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.

Looking at my blog stats – and by the way, today was my highest traffic day ever, since I started blogging again in August – I am getting a lot of hits from Google searches on homeschoolers for Huckabee.

What this tells me is that the voters are checking into the Huckster.

This is a good thing.

The search is leading them to the post I wrote referring people to a series of very persuasive and illuminating posts exposing Huckabee’s record, written by a conservative Christian homeschool mom. (No not me.) And the out-clicks are going there.

The word is getting out there that Huckabee is not a conservative.

In the beginning, people took it on faith that because he is conservative in his Christianity, he is also conservative in his politics. Not so.

I think that by the time they vote, people will have found out the truth.

My prediction is that Iowa was an anomaly and Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee.

That is all. I am not posting another word about Huckabee until after the New Hampshire primaries.

I wanted to share his statement on the Huckabee win in Iowa. I was going to include my commentary, but I would rather let it stand alone.

Mike Huckabee’s victory in the Iowa caucuses is bad news for the Republican Party.

Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues.

Huckabee’s approach to every problem or perceived problem is to pass a law and launch another government program. If you like President George W. Bush, you’ll love Mike Huckabee.

If, on the other hand, you’re a limited government conservative in the grand tradition of Robert A. Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, you will want to redouble your efforts to make sure Huckabee doesn’t win the Republican nomination. Four years of a Huckabee presidency would ensure that there wouldn’t be a penny’s worth of differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on economic issues.

Much has been made of Mike Huckabee’s strong stance on social issues. In the 1970s, we conservatives had two legs on our stool—economic responsibility and a strong national defense—but that wasn’t enough to win many elections. It wasn’t until we added the third leg to our stool—social issues—that conservatives were able to win elections consistently.

Now Huckabee wants to go back to a two-legged stool—social issues and defense. He would saw off the economic leg. That’s a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party. Economic and traditional conservatives would stay home in droves, turning the country over to the Democrats.

Conservatives in New Hampshire and the other early primary states had better wake up, and make certain the Huckabee victory is confined to the subsidized ethanol fields of Iowa.

Richard A. Viguerie is the author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.

Aw, man. Okay, I do have a comment to make. I hope the term “Christian socialist” sticks. I am convinced that there is no other word that conservatives hate, except for maybe “communist” and “terrorist.”

Speaking of terrorists, no wait…, communists, no, I mean, speaking of people who are upset with the Huckabee win, conservative humor site IMAO offers its own Obligatory Rant About Iowa and Huckabee.

What sort of depraved individual wakes up in the morning and says, “I’m going to vote for Huckabee!” Really, the guy has no appeal to Republicans other than him shouting, “Look at me! I’m a Christian! I’m a Christian!” It’s identity politics; he’s the Jesse Jackson for mentally deficient white people. As a Christian myself, I thought one of our skills were supposed to be spotting frauds, but I guess a large number of “evangelicals” are lacking in that area. If you want to elect a Christian socialist, move to Europe. One advantage of the left being godless is that when they say they want my money for their harebrained policies, they never claimed it was dictated by God himself. Not going to be the case with Huckabee. If you disagree with him on taxes or humping the legs of illegal immigrants, he’s going to call you a bad Christian. It’s going to be so bad that it will necessitate one of us punching him, and who is going to do that? You? Are you willing to get tackled by the Secret Service?

There’s more, but I am already 3 words over the legal copying limit and I don’t want those guys to sue me, or punch me, or something.

Basically, “Huckabee is the moron Christian — the one who uses Jesus to justify any idiotic idea — liberals always claimed Republicans were but [Frank J.] never actually thought existed,” and Frank J. is boycotting corn.

I’m not sure if there is anything left to say about this topic, but if there is, you can bet I will post it later today.

That guy is using the cross so I’ll like him. That doesn’t tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I’m dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh.

Bleh, indeed.

At any rate, a well-known conservative Christian homeschool blogger, who retired from blogging last December, Spunky Homeschool, has briefly returned to offer a series of posts revealing why “a Huckabee presidency will NOT be good choice for conservative Christian homeschoolers or any conservative who believes in a limited government where there is no federal role education policy.”

Part One. The Huckabee Homeschool Hustle
Part Two. Huckabee and state reform
Part Three. Huckabee and federal policy
Part Four. Huckabee, IBO and Global Citizenship
Huckabee Responds

I know that for a lot of people, education is not their primary issue, but I just thought I would put this out there for anyone who is interested.

…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. US Constitution

So this is what it has come to. In order be considered for the Office of President of the United States, we need to know not only if you believe in a creator god, but if you do, we also need to know specifically if you think creation was done in a literal six days or six periods of time. While we’re at it, did God speak creatures into existence or guide the evolutionary process?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA]

I do not know if this guy would make a good president. I have not looked into his stance on the issues. I know; I am way behind. But I do know that theologically this is a great answer and one I wholeheartedly agree with, especially the last 40 seconds or so.

Of course that doesn’t mean he would make a good president. I, for one, have no religious test.