A Close Eye on Texas Gov Race - Debate Thoughts

Current Governor Rick Perry went toe to toe with challengers Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and liberty minded Debra Medina tonight in a Governors Debate for the March 2010 election. After watching (and as I am currently watching as I write) my general feelings are as follows:

1. Rick Perry has his hands full against these two ladies. He has a decade of service in the state to answer for, has increased taxes and regulation, and has merely paid lip service to libertarian causes. He is being hit hard, and rightfully so, on misleading voters while acting in opposition to campaign promises. Not to mention there is a huge budget problem in the state... This could be why he has two challengers on the ticket.

2. Sen. Hutchinson is also at risk in this election due to her many years of service in the Senate. With congressional ratings being beyond unpopular, and Hutchinson's voting record showing ne'er a sign of leadership over party politics, it is no wonder she is taking some direct hits from Gov. Perry on her involvement in the current scandals of the Federal Government.

3. Debra Medina, the dark-horse underdog, is asking and answering questions like a Tea Party Candidate. Her answers echo the Liberty First/Anti-Authoritarian policies committed to on this blog and on the blogs of many of my followers. Her non-status-quo standing and underdog status makes her battle an uphill one, but while watching the back-and-forth between Perry and Hutchinson it is clear that they do not consider her a major candidate...which could be an advantage when the papers come out tomorrow reading "Underdog Steals the Show"

This debate, for me, has piqued interest in the dark-horse Candidate - Debra Medina. If what I say and support on this blog is to be attached to a candidate, I have to openly and honestly support Medina and candidates LIKE Medina. Her stance on immigration, drugs, taxes, and states sovereignty are what ALL governors should embrace.

Medina Closing Summary: We have a real opportunity to restore the pillars and principle of the founders, of state sovereignty, and of Texas independence per the state constitution with special council to the Federal Government.

Closing statements from Perry and Hutchinson were dismal, lifeless, and the run-of-the-mill "think of the children" responses you would expect from the same old gaggle.

If you want Texas to be led by a LIBERTY candidate, send Debra Medina a few of your tanking dollars... With a little bit of luck we can get a governor in this nation willing and able to stand up and take on the Federal Government the way only a governor can!

I am adding Debra Medina to my OFFICIALLY ENDORSED list!

McCain/Palin - Eeking Out Victory in '08?

After watching the lack-luster Presidential Debate last night, and reading the headlines over the past few days regarding presidential politics, I am willing to hedge my bets. John McCain and Sarah Palin will win the electoral vote by a spread of 10 points - 274 to 264, Colorado being the deciding vote and leaning McCain by less than 10,000 votes.

I am willing to predict that Obama/Biden pick up huge victories in NY and California, giving them a 2 million vote spread in the popular vote - bringing about the same arguments we saw after 2000, where Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote, sparking disputes whether the electoral vote is representative of the will of the people.

In fact, the electoral vote is what keeps this country a Republic - and saves us from a mob-ruled Democracy in the Federal Government.

Barack Obama is going to have a tough race over the next few weeks. There is finally some more in depth reporting regarding his questionable associations, his economic policy, and his record. Obama's headlines this week include ACORN voter registration fraud on the order of tens of thousands in battleground states, Breaking his promise to his wife regarding smoking, Democrat tactics (including hacking e-mail accounts) in intimidating supporters of McCain and Undecided Voters... Dissenters of Barack Obama are going to spend the next few weeks ripping the Junior Senator apart, and it will be enough to swing the undecided voters in the traditionally red states back in to the McCain/palin camp.

McCain will take Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina by about 5%.
McCain will take Ohio and Colorado by 2%.

It will be tight, but the negative message about Obama is only going to be muted by Obama pumping tens of millions into counter ads attempting to repair his image - money that has been questionably raised - breaking numerous federal election laws... which will be made well known.

The upside is that this will all be over in a few weeks, and we will see the uneasiness in the markets settle down a bit, and the country will begin to move forward in one direction or the other.

Under Obama, we can be sure that the markets will hit about 8000 as investors pull out their money to avoid the "threshold of wealth" in the sights of Obama's "fairness tax". Small business and large business alike will be motivated to hide funds or under-perform to avoid the higher taxes. There will be a motivation for restraining business growth, whcih will lead to the elimination of actual economic growth. Jobs will disappear, unless the Federal Government creates a jobs program for the Green Energy "industry" which will actually be the Green Energy Administration - and jobs will be under the Federal Government Payroll.

Under McCain, there is at least some hope for allowing the American people the opportunity to fix their situation as part of a reprise of personal responsibility in spending, health, and energy. There will be tax breaks for all, spending reductions across the board, and an end to Bush's Big Government Boom! There is some hope with McCain's policy of ousting corruption in lending, lobbying, and leadership that the government will shrink, taxes will stay low, and local governments will feel the pressure to take over where the federal government has intruded on their authority.

There will be no unity in 2008. If McCain wins, the angered and trained Obamanites will partake in the practice of civil disobedience. Leftist Fascism will be at an all time high through Code Pink, ACORN, and Move-On groups trying to quiet the conservatives/Republicans from conducting a clean-up operation in our government. It will be no better from the left than it is now, under Bush - because those on the left HATE anyone who disagrees with them. If Obama wins, there will be tactics from the right to stall any of his policies from becoming law. There will be a massive failure of the government to operate under these extreme bills and regulations (which is why the congressional and Senate races are more important than the Presidential race).

Either way, we are at a societal crossroads in America. The left has become so left that socialist/communist would be a compliment to them. The right has been abandoned for the middle-left, and those who remain on the right are radically outside of common thinking, even if they are spot on classically for American Politics.

Assuming I am right, and McCain/Palin wins, there is hope that the future of the country will begin it's pendulum swing back to the center, giving hope for true reform in government towards a smaller, less authoritarian "master" federal government.

Assuming I am wrong and this nation continues left, there could be a collapse of the Union under the pressure of the overbearing federal government - leading to possible civil war, or in the least a new form of a confederation between states or regions. What happens next in America is anyone's guess... but as it was once said: Keep your powder dry. Save your resources and be prepared for anything, because uncertainty is staring us in the face!

Palin: Pointing Fingers at Bush, in the past, is NOT Change

Perhaps one of my favorite clips from the Vice Presidential debate last night was when Sarah Palin challenged the "change" that Obama/Biden represent, versus the reform that McCain/Palin represent. Obama and Biden are pushing the blame game, attempting to play off the emotion of the people, insisting that "A Republican by any other name is still a Bush!"

Palin struck back with the following:

h/t to Brigate for posting this clip at: Desde la resistencia - where she also explains why McCain may be hesitant to visit with her President in Spain.

Sarah Palin is right. Once the next President gets in office the fingers are going to be pointed at him! So your strategy had better be more than pointing fingers to bring the country together.

Real change is a reform in government - not a societal change of leftist policies and hate politics - there is no "Unity" in that... merely a political catch phrase. Obama has no record of Unity, and is openly disgusted by conservatives and Republicans in General. So much for "Change"

Palin Clear: Energy Independence GOP VP Focus

Sarah Palin cleared the muddied air about her ability and role as the next Vice President of the United States - she is there to take on the hurdle of ensuring energy independence in the Untied States. As the Vice President, she will ensure that the policy of "All of the Above" will bring about true energy independence in the United States!

The plan that she will enforce is a plan that will make the United States dependent on no one other than ourselves for energy. That includes a phased set of milestones, not a complete and immediate withdrawal from carbon based products (immediate withdrawal seems to be a common trend to Obama/Biden)

The plan will play out thusly:

1. Increase production of America's oil reserves - including shale. This will allow the current infrastructure to survive the transition to alternative energy. Obama/Biden see the need for alternative energy, but they refuse to admit that their policy will be grossly ineffective if they do not sustain the current infrastructure as we build the bridge to the future.

2. Invest in the capital of America's Future - Alternative Energy. Begin a process to incentivize car companies to steer away from Gasoline engines, tending towards Natural Gas or Electric. Establish an incentive program to encourage households to install solar panels - enough to reduce the need for residential power by a large percentage across America. Then begin to convert power usage from coal and oil to wind, solar, and the remaining nuclear plants built to initially sustain the energy system.

Palin is undoubtedly and undeniably the perfect candidate to take on energy independence. McCain giving her full reign in this arena was the best move for America's energy future.

In contrast, and as a side note, Biden's role as VP would be to council Obama, but let him be President... what kind of an answer is that?

Regardless - it is clear that Palin will be the leader in Energy Independence starting on day one as Vice President of these United States.

Democrats Debate - Government the Answer

I was watching the Democratic debates last night, and wanted to share a few comments today.

During the first hour, the theme of the debates was "Integrity" and "Electability". Obama made reference on a few occasions that these topics were distractions, and the real discussion in the campaigns should be "the issues".

The fact that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think that integrity is an issue MAKES it an issue!

When a candidate for president lies about being fired at and having to run for cover, but then gives a statement that she mis-remembered... well, it has the same integrity of a president asking what the actual definition of "IS" is... There needs to be a new occurrence in US politics: If a politician lies, it should be our duty to reply, "That sir (or ma'am) is a lie!"

Imagine the flashbulbs going off as they try to fix the statement on the spot... I'll tell you what, holding our elected officials accountable to their words is a great way to truly find out who the characters of substance are, versus the trash we see today.

In fact, Obama's lies are worse than Clinton's... Clinton at least knows that she is a liar... Obama believes that he is actually telling the truth. And if you believe it, it must be true... Ask Kucinich about his UFOs.

For instance, Obama should come out and say, simply, that the speech he gave in SF was meant to be heard only by those in the city. He was simply trying to tell the city folks that he believes they are living a better life for deciding to live blissfully in dense urban areas... meanwhile, he believes that those who live a rural lifestyle are bitter and angry that our lives do not amount to that of the city-folk... and as such, we cling to the bare-bone, knuckle-dragging basics of sentient beings: religion and guns. If he told the truth, THAT is what it would sound like.

Unfortunately, there is not an honest or moral bone between the two of them... IMHO.

The common theme in the second hour was that "government is not doing enough to make life better". Government is the answer. There is no way that the people can be trusted to improve their own lives... the government needs to step in and help.

I saw a great sign in front of a church last weekend, which read: God does not promise a smooth flight, just a soft landing.

That is wisdom! The trials and tribulations of day-to-day living ARE life! As people of high moral fiber, we should take the challenge of the storm and sail on, learning the lay of the land, and becoming wiser as we fail and try again.

But to be at a point where you can no longer stomach the fight, and you beg for mercy from government, you are no longer a citizen... you are a subject.

A citizen tells the government how it is going to be.

A subject is told by the government how it is.

To expect the government, an entity that is fastly becoming uncontrollable, to be the savior of the people is the suicide of liberty.

Hillary Clinton and Barry Obama both stated last night that the answer to the woes of the country is bigger government. Economic crisis - More government regulation and intervention. Fuel prices - more government regulation and intervention. Mortgage issues - more government regulation and intervention. Higher Taxes, more government social programs... rob from the rich to house, clothe, educate, feed, bathe, enrich the poor... Give to those in need from those who have the ability. The very basic principle of Socialism.

The summary of the debate: We cannot, as Conservative Americans, stand by and let one of these two Socialists step a foot inside the White House.

The Debate Whisperer

Last night, as I was watching the MSNBC Republican debate, I was shocked by the question to Mitt Romney about Reagan's response in 1983 to Social Security. Not because the question was bad, or inappropriate... rather, because I heard something that I couldn't explain.

I had to YouTube it today to make sure I wasn't alone... and sure enough:



At first, I thought it was McCain whispering something. Other folks have said it was an open mike in the sound booth.

What I find coincidental, and what made my jaw drop, is that it APPEARED as if Romney was responding to the whisper voice, which just said "He Raised Taxes"... Romney's immediate response seemed to react to that voice: "I'm not going to raise taxes"

Coincidence? Who knows... but it made me raise an eyebrow.

Theories I have seen so far include:

• Capture of a radio transmission to a Romney Earpiece
• McCain whispering caught in his open mic (further theory is "they teamed up as a conspiracy to defeat Ron Paul")
• Sound booth operator with an open mic
• Romney being fed a scripted line, what was not heard was "I'm Not going", followed by what was heard "to raise taxes"... which is then exactly what Romney said: "I'm not going to raise taxes" - (the "Whisper" doesn't seem to wait for Tim to finish his question as much as Romney waits for the "Whisper" to finish)
• Brian Williams whispering to Tim Russert
• The signal could have been transmitted wirelessly and intended for a battery-operated earpiece worn by Romney, not unlike what people on talkshows and such wear, and picked up by receivers other than Romney's. It's kind of far-fetched but the timing of what is said in the whisper and what Romney seems just perfect for him to hear the whisper and react by repeating it.

What makes this even more odd is that MSNBC first had a blog reacting to this whisper, but it has since been mysteriously taken down:
Picture of webpage before vanishing

And Free Republic captured the story, vowing that this is not going to be swept away any time soon!

Did anyone else hear it? What are your theories?

GOP: So, Who Has the Momentum Again?

It is January 24th, 2008... Five days before the Florida showdown... Twelve days before Super Tuesday. A number of contests have cleared the field of candidates who failed to materialize, leaving behind a race that is as out of the ordinary as a San Francisco Conservative.

Huckabee claimed first blood in Iowa, taking the state from the long time favorite there, Mitt Romney. The Huckaboom had paid off, and Huck's momentum was back.

Fast on his tail was John McCain, perhaps in anticipation of his contest in New Hampshire, where Independents were able to rally behind their man as they did 8 years prior. John McCain's win in New Hampshire helped further propel his numbers in the positive direction, giving him the highest level of support since entering the race over a year ago.

Meanwhile, smaller and less contested races were taking place in states like Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada... Victories out of these states heralded little notice by the press, but the delegates counted just the same as in the traditional early states. Mitt Romney's victories in these widely uncontested states did little to add to his momentum, though there is something to be said for leading the delegate count before Super Tuesday, and that is the headline he was hoping for.

Rudy Guiliani has yet to break 10% in a contest in the early states. His strategy of "Go Big or Go Home", where he is playing in states with only sizable delegate counts, has done little more than employ an army of campaign eulogy writers... but for Rudy, there is always Florida, right?

And all the while, Ron Paul and his supporters, after stacking every online poll in an attempt to appear as a front-runner, has been unable to muster more than 5% nationally in the polls, and has had his best showing in an uncontested Nevada, where he placed a very distant 2nd.

So I ask the question... Who has the momentum again?

The answer is simply: No One!

Fred Thompson's drop from the race, and lack of an expected endorsement, has left a large field of undecided voters hesitant to join any one campaign. The lack of a McCain endorsement has further served to help add gravity to McCain's falling national numbers, as voters remember why his campaign imploded over the summer: Immigration.

Duncan Hunter, yesterday, in an attempt to help swings some momentum in the direction of the Social Conservatives, endorsed Mike Huckabee... unfortunately this endorsement received little fanfare from the media, as they have all but declared the Huckabee campaign a bust. Huckabee is doing little to help his own campaign by not aggressively pursuing Thompson's supporters. Instead his campaign released a short press advisory welcoming support... while at the same time his campaign Chairman Chip Saltzman took a hit at Fred Thompson on the Mike Huckabee Campaign Blog. Huckabee missed an opportunity to claim victory in SC after the contest, by claiming that Fred's withdrawal, had it happened prior to the race, would have made him the clear victor.

Rudy's numbers have flatlined, which for him is a good thing at this point. A flatline is much better than the nose-dive he was seeing. This hesitation in the plummet may be temporary, unless he can pull off a come from behind win in Florida. Rudy's only source of momentum is anticipation of Florida... but all the momentum leads up to is a simple "no change".

Mitt Romney seems unable to break the invisible barrier of 16% in the national polls. His campaign had surged in the past, only to hit 16% and fall... rising again, only to fall again... he is at 15.8%, but the trend is ominous for his campaign!

It is hard to say what will happen in the debate tonight, but easy to see what must be done. There is a new flood of undecided Thompson voters that could cling to a new campaign and propel that campaign to the White House. Every person left on that stage needs to spend tonight aggressively wooing the ex-Fred-heads. The candidate who stands to pick up the votes MUST be conservative socially (this excludes Rudy and potentially McCain), must be strong, and must actually ASK for their support... no subtleties... now is not the time!

With no momentum from any candidate, no clear front-runner, and all candidates within 10% of being the leader on a very fluid scale... We start tonight at square ONE!

Last Debate before Iowa Caucus - Today 2ET

Watch it live here: DEBATE

Imagine... Humans on Mars

To my loyal readers, I apologize for the recent bombardment with space exploration topics! I try to keep things changed up and interesting here, but since the debate question aired I have been in a space frenzy.

I created a new video for the Mars Society and wanted some feedback. Check it out, share it, and let me know what you think (either here or on the video itself!).



Thanks! And have a great weekend!

Seriously Discussing Space Travel

While growing up, I wanted nothing more than to explore space... be it by telescopes or riding my own rocket... I was dreaming big even as a child. Now, working for the Human Space Programs, and previously for military satellites, I am constantly reminded of my dream, and as my mousepad states, that "the voyage must continue".

Last Wednesday, my question was aired on the CNN/YouTube debates for the GOP candidates, which discussed the issue of space exploration, specifically if a candidate was prepared to change the Vision of Space Exploration set forth by President Bush and declare that they will be sending a human to Mars. Since that question, I have been fielding e-mails and phone calls from family, friends, blog-mates, YouTubers, the Mars Society, Technical Newspapers, etc... and it has seriously been a re-ignition of my drive for space exploration interests. This is why I would like to take a moment to discuss the Mars Society, and Space Exploration in general.

To find out more about the Mars Society, their homepage is full of content sure to keep you busy reading for hours! But in short, their goal is to bring the discussion of Human to Mars exploration into the public arena. They want to broaden the discussion by providing an alternative outlook on Mars Exploration to the general public, who may not know much about exploration otherwise. As well, they are petitioning world governments to collaborate in sending humans to Mars, as well as focusing on private companies willing to unite and take on the task. They were founded by Robert Zubrin, who also founded Pioneer Astronautics, and are working on a series of technological advancements which will change the way that we can explore Mars... for example, in-suto technologies which make it possible to use Mars' Carbon Dioxide atmosphere to create Methane for Rocket Fuel, and thus not needing to bring the fuel with you, just fill up while you are on Mars. The most important aspect is that they are thinking outside the box. Science today is cluttered with the "no-can-do-ers", who say that going to Mars requires trillions of dollars, decades, and giant battle-star type ships... But a little forward thinking goes a long way!

As far as space exploration in general... well, I am torn between my more Libertarian tendencies of saying that all endeavors should be free from government intervention, and thus the only way that we should be exploring space is via the private sector... and my out-of-the-box thinking that NASA and other space agencies can be a great tool for collective science. NASA, who has had a 50 year budget of around $612 Billion, has provided a means to farm out the collective money for advancements in space science across the board, from life support systems, propulsion systems, to robots and nano-technologies. Of course the NASA Juggernaut should not be our only means of research and exploration, but they are vital to the cause of space exploration, as a beacon of hope, innovation, and inspiration... which is essential for popular support.

Imagine for a moment, if tomorrow NASA ceased to exist. The message being sent would be that the US, as a whole, no longer supports human space exploration... this would be a blow to the entire world... Of course, the private sector would surely step up to fill the gap, thus declaring that we are still engaged.. but with the apparent lack of total US support for space, getting investors and funds would be instantly more difficult.

Now imagine for a moment that NASA announced a change in their vision for space exploration, and suggested that the private sector should focus on Human to Mars technology, backed by an X-Prize style of competition... It would show that NASA is using the free market system to encourage growth in the private sector for space exploration, and ensuring that there is a perfect balance between the government and private industry, as well as ensuring that the private sector gets the public support necessary for independent financial support from the free market.

The long and the short of it is that we need, in my humblest of opinions, to continue space exploration. We learn so much from necessity... If we NEED a new technology due to exploration, then one is surely created. Without pushing the boundaries, we lose the need for innovation. So be it by the government, free market, or a mix of the two, the continuation of Human Space Exploration is a must.

CNN YouTube Debate Question - Update

What an honor! The question, as I have discussed time and again, is a very timely and valid question, especially in the face of Obama threatening to cancel Human Space Flight in the US and redirect the money to a socialized education plan.

To be perfectly honest with you, I did not even hear Huckabee's response because my phone went crazy as I started getting calls left and right... But I did catch Tancredo angrily nailing me to the wall... I will have to sit down with him and talk space...He is, afterall, my congressman... and I have met him a few times (we run in the same crowds)...

Here is the video:



I know that some folks that I have discussed this issue with have stated that Space Exploration is bottom of their Totem... but Space Exploration demands innovation, technological advancements, and the inspiration to dream bigger than what we already have. Human exploration of Mars may even answer the questions of "are we unique" and "can we survive without the protection of earth".

Thoughts?

---Update---
The transcript is as follows:
Steve Nielson: My name is Steve Nielson. And this question comes to you from Denver, Colorado.
JFK's vision put a man on the moon from a nonexistent space program in about seven years. The new vision for space exploration has provided about 15 years for that same feat.
Meanwhile, Congress is pulling funding for human-to-Mars research altogether.
Is there a candidate amongst you willing to take a pledge on behalf of the Mars Society of sending an American to the surface of Mars by 2020? If not, what is your vision for human space exploration?

Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
NASA pumps some -- let's see, how many -- $5 billion into Florida's economy.

Huckabee: Whether we ought to go to Mars is not a decision that I would want to make, but I would certainly want to make sure that we expand the space program, because every one of us who are sitting here tonight have our lives dramatically improved because there was a space program -- whether it's these screens that we see or the incredible electronics that we use, including the GPS systems that got many of you to this arena tonight.
(Laughter)
Some of you were late because you didn't have one, by the way. Or whether it's the medical technologies that saved many of our lives or the lives or our families, it's the direct result of the space program, and we need to put more money into science and technology and exploration.
Now, whether we need to send somebody to Mars, I don't know. But I'll tell you what: If we do, I've got a few suggestions, and maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars.
(Laughter)

Cooper: Congressman Tancredo, 30 seconds, please.

Tancredo: The question is a serious one and it deserves a serious answer, and that is this: Look, we've been -- how many times up here, how many questions have dealt with the issue of deficit spending, the debt out of control? And yet, we have somebody saying, "But would you spend more money on going to Mars?"
And the suggestion that we need to spend more money on space exploration. This is it, folks. That's why we have such incredible problems with our debt, because everybody's trying to be everything to all people.
We can't afford some things, and by the way, going to Mars is one of them.

---Further Commentary---
And my response to the candidates who answered my question last night...

Tancredo showed his inability to see past immigration, and his general anger towards NASA. What he fails to see is that NASA, regardless of being a government department, has had the most profoundly positive impact to our way of life. And the idea that removal of the space program to cut government budget would be effectiv is ludacris! NASA's budget is 0.6% of the total national budget. In fact, the ENTIRE funding of NASA since it's inception in 1958 (adjusted for current dollar value) has been $618.4 Billion...

That is right... Nearly the same amount of money that we have spent in 4 years on the Iraq war (currently at $450 Billion).

So Tancredo, who wants to continue a combat presence indefinately says that we cannot afford to spend pennies over the course of many years to inspire, innovate, and explore? But we surely have the money to wage war, which gobbles up HUGE amounts of money in a very short time period!

I think we, as intelligent beings, need to get our priorities straight! And I think Tom Tancredo needs to start thinking about more than just the border!

My Video Response to CNN/YouTube:

CNN / YouTube Debate Tonight

At 8 PM Eastern, the GOP Candidates will face off against one another, against citizen videos, and I am sure that they will be faced with the likes of talking snowmen!

I have watched a large number of the nearly 5000 submitted videos on YouTube, and most of them are hate-filled slams at Republicans by ignorant fools... but there are some that address the key issues. So I ask, what purpose does this debate serve if the same questions will be asked... just because it is coming from a normal citizen it is somehow more compelling?

Listen... these debate questions need to be different... questions that the candidates may have not had to face before... or perhaps questions that are rarely asked at these debates. THAT would be a ground breaking debate... Alas, we can expect to hear questions on Iraq, Gay Marriage, Iran, Taxes, and Immigration... it may be the case that little is said in the area of education, space exploration, federal infrastructure, energy independence (except in the form of a Global Warming question by a talking snowman).

I recommend that you tune in... But in the case that you don't, I am sure that you can check in tomorrow on this site and hear what I thought about the format, questions, and most importantly... the responses!

BTW, I read this morning that Alan Keyes has not been invited to this debate... Though he is a non contender, it would answer some of the mud that the left is slinging with respect to the "all white panel of GOP candidates"... not that Keyes is a prop for racist left comments... but it should be known nationally that the GOP has a black candidate who is struggling only because of a late start to the race... I think his message is fairly sound.

Illegal Immigration and the "Race Card"

What is the fastest way to put an opponent on their heels in a debate? Charge them with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... They are then left debating the negative, attempting to prove, first, that they are not what you have charged them as, and then left trying to pick up the shambles of their points as the debate momentum has been completely taken from them.

I was recently (as I often am) charged with racism because I am opposed to illegal immigrants living within our borders. The charge, in this case, supposed that I would be less likely to be troubled by a "white" illegal immigrant than an "other than white" illegal immigrant. I refuse to answer allegations of race in the immigration debate. For some people they may be legitimate, but for me they are a direct contradiction to my character.

The fact of the matter is that I am opposed to ANY illegal immigration. I don't care if you are white, green, yellow, if you have wings and three legs... The very fact that you are breaking the law is enough to fire me up... Moreover, if you are an illegal immigrant who refuses to conform to the American way of life, understanding the peaceful existence of a JUST society, then you are an illegal immigrant of the worst kind.

There are legal ways to come to America. Those are the paths that people should take, almost as a testament to WANTING to be AMERICAN.

ANY individual who comes to the United States ILLEGALLY, and continues to shame this country by maintaining allegiance to their home country, refusing to pledge allegiance to the way of life in the United States should return to the country that they love so much! Immigrants who come to this country legally, and become citizens, have to work hard, pass tests, and take an oath to swear off their allegiances to their home countries... and thus fully embrace what it is to be an American.

Illegals, en masse, appear to be filled with a sense of entitlement. The citizens of the US have something, and they (illegals marching in the streets) deserve it. They say they want to be American, but refuse to end allegiance to their native lands (proof: Waving flags of their homeland, and flying them above the US flag). They refuse to learn the language and laws of their new land (conducting business and living day to day without ever knowing English - would this fly in France?). They claim to want to retake the land for people of their own pigment (supported by racist organizations such as La Raza - the race - who drafted the previous shamnesty plan).

The fact of the illegal immigration debate comes down to what it means to be a nation. We are the great melting pot... well, we used to be. We are more like the cob salad now, where a bunch of different societies are living within one border. Unless we can return to one society, we will become a house divided, and we will fail as a society.

It is not a race issue. Mexican, Venezuelan, Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Australian, British... If you want to come to this land for good and embrace our way of life, come as Americans. Hold your head high that you are part of the greatest and most accepting society in the history of the world. Don't come as brown, white, black, yellow, red skinned people in search of a community where you can spew hate speech against those of other pigmentation.

Come as Americans, or do not come at all.

And if you ever find yourself in a debate and are slandered with a charge of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... first, check your premises... ask yourself if you are... If, in fact, you are not, then know that the opposing debater is using fear tactics designed specifically to remove all logic from the debate, replacing it with emotion and fear. Stand strong in your convictions, because you know that you are right. And tell them that the immigration debate is not a racially charged debate. It is a debate on principles... on the kind of society that we want to live in... that being one of American pride, or that of American guilt.

Commentary for my Liberal Readers

I recently had a discussion regarding a previous post, with a dear friend who took exception to the wording of my post. A message to my friend, first, thanks for reading my thoughts and opinions of world affairs, and for continuing the discussion and debate. It is this communication that betters the world in which we live, enabling multiple ideals to meet at a common goal (and hopefully a common good). Secondly, this post is for you...

I am going to spell out my feelings on certain issues very plainly, so there is no confusion:

• I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants who come to a free land and disgrace the very institution and sanctity of that freedom. I am very much against anyone who supports race-based and ignorant movements like La Raza, who believe that they are entitled to that which they did not earn, solely based on ethnicity / skin color / primary language. These are violent and vulgar establishments that I equate with hate groups like the KKK, Radical Islam, etc. They have no place in a free society, and work only to tear down a free and just society. Anyone, ANYONE, who supports these movements will find a very harsh word from me in person and in writing on this blog.
  


• I whole-heartedly support the existence of a Jewish Nation in Israel. The Islamic movement to destroy a nation based on religion is a movement that will surely perpetuate war for all of time. The land is Holy to all religions, and all religions are allowed to freely worship in Israel. There was a time where that was not so. The existence of Israel is the existence of sanity in the Chaos of the Middle East. There is no place in a just world for radical religions. Anyone who disagrees will have much to debate with me in person and via this blog.
  


• I firmly believe in the founding principles... There is a moral compass that guided the US into existence. I right to be free, granted not by government, but by the Creator of nature... whomever you believe that to be. Every Man, Woman, and Child (including the unborn) have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness... We all deserve to live. We all deserve to live freely, free from Tyranny. And we all deserve the right to follow our dreams, our ambitions, as long as we do not hinder the rights of others. The existence of socialized programs run by governments and funded by increasingly high taxes is a direct threat to the Pursuit of Happiness... it is attempting to re-write the pursuit into the "RIGHT of Happiness". This leads me to Marxism....
  


• I am adamantly against the Marxist belief of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In a principle of charity, I believe that this is a great compass... but when this is the government agenda, you lose your rights to choose happiness... instead you are obligated by the government to help... Forced Charity, if you will...
  


• I strongly support gun ownership. I believe that the first line of defense is the self, and the first line of societal protection is the armed citizen. What hope do we have if we cannot, in the least, defend our very right to Life? Guns are more than a means with which to hunt. Guns are the extension of the will to remain free. The very existence of the Bill of Rights is protected by the 2nd amendment... without it, the others seem to fade with time.
  


• And I believe in honest and even debate. I will surely admit that I am being attacked when a debate begins by my having to defend my very belonging to a political party, or to an ideology. Attacking an individual's belief system is the very core of bashing... and is used, successfully, by those (IMHO) on the left to keep the debate off of the topic, and more on the opponent attempting to prove negatives... It should be known that I am a conservative. Don't question my reasoning for being a conservative... rather, let's discuss the issues... you offer your opinions and facts, and I will do likewise... let us then meet somewhere in between with a common understanding, and we both leave as better individuals... better thinkers!

So to my friend... Your comments, your thoughts, your feelings... they are all welcome... Just know that in the world of political debate the temperatures can run red hot... especially when venting after an attack... ummm... I mean a debate... And know that I always try to reply... I live for the debate... as we all should! I take nothing on the issues personally... unless it is made personal... then what choice do I have?

Thank you for reading! You are a dear friend!

Republican Candidates Debate... The winner is...

Duncan Hunter, In my humble opinion. Duncan seems to have shown up to this debate with an aire of confidence, strong leadership, and excellent communication. After one of the last debates I had predicted that he would be the next to drop from the stage... however, he was surely digging his heels in tonight and sending a strong message...

What was the message? It was that 21% of Republicans STILL don't know who their candidate is... so it is still anyone's game!

The rest of the debate was interesting.

Ron Paul was given his "rant" time, and continues to get "boos" from the crowd. The thing that I love best about Paul is his staunch reconstructionist stance! If we had more conservative leaders who were more concerned with the constitution than the front page of the WSJ then we may have a Federal Government that is more in line with the visions of the Founding Fathers!

Sam Brownback made an interesting statement regarding the biggest problem with our future economy... when everyone else is concerned about China and trade deficits, Sam recognizes that the biggest problem is an uneducated workforce, with no work ethics... the cause, the destruction of the home.

Tom Tancredo did what he does best... and that is talk about illegal immigration. He is the strongest in the debates when he comes right out and lets everyone know that regardless of the question you are going to ask, he is going to talk about illegal immigration.

Fred Thompson made his debate debut... and it was about what I expected. The first hour seemed pretty scripted and patchy. He seemed to be trying to recall his talking points from his debate prep. I did not hear anything of substance from the Senator, which is seemingly his forte... speak, but say nothing... I think that he has a lot to prove in the coming debates... otherwise no one (still) is going to know where he stands on the issues.

Romney seemed more polished than usual, but seems to have begun attacking both Rudy AND Hillary. Breaking Reagan's 11th commandment can prove to be a negative to the campaign. Though when you are bashing liberals, it is hard to draw the line for RINOs.

Rudy continues to show that his policies will be a continuation of Bush policies. For anyone who understands that Bush has become a polarizing figure for the Republicans, it is curious to me why a candidate will almost come out and say that they are for the continuation and expansion of Bush policies. Rudy is also coming down harder and harder on Iran, and had some interesting things to say about the region.

John McCain, who enjoyed a bump in the polls following a HUGE win in the last debate will not see such an increase in the numbers this time. I was sad to see that John McCain changed up some of his lines... it was funny to be able to predict his debate answers after 5 debates. One thing that always concerns me about picking a president is picking a healthy president. McCain, being the eldest candidate, had several occasions in which he was unable to hear the questions.

And Mike Huckabee... Mike may have been given the least amount of airtime of all the candidates. Of course this is nothing new, as the spotlight usually rests on the "front-runners", however as of late the lines are beginning to blur for who is ACTUALLY a top tier candidate. In fact a poll was just released that shows Huckabee within 2% points of Romney nationwide amongst Republican voters. Huckabee is third in Iowa behind Romney and Thompson. And yet the early line of who is considered "top tier" is still in place.

Forgive my rant.

Mike Huckabee did another great job in answering the debate questions. As always he was an eloquent speaker, and let his conservative colors fly. He finally got some serious time to discuss the Fair Tax, which no other Republican candidate fully embraces (besides Hunter). I am a huge advocate for the Fair Tax, and I love listening to the candidates who truly understand the importance of REALLY FIXING our tax system.

The Republican Party was founded on radical ideas... and it is only on radical ideas that we are going to survive.

The Fair Tax is the ONLY way to save the American economy for the lower and middle class, and help ensure that the economic ladder is not missing the middle class rungs.

As well, it was great to hear candidates discuss Energy Independence... The best ideas, again, are the most radical. We need fast change, sweeping reform, and a new understanding of energy. Free markets be damned... This is one place where I would agree with a candidate like Bill Richardson (I know, I know)... we need drastic changes... mandatory market shifts to renewable resources. We live in a time where oil is not the only medium, yet oil has become so powerful that it demands that it is the currency of the world... Remember, Silver used to be the US standard before Gold... but alas, a radical change... and we are all the better for it!

In all, the debate did a good job of touching domestic issues. Still no discussion about education, and not the right kind of discussion about health. The audio was poor quality, and the moderation was almost as bad as Wolf Blitzer's...

But it gave us another data point...

God Bless.

Review of ABC Iowa Debate

Republicans took the stage early Sunday morning at Drake University in Ames Iowa, just six days before the Iowa Ames Straw Poll to debate the issues. With George Stephanopoulos and ABC hosting the debates, and early on a Sunday morning, it will be a miracle if more than a million people, most likely those political junkies like myself, got a chance to watch... So if you missed it, lend me your ear (or eyes as it were) and I will give you my take of the morning's events.

George made his intentions clear as he started the debate... Conflict and true Debate... He did not want the candidates to merely answer the questions, rather to face off against their fellow candidates to draw clear and defining lines between each of them... most likely in an attempt to better "sell" the candidates as a defined product. He started by playing a "Brownback Robo-Phone Message" which directly attacked Romney and Romney's wife on their support for abortion and groups like Planned Parenthood... Then following by asking Brownback to defend the message and confront Romney directly... It was a good day for bloodletting!

The overall mood of the debate is that the Republican party is stuck with a negative perception and low enthusiasm, as was indicated with the second to last question: What is the biggest regret in your life? So Democrats get uplifting questions about favorite teachers and greatest memories, where Republican nominees are "whipped" into submission by the mainstream moderators, forced to contemplate on their life and answer where they went wrong... Perhaps this is beneficial, as it shows the ability to understand their mistakes and show growth from them... (the two losers on that question were Brownback - "I don't tell me family that I love them enough", and Rudy - "You know, I need a priest to talk about all my mistakes"... yeah... I want another "Bill Clinton" in office?)

Let me break down my thoughts towards each candidate's performance, in order of the ABC Iowa poll for who is leading the state:

Mitt Romney (26%) - Mitt Romney spends most of his debate tiem, as it seems, defending his waffling stance on issues like abortion. Today's debate was no different. Romney's goal in the Iowa debate (as the most viewers of this debate will most likely be local to Iowa) was to maintain the status quo... as the front-runner he attempted to fit in his canned responses, while defending his history of being on both sides of many issues. It is a lesson in creative speaking to watch this guy on stage...

Rudy Giuliani (14%) - Well, we were all glad that Rudy decided to play with the others today... Rudy is becoming less engaged in debates and the process, as he clearly expects to receieve the nomination. His performance in this debate pretty much etched in stone his continuation of Bush policies in the White House. His liberal stances on social issues aside, some of the comments he made during this debate may have sealed his fate in the general election should he get the nomination... "He is the follow on to Bush, Bush part II..." I can just hear the Democratic nominee now! Not to mention Rudy's admittance that he would follow the ideas of Barack Obama in bombing Pakistan, our ally, as opposed to supporting their government in taking action against BinLaden. Such a move would surely unseat the uneasy President of Pakistan.

Mike Huckabee (8%) - Mike's great oratory skills helped him get the point across, and stay on message in this debate... He may have been the only candidate who did not stumble on their words, trying to make sure that they weren't waffling on an issue. The one thing that Mike Huckabee did not do is place the emphasis on the fact that he is polling third in the state, and gaining momentum. Mike's shining moment was when he stated that we need to spend our billions of dollars building our own infrastructure, and building democracy at home, before we try it around the world... in response to a question about our crumbling and aged infrastructure, i.e. the NY steam pipe explosion and the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

John McCain (8%) - John McCain's age is starting to show... not just in his apparent fatigue at these events, but in his constant retelling of "jokes" that only a senile old man would find interesting time and again. And in case you all didn't know, McCain reminded us at least five mroe times that he was in the military, he was a POW, and did I mention that he was a POW in the military during Vietnam for 5 and a half years?

Sam Brownback (5%) - Sam continued his mudslinging and attacks against all the candidates... Brownbacks overconfidence reflects his opinion that he is the Mesiah figure of the debates... his facial responses reflect his Christian-elitist stance, and his verbal responses, filled with mud, are reminiscent of a boring Al Gore... as if Gore could get any more boring... His repsonses were shakey and lacked confidence in himself, though he was clearly confident that his "purity" is much more than any other candidate's.

Tom Tancredo (5%) - I love Tom's steadfast support of strong immigration enforcement... notice I did not say reform... Tom lost his temper early on and demanded time to speak, after standing silent for nearly 25 minutes as all the other candidates had one, tow, or more opportunities to respond. Tom shook things up a bit when he stood by his repsonse to nuke Mecca and Medina if the US was ever nuked by Radical Islam... Tom spoke more clearly and eloquently than in any of his past debate perfomances... He is getting there, and though he may not win, his momentum in the state is keeping the spotlight on immigration!

Tommy Thompson (4%) - The hardest part about watching these debates is sitting by and watching campaigns give "wrapping up" statements... that is, Thompson knows that this will most likely be his last debate... he has said that unless he has a strong showing in the straw poll that he is out... and his remarks today reflected that. He went from campaigning for President to interviewing for VP or Health Board, etc... The strangest remark was that he will eradicate breast cancer by 2014. If only it were that easy... Perhaps more funding and free yearly screenings for women would help the fight, but I wonder if his remark wasn't more emotional (as his mother, wife, and daughter are all victims of Breast Cancer) than logical.

Ron Paul (2%) - Though every online poll would show Ron Paul at 56% and a shoe-in for the Oval Office, his lack of ACTUAL traction may be in part to his VERY Libertarian stance. He said some great things to back up other candidates on issues like reduced role of the federal government (trust me, Rudy was NOT one of those candidates calling for less federal control), and his stance of non-interventionism in world affairs would make the founding fathers proud. It is refreshing to see a candidate who trusts the founding fathers so completely, and understands the original intent of what America was all about... (trust me, the patriot act and strong federal government to the point that state and local governemnt need not apply is NOT the original intent). Ron Paul still is a horrible communicator, and his performance this morning began to sound more like a nagging spouse or child than a Presidential Candidate.

Duncan Hunter (1%) - Congressman Hunter, much like Thommy Thompson, began wrapping up his campaign with this debate. He used the opportunity to give thanks to the US Marines, his son, and his supporters... His remarks were the exclaimation point to his campaign, demanding that he be known as the candidate who is strongest on defense in it's ture sense (that is a strong military and secure borders) where as Rudy would be more of the New World Order candidate of shadow governments and secretive governments. Duncan Hunter will be missed, but hopefully his followers support one of the other "underdog" candidates who can take the party back from the NWO-Republicans...

In all, the winners of the debate, based on substance of answers, confidence in response, issues knowledge, and direction for the party, are as follows:

Huckabee - Tancredo - Hunter - Romney - Paul - McCain - Giuliani - Thompson - Brownback

Can we expect to see any surge in the Straw Poll based on this debate... My guess is to say "very little".

What should we expect after next Saturday's straw poll results are posted...

Duncan Hunter will gracefully bow out of the race sometime in the week following the poll. Polling at 1% and expected to finish last in the race, Hunter will go back to his Hosue District in California more popular than ever and help his son's campaign to take his House Seat. Yes, Hunter is not only bowing out of the Presidential race, but giving up his seat to his son, who is set to come back from Iraq in time for the race.

Shortly after Hunter leaves the race, we can expect to see T. Thompson move on as well, as his numbers have no momentum and his funding is dwindling.

Ron Paul will stick around for some time longer, as this is free publicity for his run on the Libertarian ticket in the 2008 race... remember, third parties will be the big winners in 2008.

The rest will hang on if they finish as the poll numbers above have shown... Brownback to continue his Christian Crusade, and possibly his eventual run on the ticket for the Constitution Party (where he would fit right in), McCain because he doesn't know when to quit, Romney because he thinks he has a shot, Rudy because he believes that he is entitled to be the next President, and Huckabee because he may be the only candidate who has a real shot of winning.

Long winded... but needed to be said.

God Bless

CNN/YouTube Debate, Part II - Republicans

In July, the Democratic Presidential Candidates did their best to answer questions posed by average everyday Americans... and some snowmen. These were questions that had mostly been asked in some form before, but in a very personal way... as if saying, "Hey, I am an American... answer me!"

And on September 17th, the Republicans will have their chance to answer the voting public... or will they?

Recent events have unfolded to the affect that Rudy and Romney have declined to be involved in such a low quality event as having to answer the people of the US directly... Now their response to the declined offer is that of too busy of a schedule for such an event, or that the president shouldn't have to answer questions from "snowmen"... My response is that it is NOT A REAL SNOWMAN! The question was from an American, a person, done in a way to ensure that the question made it onto the debate and was answered.

So what we are seeing is an "elitist" mentality... here are two candidates either not willing to listen to the questions of the masses, or far to superior to answer an animated individual asking a question. The position of the President of the United States must NOT be allowed to be a pillar of elitist rule... it should be an office held by the people, for the people...

To the candidates who are serious about winning the White House, I say to you... Come, let us reason together... We are the citizens of the United States, and we want to talk about your upcoming job...

Rudy and Mitt... your arrogance reflects your unwillingness to reason with the people, or to truly mingle with us "common folk". I, for one, look forward to your absence in the debates... perhaps it will lend itself to more camera and speaking time to candidates who are serious about making a change in America for the better, not marching us down a path to 1984.

God Bless!

Democrats Debate... YouTube Style...

Last night, America watched as the much hyped CNN/YouTube debate unfolded... The first 5 minutes were used to discuss which videos were not chosen, and why, what the format was supposed to be, and to once again claim the debate's innovative nature.

I took notes during the entire debate... what was the question, who answered, and did I consider it a positive or a negative response (not down political lines, but rather in the candidates body language, knowledge of the topic, and comfort in talking "face to face" with the everyday American)

I am not going to go through my notes line by line, but I am going to hit a few highlights...

Anderson Cooper, the moderator, is OBVIOUSLY an Obama supporter. Cooper would direct general questions to the candidates, and for the first 35 minutes, Obama fielded twice as many questions as Hillary or Edwards... Mike Gravel fielded one question in the first 35 minute segment, and stopped the debate to complain about it... Cooper gave him more time later on... It took Cooper 20 minutes to FINALLY ask Bill Richardson a question... By that time Obama had answered three... In short, Cooper needs to determine a better way to distribute the questions... though by the third segment, he gave all the candidates 3-4 questions evenly... so he found his rhythm...

The questions covered the main-stream issues... but there were a few "dinner table" questions, and definitely a more personalized way of asking some of the mainstream questions... I appreciated the human-factor... as opposed to the Wolf Blitzer Robotic debate, where if you don't answer correctly Wolf will keep grilling you until you answer his question his way (like he did to Huckabee on creationism)... There were awkward moments like the candidates fielding question from snowmen... but in all, the idea was to keep the questions in a very YouTube-esque manner... It worked.

The winners? John Edwards did a great job challenging Obama and Clinton, and I think showed his compassion towards women's issues... and definitely out shined Clinton on the women's issues question. Gravel angrily came out against Clinton and Obama, using what little time he has left on the stage to make some deep wounds... and Biden almost made it into this category, right up until the end...

The losers? Biden... he had a lot of momentum, until he called the gun owner a mental wack-job just because he referred to his AR-15 as "his baby"... he even went as far as saying that the video submitter was most likely not mentally capable of owning his weapon, and suggested that he may be a danger to society... Mr Biden... The only danger is you, my friend. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson really needed to break out, and they didn't. This may be the last debate with them in it. Richardson has one of the best messages on Energy Independence, but he just can't seem to be "interesting". Clinton yells... a lot! And it is really hard to think that she is a compassionate person when all she does is yell... strike-out in my book... Dennis Kucinch needed to shine, and this was supposed to be his format... he did alright, but it was just shy of being put in the winner's block... and the loserest loser of all the losers... Barack Hussein Obama... in any given answer there were 15-20 "Umm", "Uh", and other fumbles as he looked for the right thing... his inexperience was in full swing, and though his answers may have been on message, they lacked the ease and intelligence that our next president needs to have.

If I had to call it, I would say that we are looking at the fall of Clinton/Obama, and the rise of Edwards/Biden (but Biden needs to make ammends with the gun-owners of the world)... Perhaps Richardson is going to be a VP pick... so we may see Edwards/Richardson as the democratic ticket for the general election...

Though my question was not picked, the very first question was mine but asked by someone else... I am going to focus on submitting a few perfect videos for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in September... Hopefully Huckabee is still in the running, and gaining more momentum!

God Bless!

From Sea to Shining "Si"

Since the second failure of the Immigration "Reform" bill, the immigration front has been all too quiet. I have searched headlines, international and political news stories... but to no avail...


So, my friends, have we won the battle but lost the war?


If our only offense is the defense against amnesty, then I think that is the very essence of losing this battle.


Now that we have the pro-illegal group on their heels, it is time to deliver the knock-out punches to put this issue to bed once and for all. We should be pushing the issue of starting construction on the wall (not fence) along the border... we should be pushing for an increase in armed National Guard troops along the border to stop the flow while the wall is being built... and we should have a Senator or Representative propose a new bill... the "Mexican Repatriation Bill", similar to the Repatriation performed during the Great Depression.


"Extremist"... I can hear the screams now! but what we are asking for is the law be enforced... and a bill of such nature would be an avenue with which to carry out the current laws...


With current US immigration laws, anyone coming into the US illegally will be prosecuted, and lose any ability to legally come back into the United States... so as a compromise, the Repatriation Act could have a clause stating that "All repatriated Mexicans may chose to return to the United States and file for citizenship through legal channels, so long as the applicants have no history of gang affiliation or criminal records at home or in the United States"... I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal!




One thing that we would have to do differently than in the 1930's, of course, is to ensure that the public knows that we are not deporting ANY legal citizens, and that (even though this would be a futile statement... cause you KNOW it will come up) this is NOT a racist / race-cleansing deportation... rather a legal move to control those who are in our country.

As a part of the R.A., I would also suggest the "Employer Consequence Amendment"... stating that any employer who knowingly hires illegal immigrants will face harsh fines, and possibly jail time... the same should go for city officials in "Sanctuary Cities"...

If we don't continue the charge against the illegal immigration racket, we will surely lose this war!

Thoughts?

God Bless!

Lightning Strikes, but No Major Sparks Fly

The highlight of the GOP debates: God silences Giuliani during his defense of his abortion stance, after being compared to Pontius Pilate (in reference to the crucifixion of Christ where Pilate did not agree, but did nothing to stop the act). The building (or immediate area) was struck several times with lightning, cutting power to his microphone. Better yet, he acknowledged God's presence by saying that he was afraid of the timing of the strikes, and all the other candidates moved away, as if to let God do his dirty work. So for those of you who believe in coincidence only and not God, what were the odds of that???

Other than that, my take of the evening was pretty bland from the top tier.

McCain is a broken record... I understand the philosophy of staying on message, but you don't have to repeat the same phrase over and over. It is like listening to an elderly man who's memory is starting to go, so he tells the same story over and again!

Romney came off as the flip-flopping Republican version of 2004 John Kerry. As I recall, he was even called a flip-flopper by one of the audience members during the Q&A portion of the night. Not a good sign, Romney... And his response: I'll do what I have to do to get the votes... ummm, what? so instead of standing on your principles you will lie, cheat, and steal to get the votes... In the words of Trump, "You're Fired!"

And I think that Brownback got it right, when he told the audience that the party cannot be considered a conservative party if they nominate someone who is as socially liberal as Giuliani. There is moderate, and then there is a Liberal on the Republican ticket...

So other than McCain fumbling, Romney defending his flip-flops, and Giuliani defending his very liberal social issues, there was nothing helping the "head of the pack" candidates... i.e. their attempt to maintain the status quo (hmmm... sounds familiar - see my post about the Democratic debate).

What WAS amazing were the "others". Huckabee came across as the witty and confident underdog that he is, with great answers to open ended questions about the greatest moral issues in America today... and wonderfully, the rest of the field followed... In fact, whenever Huckabee spoke on any topic, the rest of the candidates seemed to try and build off of Huckabee's intelligent remarks, perhaps hoping that the audience will think that they came up with the thought... It was a series of great moments for Huckabee.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Republican Party has “lost credibility” said former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee when he was asked what happened to his party during the 2006 midterm elections, when the GOP was swept from power in
Congress.
“We didn’t do what we were hired to do and the people fired us,”
Huckabee said at Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate.
Citing the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, corruption scandals involving GOP lawmakers and other issues, Huckabee said, “The Republican Party as a whole deserved to get beat. "We’ve lost credibility.”

And that is why Huckabee is the guy to fix the party... he stands for honest conservative values!

Paul is getting further and further out into left field... He has some very good moments, but all in all, he is OUT THERE!

Brownback did a good job in re-emphasizing the diplomatic solution to Iraq. Everything else was pretty forgettable from him.

And the rest... well, a few good moments surrounded by blandness.

I would score it as a Huckabee win overall, with the top tier candidates starting to lose steam.