Sunshine State?

Today is the Florida primary, and I did not want to speculate. If you know me, you know that's a lie. I have been hanging back on this one because I have not been able to research the climate in Florida. Today I will make a grave mistake; I will tell you my thoughts without fully researching the voters.

This is the first true closed republican primary. The true conservative should win with little effort, but that does not mean Mitt Romney is going to win. If Floridian Republicans are true conservatives, there is no question that they would vote for either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. As Fred has dropped out, that leaves Mitt Romney.

Rudy Giuliani has placed 80% of his chips on Florida, ignoring the early states. I have always thought this was a poor decision, but then again I am not part of his campaign staff, who cares what I think. Rudy might get a majority of the early voting, but I cannot see him doing any better than 3rd place.

My buddy John McCain has been driving the Double Talk Express up everyone's rear. I wish he would just drive it back to Congress. John is going to be a tough competitor in Florida, and I for the life of me do not know why. Why would republicans in a closed primary vote for a man whose record is as far skewed from the party? My hope is that Floridians open there eyes, and see what McCain really stands for. Remember something; HE PARTNERED WITH TED KENNEDY!!! Need I say more?

So if we follow the "typical" logic of a closed primary, the clear-cut winner is Mitt Romney, with John as a close second. Rudy will be third, but he will be so far behind that the diesel smoke from the Double Talk Express will have dissipated.

Republican flash response

Alright, my quick rundown while between debates:

Ron Paul

• Seemed clueless, and uninformed. Did not seems to know what he was talking about
• No good points, many areas where he avoided the question
  
• Tried to focus everything on the war, and made everything discussed about ending the war
  
• Paul can not lead a country on only the issue of the war. He was simply an annoyance
  

Mike Hukabee

• Childish attacks
  
• Took personal pop-shots
  
• Came across fairly strong on his issues
  
• Basically stayed on topic
  
• Seemed to give the other candidates more room to work, stayed out of the fray
  
• Decent standpoint well stated
  

Rudy Giuliani

• Quoted Romney
  
• Fairly gentlemanly (except the quips against Romney)
  
• Changed his statements during his statements
  
• Seemed to be advocating for Romney by stating Romney's points
  

Fred Thompson

• Stronger than I have seen him
  
• Poignant remarks
  
• Solid stand point
  
• Hit everyone except Romney with the issues (seemed to be on the same page as Romney except when he decided to attack Romney)
  
• Took no prisoners with his comments. Did not shy away from locking horns
  

John McCain

• Bitter and hateful
  
• Childish and spiteful
  
• Very vague in many instances
  
• Claimed he was not advocating amnesty (dishonest. He admitted he would let illegals stay)
  
• Fixated on Romney lying about him in "attack ads" (I checked the facts from Romney's ads. Romney ads are true)
  
• Struck me as the only politician on the stage. (everyone was more statesmen like)
• Turned me off. I now regret ever supporting him (2000)
  

Mitt Romney

• Gentlemanly
  
• No personal attacks
  
• Refused to retaliate when attacked personal
  
• Very strong and solid standpoints
  
• Consistent
  
• Seemed very presidential
• Solid positions

Overall

• The best debate format to date.
• The first 45 minutes were captivating
• Second half was also very informitive
  
• You can tell everyone is afraid of Mitt Romney by the personal attacks
• The childish comments toward Mitt we repugnant
  
• Mitt showed to be the most adult. He didn't stoop to the level of the other candidates. (attacks)
• The candidates all received ample time to talk
• Each candidate covered a great range of issues in great detail
  

Huckabee The Nominee

You know who I think was the real victor of the Republicans, and you know what I think is happening on the Democrats side. So this leaves us with some very simple facts to dissect on the Republican side. First is the Huckabee angle; what does this mean for Mike? Second is the Romney angle; how does this change Mitts chances in the primary? Third is how does this affect the other candidates? Well we know this means Huckabee gets 15 minutes of fame, but does it matter? Not really, but it give Huckabee the chance to hang around for an extra election or two. He has no chance of winning an election unless we become evangelical Christians. So I guess the question is who wants to convert? No takers? Alright, then lets write him off; he didn't win on the issues. He is only going to win in and around the Bible belt. I would be really surprised to see Huckabee win any other elections unless the Republican base are short sighted evangelicals who have not looked past the church doors for political information. This is not to say anything negative of you if you like Mike, but just to say you may not be looking at the big picture. First and foremost, who could he win against in a general election? Second, this is a republican primary and Huckabee is not ethical or a conservative. Republicans want conservatives.

What about Mitt? Well, he mopped the floor with the other candidates. The closest candidate to him was McCain with 13%. Romney won the election on the issues. Romney is now coming to New Hampshire where he is to face the other major candidate who made a blip on the Iowa map. McCain will not roll over in New Hampshire and may win next Tuesday. Does this mean Romney is dead? Could this be over before it even starts for Mitt Romney? Not even close. If McCain wins here in New Hampshire, Mitt has Michigan and South Carolina. Both states poll Romney with a favorable light. Romney will either gain the silver or the gold in New Hampshire before he receives a gold in Michigan and another gold or silver in South Carolina. Romney can win the Primary if he can stay in the top two or three for every election until "Super Tuesday." Iowa and New Hampshire will propel Romney to the top, even if McCain takes first here and Mike has Iowa. Romney just has to pull second.

So where are Thomson and Giuliani? Like I said before, Thompson landed with a thud. I think Thompson's campaign has been on life support for at least month now, and I think he is going to drop out after New Hampshire. I would be surprised to see him in South Carolina, but I do not intend to see him at "Super Tuesday." As far as Giuliani, it's hard to win if you do not show up. He is betting on the later states to crown him king. I hope others have enough good sense to see his true intentions. Rudy only cares about you if you are a major state. If he cares about you, he only cares that you see him how you like your candidate (in the style of Hillary). Does he have some real positions? Yes, he is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I pray Florida knows that Rudy wants to grant amnesty to all the illegal's soaking up space in their state. To the legal immigrants and children of legal immigrants how are voting, think about Rudy's "amnesty measures" when your time comes. The Caucus only affected Mitt and Mike; no other candidate mattered in Iowa.

If you learned one thing from Iowa, please know his:

Mitt Romney won.

This is Getting Interesting

The Iowa caucus has traditionally been an informal vote of about 10% of the voting population. This year was nothing different. About 10% showed up and "voted" for their candidate. We had Obama winning on the Democrats side, and Huckabee on the Republican. Both sides showed very clearly who the most viable candidate for both sides is. I know … how can Mike Huckabee be viable? I never said he was, only that the vote showed us who was viable. Now that I have teased you, let me swing our attention to the Democrats. If you want to read about the Republicans, read this post.

So Obama wins by a good margin, followed by Edwards, and Clinton as the caboose. This is a fitting order in my opinion. I think Clinton makes a good rear end, and I don't want her to think she can just glide in, take the vote and glide out. She is still going to be the nominee in my opinion, but I would like to see her work for it. Further, if she has to raise hell on the way to the nomination, the other Democrats are going to start digging into her past. This will make my job easier (picking her apart), and it also make an easier victory for the Republican candidate (not like they need it). If you expect me to take more pop-shots, please wait for another post. I try to reserve those so I can spread them out and not be too repetitive.

Edwards should be used to second. It seems to me he has been there before. Then again, he HAS been there before, and therefore he knows how to run for office. For Edwards to pull second place is about the same as saying he tripped on a stair. Do not count Edwards out because he is not a new kid on this block. You must watch Edwards, he learned from the best. I am not being hypocritical; I still stand by my other post. John Edwards appeals to a particular group within the Democratic voting population. Hillary is still the favorite.

Our buddy Obama is a wild stallion on the stage. No one knows quite how to handle him. Do you attack him, discredit him, or ignore him? He is the first viable "black" candidate offered in a primary election. Obama has staying power, but I don't think he can pull New Hampshire under his wing. Hillary seems to be the one speaking New Hampshire's liberal language. Obama is going to make this a close race, but I don't know if he can get over on Hillary.

Hillary VS Obama offers a new piece to the game board, one I had not thought about. If Obama take New Hampshire, Hillary might not fair too well in the primary. My assumption was Hillary would resonate with Iowa in the same fashion as she does here in the Granite State. I expected Hillary to get silver, maybe gold, and then plow though New Hampshire like a moose in the brush (New Hampshire reference). Now I am rethinking the ease of access for Hillary. South Carolina is a state that has a high ratio of minority voters. Right now, they are not voting for Obama because they do not think "white America" would vote for him. What happens if he wins New Hampshire and Iowa? Both states are 95% "white," doesn't this prove that Obama can win the white vote? Will this sway the South Carolina voters? Many questions, few answers. Here are my thoughts; Even if Obama takes the first two elections, then takes South Carolina, he can not win. Hillary is the "Hollywood candidate" who will sweep New York, Massachusetts, and the entire "Left Coast." Obama is going to get a HUGE bounce, but it will not rocket him into the general election.

Obama is going to make this one interesting, and Edwards is going to be a thorn in the side. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the only MAN standing.

Republican YouStooge Debate

First and foremost, I want to apologize. You asked for my analysis, and I made you wait. Why haven't I written about the Youtube Debate? This is a great question, especially since Mitt stole the show. There are a few reasons why I did not write about this, the most obvious is because of the blatant fraud CNN committed. I should have posted my thoughts the day after the debate, but I wanted see what else would unfold excluding the "Clinton plant." This was supposed to be a debate not and evening of Democrat plants from one side of the room to the other. As the evening unfolded, I noticed that even the questions were erroneous, or portrayed in an erroneous light.

Typical, I would have to back up my arguments here, but I just feel like I am telling you what you already know. CNN flew a guy out from California to Florida to accost the candidates face to face. Why would CNN fly him out? Simple, because the Clinton News Network (CNN) thought it would be good to have a member of Hillary's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tran-sexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee spout rhetoric at the Republicans on the stage. Way to go CNN. You really showed your "fair and slanted" side there didn't you. Don't get me wrong, I like and watch CNN, but this stunt went too far. The next mornings follow up with John Roberts was pathetic. Keith Kerr tried to say his "…friend…" just "put (his name) there" on the steering committee list and he had nothing to do with it. I don't know what is worse, the fact that it happened, the lie from Kerr, or Roberts sitting there trying to act like CNN had no idea about this mans background. It took me one quick web search and I knew were this "Log Cabin Republican" stood. (Can you taste the sarcasm?)

You know, I am enjoying this, so let me continue dissecting the deceit in an indirect way. I have not read much from Michelle Malkin, but look at how much she has uncovered. Hillary was not the only Democrat to be represented at the "debate," Obama and Edwards also were represented. So what's the deal? CNN can pull this stuff on the Republicans but the Democrats are allowed to skip a FOX debate? Oh look, here we have the New York Lies, I mean, Times trying to justify the withdrawal of the Democrats from said debate. … Sorry, I went off on a tangent there … Anyhow, Michelle pointed out other issues with the people selected, but she did not point out my thoughts from the evening of the debate; "What did CNN do, look for the worst videos to portray conservatives as pathetic extremists?" What was with the questioners, and more importantly what was that music video they used to open? The whole debate format turned me off. The candidates were great and took it in stride, but I do not feel I "got my money's worth" from the debate. At least they didn't use these videos.

CNN and Youtube did a great job disappointing me, just like the Democrats youtube debate. Just about every question seemed out of place in a GOP presidential primary. Almost every question that leaned towards conservative beliefs was asked by a "youtuber" who looked or acted like they escaped from a mental institution, or came straight out of the movie "deliverance." It seems that CNN hand pick the most unstable looking people to ask a conservative values question. The most eloquent of the questioners asked questions with a liberal slant. Why can't we have relevant questions asked in a mature manner by one moderator? If you want input from the constituents, ask them to write in a question, and then create a list of the questions asked. Present the list to the candidates and let them debate the topics. This would allow the constituents to see how their candidates fair on the issues. If candidates have differing opinions, this gives us an opportunity to hear both sides and understand both viewpoints. You know, like a debate!

Many of the questions were good at the heart, yet ridiculous on the surface (I like the bible question, but not the way it was asked). Conversely, many were simply ridiculous. This style of "youtube debate" is degrading to the candidates, and degrading to me. So what was the point of the Youtube debate? It was so real Americans could ask the candidates question … if CNN liked the slant. The debate left me with more questions and less answers. Did we learn anything about the candidates, or did we just hear grandstanding by the democrat sympathizers? Why was there so much rhetoric in the questions and audience responses? Why did CNN transport a Hillary committee member to the debate? Incase I haven't explained this well enough, CNN=liberal.

For anyone who has been paying attention over the past few months, you learned almost nothing.

For those who were not paying attention until now, you learned this:

Republicans make really bad Democrats.

Oh, you must be joking

Ok, I know most of you have seen my poll questions, and you know I put up one "funny" answer. I am just letting you all know that Ron Paul was not the "Joke" answer, I was being serious. Obviously you thought it was a joke answer and thought it would be funny to vote for Ron Paul, but let's be serious for just one second. Ron Paul did not win the last debate, nor did he win any debate. Ron Paul was completely unimpressive, yet very comical while he babbled on like a mental patient. He lost on all the issues and had his hat handed to him by the heavyweights on the stage. Honestly, if you really think Ron Paul is the right guy for the job, your almost as misguided as those who think Hillary has experience because her Husband was president.

I have noticed something common about people who support Ron Paul. Every person I have talked to who is a "Ron Paul Supported" seems to have blinders on. They seem to only hear what they want to hear, and ignore the parts they do not want to hear. Here is an example from a conversation I had at the local Ron Paul headquarters:

I asked a gentleman what was going to happen to the United States if we pull the troops out of Iraq with no regard for the climate of the middle east. The response was "Who cares what happens in the middle east, they are not here."
I assumed that he might have misheard what I asked, so I rephrased, "So when the middle east falls into chaos, oil hits $150 a barrel, and fanatic Islamic terrorist start blowing up targets in Europe and United States, your ok with this?"
Again, he said "Who cares what happens over in the middle east."
Frustrated, I tried one last time, "So you don't care if the collateral damage from pulling our troops out causes oil to hit over $150 a barrel, and suicide bombers start blowing up you family and friends here in the United States."
He looked exasperated and exclaimed, "Don't you understand? If they want to blow themselves up, let them. If they raise oil to $150 a barrel, we will just use other fuels. It's not our problem, we are not the world police."
Dumbfounded, I blinked and said "Ok, thank you for the information. I don't think you are listening to me. I am sorry that we can not have an intelligent conversation."
He wished me a good afternoon and thanked me for stopping by. I nodded then asked if he heard a word I said. He nodded and explained "Ron Paul is the wave of the future. We are tenacious, and we will prevail."
He either never heard a word I said, or just did not understand what I was asking.

Tenacious? Well, maybe so if you mean stubborn or obstinate. Is this the message that should be coming from your political headquarters? Just like his supporters, Ron Paul seems to have blinders on. His view seems narrower on Iraq than any other issue. I would love to see Dr. Paul explain his feelings about the collateral damage that he wants to reek on the world. I dare you to address the fall out you intend to cause when you pull our troops out immediately. I know Paul will not address this because he knows he is wrong.

One piece of advice to the misguided, "don't miss the forest for the trees." Get the big picture.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 3

Personally, I think Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians in the world, though I have never and would never vote for him. Nothing seems to sticks to the "Teflon Clintons", no matter how bad it may be. If we learned anything from Bill, it is that not even a major mistake is enough to topple a Clinton. So effectively, Hillary has the best political adviser at her disposal. This means that by her own actions, name recognition, and Bill's advice, she can lose only if she makes a major mistake. Hillary continues to prove this as she avoids taking a stand or decides to alter her statements with the political tide.

The latest example of Hillary twisting in the wind came forth at the latest debate. When Hillary was asked if she was for or against the Governor of New York giving out driver licenses to illegal immigrants, she said at first she was for it. In case you missed it, by proxy she was for it when she said, "… So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap." She was then rebuked by her colleagues, and in the next breath, she was against such a proposal: "I just want to add that I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize what (why) Governor Spitzer is trying to do it, and we have failed, we have failed." Chris Dodd again jumped at the bit, and interjected with, "no, no, no, you said... you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Hillary challenged Chris with an outright lie, stating, "no… no I didn't, Chris." I am sorry, but yes …yes you did, Hillary. But why are you so upset about being caught in a lie? It is not news when a Clinton lies, but you're acting like someone just said you broke one of the Ten Commandments. Oh, wait, that was your husband… who you're still married to… who you knew cheated on you… numerous times….

Moving on, she was then asked unequivocally if she supported the New York Governor's plan and she responded with, "This is where everyone plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense; what is the governor supposed to do?" Then John Edwards hit one out of the park when he wanted to "add something to what Chris Dodd (said because he) didn't want it to go unnoticed." He pointedly stated that, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." John might not be the most eloquent man on the stage, but his comment really drove home the inconsistency of Hillary's statement. Will this be a negative thing for her? Maybe, but this won't stick to Hillary, nor should this be a complication for her while running for the nomination. Want proof? This 3.5 minute video will show how little people are affected by Hillary and her "two minute flip-flop." Hillary will be representing the democrats for 2008 and we still don't know where she stands.

Rudy may be running as a Republican, but he is not running to the right for the primary. He has been fairly liberal on a number of social issues (immigration, pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights). He seems to be running to the center during the primary, and is popular enough with conservatives to get their vote in a general election. Right now, it looks like Republicans will take anyone who qualifies as Republican so long as they think that person can beat Hillary and/or Obama. I can't shake the feeling that Rudy isn't running to the center from the right, rather he is actually left of center. He may be just slightly right on some issues, but the social inconsistencies make me very hesitant. Rudy became America's Mayor in September 2001, and is now a household name. He passes as a Republican, and handles the spotlight well. He may not be the best Republican by his record, but I think he can hold his own against Hillary. As I have said, he is a bit liberal and Republicans just won't vote for Hillary. This is a very attractive combination for a Republican running for election in 2008. Conservative Democrats and independents will vote for Rudy and maybe he can capture the moderate and slightly liberal independents. There are some good points to draw the conservatives closer to him during the general election; he is tough on crime, and that may transpose to a tough military leader. Rudy was about getting the job done when he ran New York City, and that might be an approach that would work well with Iraq and also the war on terror. If Rudy is half as tough running our military, there is a good chance he can end the current conflict we are having with the Islamic jihadists. Then again, he might metaphorically knock down a beehive, stirring up the nest, to remove it from the building.

One other quick point on Rudy; one of his recent commercials personifies my greatest fear. Rudy has stated, "…I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about." So what Rudy is saying to me is that he wants to do it all his way. So Rudy, are you willing to make concessions to pass legislation? When you are president, how thick will you make the log jam of legislation? Again, I think we need a leader who knows how to make concessions, and works well with others. I do not believe headstrong bullheaded policies are good for the nation, but I do believe that mindset will cause polarization and hyper-partisanship. Rudy might win the nomination, but I still don't think he is the right person for the job.

As you all know, I am having a hard time leaving Mitt Romney out of the mix here. I can't help but think what Mitt could do as President. As I stated in my last post, Mitt can do it all, but I also feel that he can handle the Iraq situation with greater finesse than any other person on either stage. Mitt has the right idea when it comes to immigration, taxes, extremists, and health care. Mitt is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, and would be a great president. Rudy might be a good president, but Mitt would be great. I have heard every candidate, and met many of them. There is no question in my mind that the next leader of the free world should be Mitt Romney. I may not agree with everything Mitt has to say, but I do agree with him on every issue that I find important.

Considering my feelings about the next election, and who will be the nominees, there is one slim silver lining; we will have a Republican in office next. Unless Mitt Romney can overcome Rudy Giuliani in the primary (I am crossing my fingers and praying real hard for Mitt), ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America is Rudy Giuliani.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 2

In the last post, I decided who I thought would be the Democrats nominee. To get the Republican nominee, I have to remove the dead weight on the Republican side. To do so, I will remove Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. We also have to remove one who is moving up to viable status, Mike Huckabee. You may argue with my choices for elimination, but let's be serious; none of these guys have a chance to win their respective parties nomination, not even Mike Huckabee.

As for the major candidates on the Republican side, a haggard John McCain has only been marginally significant at the debates until late. McCain has taken a stronger stance on a few key issues. This has made his agenda line up with the conservative party's mentality. Unfortunately, I fear it may be too little too late for him change his mind. To come out and say, (paraphrased) 'yeah I was wrong on immigration and NOW I am listening,' is not good enough for me. I feel that when he addressed his change of heart, McCain forgot to add that he is listening because you are not voting for him. As of late, McCain has been looking livelier on stage. He is now pushing the conservative agenda. Yet when we look back at his recent record and we see that McCain has gone completely in the wrong direction for the heart of the conservative party. McCain has also changed the game plan in his bid for nomination. He has decided to deflect the flip flop allegation by moving the heat to Mitt Romney. McCain has gone to great lengths to show Romney as a foe conservative by Mitts actions as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt had to work with liberal legislators in Massachusetts, but in the senate you have to push the agenda of your party, not the agenda of the opposition. McCain seems to have forgotten this as evidenced by campaign finance reform, Illegal immigration, and gay marriage (you have to go back to early 2005 to find this one). I am not saying one should not make concessions in the senate, but rather push bills that are aligned with the party mindset.

Fred Thompson landed with a thud. The poor boy hit the ground, but forgot to start running. He was wholly unimpressive with his first debate being fairly vague yet comical. Fred threw out a few comedic one liners without taking any major stands. Thompson was using the January dodge maneuvers of the early primary candidates. At his point in the game, he should be taking the bull by the horns and talking about the specifics that voters are looking. Thompson has been better with specifics, but not with his charisma. I have been reading article that tell about crowds that didn't even know when Thompson was finished with his speeches. I saw Thompson here in Nashua, and was not moved by anything he said. If Fred had not have spoken he would have received a better reaction. To be honest, every time I have heard him speak, or read a transcript, he loses points in my book. If Fred was not on Law and Order, I do not believe he would be any higher in the polls than Tom Tancredo. In another strange twist of events, Thompson seems to think he should be picking apart Giuliani. If I was speculating as to Thompson's game plan, I would say he is going after Giuliani to make headway in his stalled campaign. By attacking Giuliani, he is making himself relevant to the voters and media outlets. His speeches and debates do not seem to resonate with conservatives; therefore attacking Giuliani will get the headlines he can not generate on merit alone. I am not sure if this is the right move, but he is getting more air time, and sound bites.

The man who shows the most promise in the Republican race is Mitt Romney. Romney has been solid from day one with his family values, conservative mindset, and his ability to work with both sides of the aisle. His record shows parts of liberal legislation as he worked together with the heavily Democratic legislature of Massachusetts. Romney used the line item veto to cut out excessive spending and to bring forth a fiscally conservative bill to the populace of his constituents'. The legislature did over-ride many of his vetos, but keep in mind that Massachusetts has a legislature that is 85% liberal. You must also note that when a Governor veto's a bill, you can not count it against the Governor when a veto is overridden. To put this in perspective, if your car is stolen, and involved in an accident, it is not your fault. Sometimes you need to make concessions to get what you want. Hyper partisanship causes a log jam for legislation and Romney knows this. In other words, Romney has the conservative values that conservatives crave, he can work with both sides of the aisle to the elation of the independents, and he also will allow a concession which appeases the liberals. We need Romney now because he can work legislation though, and he would work the hardest to get the job done. Not to say the others would not work their hardest, but the others candidates hardest is Mitts easy pace. The man never breaks a sweat because he thrives on pressure and success. Romney has the record to show he would be effective as president. Unfortunately, I have not predicted Mitt as the nominee, though he would be the best candidate and President. If nothing changes, Mitt only has a 49% chance of becoming the nominee for the Republicans. Even though Mitt can, and would, mop the floor with Hillary Clinton, Rudy has a very good chance of winning the nomination. Though I know Romney should win hands down, in the contest of Romney VS. Rudy, I can't say Romney would win.

… And the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani …