Posted by Charity on January 7th, 2008

So, the big political news this weekend was the amazing debate that ABC put on Saturday night. Wow!

I really liked the open format in the first half. The candidates really got to expand on their responses.

I recorded both debates, but I only watched the Republican one. I saw parts of the Democratic one, but truthfully, I don’t really care, yet, since I won’t be voting in the Democratic primary.

This was my first time seeing all of the candidates in a full debate. I saw parts of the Iowa PBS debate, since it was on when the kids went to watch their afternoon shows, but with three kids who just found out that a bunch of yammering politicians were on instead of their shows, well, you can guess it was hard to watch much of it.

I am glad that ABC lowered the threshold of participation. To be in the debate a candidate only needed 5% in any national or New Hampshire poll.

The Republicans were (alphabetically) Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.

This was my first chance to see what a condescending dink Mitt Romney is, unless you count the marijuana video.

I am sorry. I try to stay above board and not call names, but there is no other way to put it. The guy is a first-class jerk.

If that was all, I might be able to overlook it, but he’s absolutely heartless (even for a Republican) on illegals already in this country, and he actually said, “I like mandates,” when talking about health care.

This is a Republican debate, Mitt.

Speaking if illegal immigration, I honestly thought Giuliani had the best answer on that topic, though not a unique idea. I just thought he articulated it well.

Ron Paul, who I have liked in the past, came off as kind of a wing-nut. He was right on with so many issues, but he has that fringe candidate anger that I find unsettling.

Besides, his foreign policy is a little naive. I am no neo-con, but one must be realistic about the threat that exists. Pulling all of our troops around the world home will not end the jihad.

John McCain did pretty well, but he is letting Romney’s attacks get to him. He seemed ruffled. I don’t think it hurt him, though.

I don’t really have much of an opinion about Mike Huckabee’s performance. I thought his answers sounded too rehearsed and I didn’t really get much out of it. He was, however, on Fox News Sunday. I have a lot to say about that interview, but that warrants a new post.

The highlights of the evening were the countless jabs that McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson all got in against Romney. There were some zingers in there. I think that even Charles Gibson laughed at times.

I think Fred Thompson, the runaway favorite here at She’s Right, did well. The highlight for me was his response to the question posed by President Bush regarding the candidates’ guiding principles.


Forward to 2:34 to see it. I transcribed some of it here:

Our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States…understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our Founding Fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that. They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said if the powers aren’t delineated in this document, then they don’t exist. And then we got the Tenth Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else.

This is exactly why I support Thompson.

People – mostly liberals – talk about the Constitution being a living document. It was not meant to be for the very reason that Thompson brought up. Even though our times might be different, one thing has remained the same since the dawn of time, and that is human nature. Human nature is essentially the same, no matter how enlightened we like to think we are. That is exactly why we need to stick to the limitations set forth in the Constitution and not sell our freedom for perceived benefits of federal programs.

Well, tomorrow’s the big day: the New Hampshire primary.

My predictions: McCain will win handily, followed by Romney. Giuliani will barely squeak by Huckabee for third. Thompson will do better than the 1% polls show him with, but not enough to place in the top slots.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not usually good with predictions.

****************************

For certifications like 350-001 and 642-523 , you only have to go through the syllabus of 642-825 and 646-203 once. That would be more than enough. With these courses behind you, you can also proceed with 650-251 and 70-297. Even 70-620 is not that hard anymore.

3 Responses to “The NH Debate”

  1. Romney.. as I said in my Debate post earlier today… he’s the kinda guy that sleeps with your girlfriend, tells you about it and then buys you a beer…

  2. I’m sorry, but I think much of the GOP is heartless when it comes to the over-blown issue of immigration. Romney is just speaking the way that polls are telling him to speak to potential Republican primary voters. I just saw a report on Nightline where they showed some immigrant waitress, at a Romney event on Monday, that was literally crying after she heard Romney speak on immigration. She was going to vote for him before then too! How could you *not* know that Romney doesn’t give a damn about immigrants?!

    You’re right…”pulling all of our troops around the world home will not end the jihad”…it will end when we stop messing with their interests around the world economically and socially as well AND when we bring an end to the Israeli occupation of captured Palestinian territory.

    The U.S. Constitution is, and must be, a living document…that’s why it can be (and has been) amended, and that’s what the Elastic Clause in the Constitution is all about.

    This is a crucial point of contention among liberals and conservatives in our country. I saw an author speak about it over the holidays…his premise was that conservatives don’t believe that people’s human nature is essentially good and liberals do believe that our human nature is essentially good. So, from a conservative’s point of view, that’s why groups of individials acting together (like thru a democratic govt. for instance) should be feared and individuals should be allowed to be “free” instead. I think the book was called “Cracking the Code”…

    I’ve noticed for quite some time that a lot of conservatives always talk about freedom and not so much about democracy. Democracies are about what a majority freely chooses…not what a few individuals simply want.

  3. “How could you *not* know that Romney doesn’t give a damn about immigrants?!”

    I haven’t been following Romney.

    “Democracies are about what a majority freely chooses”

    Within limits. Those limits are spelled out in the Constitution. They are meant to prevent us from “choosing” to take away other people’s rights, which is within our human nature to do so, especially when we think we know better than everyone else does.