FederalRepublic.net

Mitt Romney is my favorite coming into tonight’s debate. As always, I’d prefer a strong showing for him tonight. McCain and Giuliani haven’t really grown on me since they announced their candidacy, so I’m not really expecting anything spectacular. In fact, I’m kind of hoping Ron Paul goes to town on Giuliani when it comes to foreign policy. I don’t agree with Ron Paul, but someone needs to actually debate Rudy on the issues. Afterall, the former mayor has nothing to run on except his post 9/11 leadership and that’s not enough for me to vote for him.

I really hope McCain is attacked tonight by all nine candidates on his immigration stance. In my opinion, immigration will kill McCain’s chances of ever becoming President of the United States. The GOP base is becoming increasingly frustrated with his kind in Congress and I expect that anger will translate into someone else getting the nod next February.

I really want to hear more from Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul and I hope they get the airtime. The debate is live in 26 minutes.

Another sign Senator Fred Thompson may be making time for a political future:

“I’ve spoken to Fred today, and although he told me he has not made a firm decision about his political future, he felt that given the creative and scheduling constraints of the upcoming season, he asked to be released from his responsibilities to the show,” “Law & Order” creator/executive producer Dick Wolf said Wednesday. “I will sincerely miss working with him on a regular basis, and I obviously wish him the best of luck with whatever the future holds.”

Read the whole thing…

From Politico.com:

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

-Snip-

Thompson’s formal announcement is planned for Nashville. Organizers say the red pickup truck that was a hallmark of Thompson’s first Senate race will begin showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire as an emblem of what they consider his folksy, populist appeal.

A testing-the-waters committee is to be formed June 4 so Thompson can start raising money, and staffers will go on the payroll in early June, the organizers said. A policy team has been formed, but remains under wraps.

If Fred Thompson declares his candidacy, I guarantee he will shake up the GOP status quo. What’s impressive to me is that if Fred declares, the GOP may finally field a candidate who is a champion of the constitution, federalism, and states rights.

A couple videos giving a brief overview of Thompson’s political leanings:

So Hillary Clinton finally came out and admitted she’d rather have a country based on socialism, instead of one based on personal responsibility:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

I never knew it was my responsibility to provide for the welfare of others, especially in some socialist wealth distribution scheme. I don’t think the Constitution of the United States says anything about distributing the wealth of some for the “welfare” of others in terms of government programs and nanny-state handouts.

“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

So it’s the government’s responsibility to create more red tape and regulation for business? I don’t think so. History has shown that the free market works for the betterment of society if left to fend for itself; that the interest of the one will necessarily work for the interest of the whole. It’s time to get the government out of the market, to free business from the red tape and absurd regulations that keep the government in our lives. The market works best when people are allowed to run things - not government officials who want more and more of the people’s freedoms and money for control of an increasingly dependent populace.

Read the whole thing…

Everyone should be reminded of this Hillary quote from 2004:

“We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Her statements do not deny what conservatives have known for a long time; Hillary Clinton wants socialism in this country. If elected President, I believe she will stop at nothing to transform this country into something resembling the typical European economy.

In my opinion, this guy would pulverize any candidate put up by the Democrats in 2008:

Apparently, John McCain and John Cornyn had a “spirited exchange” before going public on the recent immigration deal:

During a meeting Thursday on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources — both Democrats and Republicans — who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.

At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.

Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. “Wait a second here,” Cornyn said to McCain. “I’ve been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You’re out of line.”

McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).

“[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.

John McCain, you’ve sold out your constituents, your party, and the America people more times than I’d like to mention, especially when it comes to immigration and your back room dealings with Ted Kennedy on any number of issues. I hope Giuliani or Romney pulvarize you in the primaries. You don’t deserve to be President of the United States.

Update: I’ve had enough of McCain’s crap.

After making a few comments, McCain left the Capitol to head to New York for presidential campaign events. Later that day, McCain missed his 43rd straight vote, this on the $2.9 trillion budget outline.

And he has the nerve to jump on Cornyn for legitimate issues when he’s missed 43 votes. Thanks for earning your paycheck Senator…sickening.

Read the whole thing…

Do I think Ron Paul was wrong last night about nonintervention in regards to Al Queda? Absolutely. But is Paul a crazy nutjob? Absolutely not. As I predicted yesterday, Paul’s comments about nonintervention were misinterpreted by the mainstream media and many GOP pundits. Paul was not saying that we were at fault for 9/11, but rather our interventionist foreign policy made an attack like 9/11 more plausible. He also stated that the United States needs to give thought to our interventionist policy, being aware that some of our actions worldwide could cause resentment or “blowback.”

I don’t really agree with Ron Paul in that our foreign policy makes attacks like 9/11 more plausible, but it makes sense that some regions of the world could resent our actions. However, for the sake of the national interest, the world and its “opinion” can stick it. The interests of the United States come first, not the interests of other nations.

Anyway, here’s the YouTube clip - decide for yourself.

Update: Doug Mataconis has a great article on the distortion of Ron Paul’s comments here.

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.