The ten Republican candidates for nomination answered questions for two hours on CNN's debate earlier tonight, and I'm going to give my commentary on it here. I was very impressed in this debate with the three candidates I already liked the most, namely Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. I was least impressed with the "front-runners", what, I believe it was Tommy Thompson, called Rudy McRomney. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were terribly unimpressive, though each of them had at least one moment that I approved of.

The real surprise was that two candidates, whom I knew very little about, actually impressed me. Tommy Thompson said a lot of things that I really approved of, and, to a lesser degree so did former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore.

Ron Paul took an anti-war stance from a traditional isolationist position, which was interesting to see, and spoke loudly of decentralizing government, endorsing the idea of allowing states and local governments to decide on more major issues, rather than mandating from Washington, and took a pro-border security stance, as well as slightly anti- what he calls "Corporatism", with regards to corporate subsidies and the like, and he expressed a desire to achieve energy independence.





Mike Huckabee was terribly impressive when clarifying his position on Evolution, stating that what he meant in the last debate was simply that he wasn't sold on evolution, but didn't rule it out, stating "I don't know whether six days meant literally six days or a different period of time, I wasn't there" and most importantly "No matter what the case, I believe that God set all existence in motion" whether through evolution or otherwise, going on to describe his Christian views and characterizing his faith as very important to him and, most impressively, ending by quoting Martin Luther (unfairly much less quoted than Martin Luther King) saying "Here I stand: I can do no other".

He gave satisfactory statements about border security, a conservative approach to health care reform, taking a reasonable centrist approach to the idea of free market capitalism, and portraying his position as a Pro-Life candidate with the somewhat unique idea of, quote "Caring for life outside of the womb, as well as in it", because in his words pro-lifers are sometimes characterized as caring only about "Life" when it is unborn, going on to state that his position views total regard for life, mentioning senior citizens being abused in retirement homes, homeless children, securing an education for all Americans, and other such issues that one tends to take for granted, except that so few people actually talk about them as a result.

His record as a governor, specifically concerning health and combating obesity were, unfortunately, not brought up, though they contribute to my opinion of him greatly. Neither was his extremely admirable position on the second amendment, which also greatly influences my opinion of him, and is according to his website "Our founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and thats why they gave us the second amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government." And "The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all other threats to our lives and property." Here is his campaign page.

Tom Tancredo's most impressive moment was when he talked of a temporary moratorium on Legal Immigration, until "When making a phone-call you no longer have to press 1 for english and 2 for any other language", meaning basically, until we have assimilated the unprecedented number of foreign born Legal and Illegal Immigrants already living already living in this country, which was met with loud applause, I might add. His counterparts on stage, at least Rudy McRomney, acted appalled at this suggestion, believing it to be a mad fringe-idea, and yet it was what our nation did after each wave of those European immigrants the Amnestias are so fond of mentioning. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Germans, the Poles, the Swedes. Each wave was about five million strong, and each was followed by a crack-down on immigration until the wave was properly assimilated, five to ten years usually. Considering that this current wave is anywhere from 3-5 times the size each of those, and has lasted continually for about 30 years, I don't think his statement was unreasonable, particularly if we do not have a mass deportation.

Tommy Thompson's finest hour was the sound drubbing he gave the democrats, making himself out to be a stereotypical Republican in a good way. Less Richard Nixon and more Teddy Roosevelt, in other words with much talk of free market theory, without giving the corporation free reign. On the note of T.R., I believe Tommy Thompson invoked him when answering the question "Can Conservatism mesh with Conservationism?" mentioning Roosevelt's creation of national parks and other environmental activity.

Jim Gilmore was generally satisfactory as regards a sound defense of Conservative economics, some good points about defense, terror and so on, and an expressed support for environmentalism, though his fixation on nuclear power was upsetting.

Duncan Hunter was, well, Duncan Hunter. He's too pro-Bush for my liking, but he admitted that this war has been mismanaged, invoking his son's two tours in Iraq and current tour in Afghanistan, and his strong suit is of course Immigration. He also sneaked in a last-minute, but brutal (in a good way), jab at Rudy McRomney, stating that they had more in common with the party of Ted Kennedy than the Republicans because Romney and Giuliani had been behind Clinton's gun control bill back in '94, and because McCain signed up for the McCain-Kennedy bill last year and the current Amnesty bill this year.

Sam Brownback managed to avoid all the prickly issues, not talking about anything very strongly, and not mention his stance on border security, piping up only about health-care and his religion, and being Pro-Life and how he didn't think the GOP could nominate someone who wasn't pro-life, pointing at Rudy.

Lastly, Rudy McRomney, who, although Romney and McCain handled religious questions well, particularly McCain on Evolution and Romney on being a Mormon, were over-all unimpressive. Romney and McCain were goaded into a bit of jostling, with McCain being quoted criticizing Romney for his alleged Border Security Advocacy, though Romney didn't take the bait and played it down. Romney's talk of optimism and looking to the future instead of focusing on problems is, I think, not going to go over well. Fixing existent problems is much more important to most voters, at the moment, than looking to the future.

McCain did not come off very well, in my opinion. He did not fundamentally change any of his views, and nothing he said was particularly interesting. He still supports the war, which most americans don't, and he still supports amnesty before securing the border, and most americans don't. He could maybe support abortion and gun-control, if he wanted, but short of that I don't see how he could manage to become less electable.

And then Giuliani, who also avoided taking up any position that could be construed as un-popular. He talked tough on Terrorism and Defense, wriggled away from abortion, and displayed his ample charisma, though coming off as a bit sleazy. As an aside, I think most politicians need to receive coaching on what to do with their hands when they are speaking anywhere other than behind a podium.

If I were to rank the candidates by how they impressed me, as well as who I support, I would do so thusly:

1: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo

2: Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore

3: Mit Romney, Sam Brownback

4: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Here are the links to their campaign pages:

Mike Huckabee

Ron Paul

Tom Tancredo

Tommy Thompson

Duncan Hunter

Jim Gilmore

Sam Brownback

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

As a Post Script, I missed the Democratic debate on Sunday, but I didn't approve of any of the clips I saw. I can safely say that I dislike every democratic candidate out there as of now, and truly hope that Wesley Clarke signs up this round too.

Huckabee/Paul '08!!!