Last night was the big CNN/You Tube Republican Debate. This, I think, was the 113th debate of the year or something like that. I have not watched any other debate and am glad that last night was the first one that I sat through. With just over a month before caucus goers in Iowa start to select both the Democrat and Republican nominee for President I figured this was a good time to step into the political spirit. All eight nominees were there and it turned out that it was a good fight. Before the debate I was a little skeptical of the format. What has our democracy come to when You Tube is going to sponsor a Presidential debate? The only thing I could think of was that stupid snowman question during the Democrat debate. If a snowman is going to help decide the fate of the free world…we are in trouble. Thankfully I was surprised at how well I liked the format. Great questions were asked (except of course the ones that were asked by committed supporters of democratic candidates), their answers helped separate the candidates in my mind and the debate was fairly lively (except for when Fred Thompson spoke).
The first part of the debate was the best. The questions were clear and concise. They asked important questions ranging from illegal immigration (Rudy and McCain like it, nobody else does) to the war in Iraq (all of them support it except for the nut job) to the deficit (this is where Mitt and McCain picked up some points). They touched on just about everything I feel that is important. Rudy was beat on just about any point that he brought up. He did not defend the criticism that New York City was a “sanctuary” city during his reign very well. Although I do have to give him credit, he only mentioned 9/11 a couple times. McCain did his best to sound conservative and relevant but his age is his biggest liability and one that I think will prevent him from winning. If I could take his position on the war and his fiscal policy and meld them with another candidate’s age, I think we would have a winner, we could call him McRomney. Huckabee did not impress me. Yeah, he is a great speaker and says good things, but his record in Arkansas does not lend itself to being labeled conservative. And the “oh them” candidates, Hunter and Tancredo, showed up and said a few catchy things (I actually like Hunter, but when Steven Colbert has more support than you, its time to give up). I think the winner the first half was Gov. Mitt Romney. He was strong, confident and well spoken. He was able to effectively go after Rudy and take him down a notch or two. He was able to state his position on the important issues and why he believes it.
The second half of the debate was another story. The questions got stupid, the answers more stupid and I felt stupid. So all and all not a good combination. We had the gay retired brigadier general who happens to work for the Clinton campaign. He wanted to know if anyone supported allowing gays to openly serve in the military. All of them said they supported the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and he was not impressed. However, someone should tell General Kerr (who should be commended for his service) that he is supporting the wife of the person who instituted the policy he is so against. Then we had an abortion question asked by a committed Edwards’ supporter. Then a “Log Cabin Republican” who happens to support Obama dazzled us with his question. Then there was a creepy dude who asked about the Bible. Pretty sure he stole the Bible from a local Hampton Inn so he could ask a pointless question. The second half of the debate did not go so well for the candidates but if someone stood out it was Huckabee. He did well enough to cement his status as a top tier candidate and should get a lot of support when people go to caucus in Iowa.
There is someone I left out on purpose. Ron Paul. He is crazy and is supported by prostitutes, hippies, and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Anybody who is mentioned as a potential running mate with Dennis Kucinich should never be taken seriously but for some reason Anderson Cooper continued asking him questions. He is like the crazy uncle at family get togethers that no one pays attention to but has $10 million worth of campaign contributions. He has no chance and should be considered part of the “oh them” candidates but I do not want to insult Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.
Overall a decent debate. CNN needs to do a better job of hiding their plants…funny how when the democrats did this there were not any stories of republicans asking questions. I look forward to the next couple ones to see if my list changes. I hope that conservatives can get together and select someone that can not only win in November but can also stay true to the conservative agenda.
After the debate, here are my top three candidates that I would campaign for (no particular order):
1. Mitt Romney
2. John McCain (however he still has some explaining to do for campaign finance reform)
3. Duncan Hunter (even though he is an “oh them” candidate I like him…maybe a VP nominee)
Those that I would not campaign for:
1. Rudy Giuliani (I could vote for him, but I am not wasting my time going door to door for him)
2. Tom Tancredo
3. Mike Huckabee (if only he were a true conservative)
Those that I am indifferent to:
1. Fred Thompson (if he didn’t have a hot wife he would be in the "would not campaign for" list)
Not even considered:
1. Ron Paul
2. Any of the Democrats
