Random thoughts on the Republican Debate on Fox

Here are some thoughts as I watched the Republican Debate on Fox News.

1) Romney asked about back-alley abortions. What would he say to someone who lost a loved one to an illegal abortion? Ummm....If I died trying to obtain a nuclear weapon, should my death be a "tragedy?" Nope. A woman dying during a back-alley, illegal abortion is like a kidnapper dying when the FBI shoots him as he tries to kill the kidnapped person. I don't feel sorry for the woman, but I do for the innocent child.

2) Rudy wants to keep the government out of a woman's body. Yeah, perhaps he could like keep the government out of the rest of our lives, be truly equal rights to men as well. No one has the right to kill an innocent child, be it born or unborn. Telling a woman she can't kill her child in the womb is no different from telling a woman she can't kill her child when he's 8.

3) John McCain talking about bi-partisanship. Yeah, if I wanted the Democrats to create a plan for America, I would vote for them. Then he thinks Campaign Finance Reform was good for America. Hmm..guess he likes George Soros spending millions and millions of dollars trying to get rid of Bush. Yeah Johnny, you sure got rid of money in politics.

4) Duncan Hunter wants to adjust trade with China. At least this debate he wants to cut taxes to do this. However, trade is good and punishing Americans with tariffs is not a solution that helps us.

5) Ron Paul hurt himself in one way with conservatives with his 9/11 comments, but helped himself (not like he needed it) with libertarians. At least he was calmer. That is an improvement. He does need to focus on why he is different without sounding like a Democrat. He made some great points regarding the history of foreign policy. Unfortunately, his message will be overshadowed by his argument with Rudy.

6) McCain talks about the Confederate flag. Would have been better served talking about the Ku Klux Klan member leading the Senate, Robert Byrd (D-WV). The Confederate flag represents some of the ideals of the American Revolution. The Constitution was approved with the knowledge that states could withdraw and secede from the union if the federal government overreached. Focusing on slavery is stupid. The fight may have looked at slavery, but that is mainly the incompetence of modern (leftist) historians trying to rewrite history. Slavery was a part of the Southern economy, that is true. But slavery was not the reason the South seceded. The South seceded because the Federal Government overstepped its Constitutional role. Would slavery have disappeared without war? Maybe. And maybe the war would never have happened if the Founders had had the courage to fight slavery during the Revolution or during the Constitutional Convention. However, the South did have the right to secede. And the flag, the flag that everyone hates, represents that right. (It is telling however, that Democrats can't stand the Confederate flag flying over a southern capital building, but have no problem with someone burning an American flag. That is crap.)

7) Tancredo needs to change and be against global warming. Mars is currently under global warming and there aren't any SUVs on that planet. Are there?

8) John McCain needs a new suit. Looks like he is bloody linebacker in the NFL the way his arms are constrained.

9) McCain mentions the Army manual would be useful in 999,000 times. Is that out of a million? Does that mean that in 1,000 cases it is appropriate?

10) Romney makes a great point about terrorists not getting lawyers. Good job. Non-Americans, in war with our rights, should not be able to use those rights. They are not theirs.

11) McCain says if Americans torture others, our captured soldiers would be tortured. Umm..yeah, like the Muslims haven't been chopping off Americans' heads. Quick question though. Wasn't McCain and his men tortured in Vietnam? John McCain needs to stop thinking that other nations will justify torture if we do it. That is crap. Other nations HAVE tortured our brave soldiers.

12) Gilmore needs to learn to ignore the United Nations. That organization is worthless and anti-American. If we were going to have to bomb an anti-American nation, the United Nation headquarters would actually be the first place to bomb, even if it is in New York.

13) Tancredo made a great reference to the Fox show 24 during the Fox Debate. Very nice.

14) The fact that there is no minority in the field is just a crap question. Would Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson praise Republicans if there was a minority candidate? Didn't he support Lynn Swann? Oh wait, no he didn't. A black Republican would not gain any respect from the black community. A black woman would not have the National Organization of Women as a supporter. Why should a black or a woman subject themselves to "Uncle Crow" or anti-woman criticisms?

15) No Child Left Behind is not a Constitutional issue. However, it is telling that it is okay for the "Evil Big Business" to have to show internal control, but teachers' unions, they get a pass. Screw that. That still doesn't mean Romney should be supporting the Dept. of Education.

16) Brownbeck needs to learn some economics regarding gas prices. Ethanol hurts the poor because it raises the price of corn and beef. There is no point in trying to reduce gas prices by raising food prices. He did make a nice reference to ANWR.

17) McCain needs to focus on reducing spending, but dang it, reduce the dang taxes. If you were forced to put out a fire in a house and an unattached garage, would you decide to not put out any fire if you couldn't put out the whole thing? You do what you have to and fight the rest of the fight. Too bad McCain isn't very good at fighting spending.

18) Romney can't support an assault weapons ban and be pro-2nd Amendment. Even though assault weapons may be banned, it doesn't mean they disappear. They end up in the hands of criminals. This is the time to employ the liberals trick on abortion. Any attempts to limit abortion draw cries of "you are taking away women's choice." So, any attempt to limit the 2nd Amendment is limiting the rights of Americans to own weapons. (Mind you, there is a specific right to own a weapon, be it a handgun or an assault weapon. Where is the right to kill in the Constitution? Oh yeah, it isn't. That was a court decision. Then again, so was Dred Scott and yeah, that one sure was a great court decision.)

19) Huckabee needs to show that he has the courage to fight liberal policies. We don't need certain road projects; we need efficient road projects. If he can do that, maybe he will make a better showing.

Overall, here are my thoughts on each candidate.

Rudy Guiliani: Still pro-abortion. Doesn't cut it. He also hasn't done very well getting away from his liberal stance on some issues as mayor. (Supporting a Democrat for governor?)

John McCain: Hypocrite. Only word I can say. The linebacker needs to stop trying to claim he is a conservative. He is a maverick and not one any real Republican would want. He should not be a top-tier candidate and wouldn't be if he wasn't at one time liked by the media.

Mitt Romney: Still too big government. He may look Presidential, but we need a small-government President. No Romney-Care!

Mike Huckabee: Some improvement tonight. Had a great joke about John Edwards. Defended his liberal policies as being citizen driven. That may work if it turns out to be true. However, I would want to know he fought for his position before conceding. His interview with Hannity and Colmes illustrated some great points about him. While seen as a second tier candidate, I think he is improving. He should still be in the mix in the next debate.

Jim Gilmore: Much better tonight. I actually noticed him a lot more. I still need to learn more about his positions. However, he needs to get off of the U.N. and how great they are. Be conservative and oppose the socialists and despots running the United Nations. His criticism of the top three and the nice name for them will help him gain name recognition. Now, if his record backs up his rhetoric, he might make a good showing.

Ron Paul: He hurt himself tonight with the Republican Party. I think now is the time for him to jump and try to run for the Libertarian Party nomination. While I agree with most of his beliefs, he needs to adjust his message, not to change the substance, but the form. He needs to stay true to his beliefs while making sure he explains it in a manner that will be more receptive to the public. He won't win after tonight, but he could be great third-party candidate drawing from both sides of the aisle. During his H&C discussion, he made a great point showing Alan's idiocy regarding abortion. He actually looked better when Hannity wouldn't let him answer while Colmes tried to cut both of them off. That might actually help him because he tried to explain his position from a historical perspective. Too bad he didn't have more time to answer. He might also end up gaining because both Hannity and Colmes were arguing against him. If he can piss off the left and the right, it looks better for him. And, at least in this conversation, he ended up getting labeled as a libertarian, not a conservative. That is important for him.

Duncan Hunter: He needs to drop out. He is an old-fashioned, 19th Century Republican that believes in protectionism. That wasn't good for America back then and it isn't good for us today. (By the way, tariffs were the chief revenue source back then. It still wasn't very good for the country though.)

Sam Brownbeck: While he made a great statement on his one issue, abortion, regarding rape, he should drop out of the race. He really doesn't have much chance, but at least he is bringing abortion to the forefront.

Tommy Tompson: He still seems stuffy. However, he does make some good points. I just don't think he is a likely candidate even though he is one of the governors in the race, which is usually a better road to the Presidency than Congress. I don't think he can get votes with his stance on stem cells. And while he talks big about tax cuts, I just don't see him being in the next debate.

Tom Tancredo: He has been improving once again. While still needing to get away from immigration as his only issue, he has been working very hard at changing his image. While some might call him a third-tier candidate, he is solidly near the top of the second-tier. If the media wasn't driving the tier rankings, he might even be higher. He should be involved in the next debate. Once again, his comments with H&C illustrated his Presidential qualifications.

Overall, here is who I wish was in the next debate. (Mind you, Rudy, McCain, and Romney have to be involved because of the media bias towards them as front-runners. I don't agree.) Along with those three, Gilmore, Huckabee, and Tancredo should be involved, bringing the field down to 6. (Like I said, it could be lower, but we can't get rid of the big 3. McCain would be my choice to get rid of first, keeping Rudy and Romney to help illustrate the liberals in the race.) I would like to see maybe Newt or Fred Thompson join in, and if they did, I would hope it would increase the field back up to 8 rather than lose Gilmore, Huckabee, and Tancredo, even though those 3 candidates would be hurt the most by Newt and Fred joining in.

I should also note, the questions tonight were well done, and it wasn't just because Fox News is "conservative." The questions were actually tough rather than the softballs Democrats usually get. They actually focused on issues where the candidates differed, while also pointing out where the candidates differed from the traditional Republican stance. That is nice. The format also allowed more of a competition format, giving candidates the chance to actually debate and reference each other, in some cases the moderators encouraged it.

I would also like to address the Democrat and Republican commentor guests on H&C. Steele may be conservative, but he didn't do a very good job actually making a case against candidates. He was too obsessed with Ron Paul. The Democrat guy may not have liked the reference to Reagan, but that is conservatism. Then again, he is a Dem so his opinions need to be examined with a wary eye anyway. The Dem guy also wants Republicans to go after Democrats. Then again, do they have to? I would rather have a discussion of ideas rather than a discussion of opponents. By explaining their positions, the candidates automatically seperate themselves from Hillary and Obama. I can see it, wonder why the Dem guy can't?