nation must be united and finish the job in Iraq, but I also agree with Ron Paul that we should take our marching orders from the constitution and that it is the people’s responsibility to change the course of our nation through their representatives:

As a conservative who would identify much with mainstream conservative thought, especially when it comes to foreign policy, I am ashamed that Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate on stage arguing in favor of following the constitution. In fact, I see most, if not all of those candidates (perhaps with the exception of Tom Tancredo) offering more of the same big-government conservatism we’re used to seeing under George W. Bush. I mean, Rudy Guiliani started laughing at Paul when touting Congress’ authority in declaring war. Frankly, I became insulted by his lack of respect for constitutional principles and legitimate debate. Unfortunately, the only other candidate offering up ideas to protect our constitution who isn’t considered a fringe candidate like Paul is Senator Fred Thompson. By looking to states’ rights and federalism as a solution to many of our national political problems, Thompson has presented himself as someone who would consider federalism in and of itself, a solution to many of our country’s needs. Most of the candidates on stage last night seemed to be advocating stronger executive authority, especially in terms of war-making. In my opinion, instead of citing rhetorical nonsense that they would protect the constitution as president, perhaps the candidates should actually READ the constitution first.

Other examples of big-government conservatism among those who claim to be Reagan’s heir:

We see Mitt Romney offering tax cuts for, in his words, “middle income Americans” and those who make under $200,000 a year. I like Romney, but his economic rhetoric is just more class warfare in the same flavor offered up by Democratic candidates. He has also said he would enforce “decency” laws. Since when is it the government’s responsibility to regulate what is shown on television?!

Rudy Guiliani claims he would uphold the Constitution of the United States as president. How do pro-abortion (even taxpayer funded) and anti-2nd amendment sediments uphold what’s written in our constitution? Has he even read it? From last night, I really couldn’t tell.

Sam Brownback agreed that a federal marriage amendment must be ratified to protect marriage. First off Senator, marriage is not the responsibility of the federal government - it is a state issue only. I don’t remember anywhere in the constitution that says the Congress shall have the power to regulate the welfare of the family. Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves. Wanna go change social policy? Do it through state legislatures, not through usurpation of federal authority.

Mike Huckabee suggested that those who want to build a border fence are racists. Since when was it racist to want to protect your country from illegal invaders governor? In my opinion, Huckabee has his head so deep in the sand that he doesn’t realize this country will be transformed culturally and economically for the worse if we do not do something to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into this country. Maybe Huckabee should listen closer to Tom Tancredo, who suggested following the rule of law.

I know my post is a little short on specifics when it comes to exposing the hypocrisies of mainstream Republicans, but I see a distinct disconnect with what conservatives claim to support (the constitution) and what they are really for (executive usurpation of authority in wartime, bigger government, etc.). All I see is two parties vying for more government control over our lives and more government interference in our economy. Republicans are destroying our constitution for the sake of security. Democrats are destroying our constitution for the sake of socialism. Which is worse? They’re both equal because our constitution gets ripped to shreds at the end anyway.

His formal web announcement:

Because I can’t come up with a good introduction about how I felt coming into this week’s debate, I’ll get right to the point. The following is what I think of the candidates’ performances and their answers regarding current and pressing issues as heard on tonight’s Fox News debate:

Tom Tancredo: First, it seemed as though Tancredo was not granted as much time as top tier candidates in terms of simply answering questions. Tancredo just didn’t seem to fit in tonight, though I agree with much of what he says. Unfortunately, Tancredo has shown that he cannot perform in a debate setting by spouting out unorganized and multiple answers, showing the inability to hear the moderator, and going off on rants that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Tonight’s best Tancredo moment: Political correctness will kill us all!

Sam Brownback: It seems to me that though Brownback demonstrates socially conservative ideals that may appeal to the conservative base, the fact remains in my mind that Brownback is not one deserving of being Commander-in-Chief. In my opinion, Brownback has really nothing to offer conservatives other than his social positions. His idea that Iraq should be divided into a three state federal system is pointless to suggest when it is up to the Iraqis themselves to decide how their federal system is designed, not a U.S. President. Tonight’s best Brownback moment: Marriage is the foundation of society and should be protected.

Ron Paul: In mainstream GOP circles, Ron Paul is often accused of being a loon or a kook. It is said many times that his supporters are also kooks. To those in the GOP mainstream, I say that you have forgotten the basis of our government and would readily give away our liberties for security in the same way liberals would give away liberty for socialism. In my opinion, Ron Paul was great tonight when arguing against government intrusion. Unfortunately for Paul however, his foreign policy ideas are a joke in the 21st century. I felt that he even went to such extremes as to suggest indirect appeasement with America’s enemies. However, I do agree with him that Congress should have declared war for the current Iraq conflict and that we must return to the founders’ constitution to restore our republican form of government. Paul gets a thumbs up for domestic policy and a HUGE thumbs down for foreign policy. Tonight’s best Paul moment: “I take my marching orders from the constitution!”

Duncan Hunter: I truly wish Hunter had more of a following. Though he may very well be the most conservative candidate on the stage (vs. Paul who is more libertarian), Hunter simply does not have the charisma to draw a very big following. Sure he won the Texas GOP Straw Poll, but early primary states show Romney and Guiliani to be the frontrunners. Tonight’s performance offered nothing special, though he did press the Democrats into the validity of Gitmo’s treatment of prisoners and compare it to the treatment received at prisons within their districts. I’ll give Hunter a “B” for his military knowledge. Tonight’s best Hunter moment: His plan for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by replacing American troops with battle-hardened Iraqi soldiers.

Mike Huckabee: Many people around the blogosphere seem to think that Huckabee would make a fine vice president. The truth is, I can’t really see what is so special about this guy. Sure he’s a social conservative and tonight’s debate proved it, with Huckabee calling for national unity and faith in the midst of trying times. I feel however, that Huckabee is just too generic and his record on taxes isn’t really the best. To me, he’ll always be a “B” candidate because he just doesn’t represent himself like he should. Tonight’s best Huckabee moment: Debating Ron Paul about the realities of the Iraq conflict.

Rudy Guiliani: I thought Rudy had a strong performance tonight, though I often felt tired of hearing about what he did for New York City. It almost felt like that without Rudy, New York City would have collapsed into chaos. Anyway, he definitely held his own in the debate, arguing several times that his sole job as president would be to uphold the Constitution of the United States, something he really hasn’t said before. He also defended states’ rights and federalism when it came to the issue of the 2nd amendment through the argument that Virginia Tech may have not happened had someone had a gun on campus. Seems to me he’s already starting to delve into Fred Thompson’s arena. Tonight’s best Rudy moment: When he described the scenario in which Iranian sponsored nuclear terrorism should be a focus of our foreign policy considerations.

John McCain: To be blunt, John McCain should be out of the race. The only thing I really agree with McCain on is his view of the troop surge (that it’s working) and that spending must be restrained. I do not agree with him in many other areas, especially immigration. If you notice, McCain has finally seen the light for one reason or another, to support border protection. I really don’t think that’s gonna help Senator, you already killed any chance you had for president by supporting amnesty for illegals. Tonight’s best McCain moment: Our troops must come home with the honor they deserve.

Mitt Romney: I usually like Mitt. But sometimes I feel as if he gets a little too slick or doesn’t look like he really believes what he’s saying. But then again, maybe that’s just how he comes off. Of all the debates I’ve seen, Romney has been the most consistent, especially when it comes to his three-legged stool; the need for a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families. Tonight it seemed Rudy was getting on him a bit about unemployment and crime in Boston, though Mitt didn’t really retaliate. I think Romney continued to establish himself as a credible candidate tonight, arguing for tax reform, immigration reform, and a sensible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq based on the success of those on the ground. Tonight’s best Romney moment: Explaining the steps of withdrawal were dependent on the successes of ground troops.

Overall winners: Guiliani, Romney, Hunter

Overall losers: Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, Brownback, McCain

Bigger winner than the above: Fred Thompson because he declared his candidacy tonight and was noticably absent from the NH debate, opting to declare his candidacy on Leno.

This is why I will be keeping Ron Paul in mind when I vote in the primaries:

H/T to The Liberty Papers

So I guess this YouTube ad is supposed to get you thinking about the “ripples” or impact each person makes in society. But actually, it might make you think Mike Gravel is just a tad more crazy than you thought:

“The point of the spot is not the rock but the ripples it leaves in the water,” Gravel said Monday. They represent what he hopes to accomplish “as an ordinary citizen who’s trying to make a difference by doing something and it causes ripples in society.”

Gravel explains…

So I was surfing around on the web today checking out random political news and I came across this John Edwards YouTube video. Now I’m not really a fan of John Edwards in the slightest; he’s a socialist in Democratic clothing and he should not be president of anything in my opinion. Anyway, this interview with John Edwards is a more laid back one, though he offered the typical socialist rhetoric of improving America’s international reputation by holding conferences.

I noticed at the end of the video that the interviewer did a “shotgun” round with Edwards asking if the things he named off were rights or privileges. Take a look at Edwards’ insanity and socialistic nonsense:

Obviously, Edwards doesn’t know that owning a gun is a RIGHT as outlined in the United States Constitution, something he’d swear to uphold if elected chief executive. Liberals like Edwards don’t realize that many privileges we have in the states are results of the free market and its liberty-based development. Get a clue John, we don’t need more government messing around in our affairs or any more $400 haircuts while you talk of “Two Americas.”