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.

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.