The Presidential Pageant

I've had a few days to reflect on the Republican "debate" from the other day. Here are my thoughts:

1. What is wrong with asking a question and letting all the candidates answer it, and then allowing all candidates to give a follow up? Ron Paul got something like three questions the entire night. The other so-called "lower tier" candidates didn't fare much better. But every single question led to a follow-up from Rudy McRomney, meaning that those guys got a tremendously imbalanced portion of the time. Isn't the purpose of these debates to inform the voter about the candidates so that he/she can make an choice about who to support? Is this possible when 3 candidates get an overwhelmingly imbalanced portion of the time in the debates?

2. Having said that, Ron Paul needs to assert himself more. The other guys are very good about forcing their way into the discussion. Ron Paul us such a gentleman that he will raise his hand or gesture to the moderator and then wait. Sorry, but the moderators aren't interested in balancing time. They've proven that. If you're going to get your points across, Ron, you've got to speak up!

3. Rudy Giuliani is George Bush (or Dame Edna in the above picture).

4. Mitt Romney is one smooth sucker. If I had to bet right now, I'd say he probably gets the nomination. He's just too polished and well-spoken. Too bad his policies suck. And I'm not entirely convinced he's pro-life.

5. John McCain has the shortest arms ever. It's like his elbows are jointed to his shoulders. And he looks lost in this campaign. John, bow out gracefully. Your ship is sinking.

6. Mike Huckabee is probably my second-favorite of the Republicans, but I'm not sure if I would be able to vote for him or not. He still has a bit too much neocon in his blood, although he's no Bush or Giuliani.

7. Tom Tancredo is crazy. Literally. He actually advocated bombing Mecca and Muslim religious shrines?!?! And followed it up by saying that anyone who isn't willing to do that isn't fit to be president!?!? That's right Tom. Stir up the hornet's nest a little bit more, and invite some wasps, yellow jackets, and killer bees in for the party.

8. Tommy Thompson looks like the farmer at the beginning of Men in Black AFTER the alien takes over his body. I like how he has to give himself a running start into each question with an awkwardly placed, "Thank you, George" before beginning his answer with a bunch of preliminary meaningless comments. Its like he starts spitting out words while his mind is trying to think of his actual answer to the question.

9. Hopefully, after the Iowa Straw Poll, a few will drop out. At this point, I think the race should be between Giuliani, Romney, Paul, and Huckabee.

10. I don't know what else is scheduled in terms of debates, but I really hope that greater attention will be given to equal time by the moderators in the future.

11. What's up with putting a Republican debate at 9:00 on a Sunday morning?

Now for the Democrats:

1. I don't like any of them, what with them being socialists and everything.

2. I don't think Hillary can win because she's too shrill and too polarizing.

3. Dennis Kucinich makes me giggle when I look at him, but I respect him because he seems to be principled. I just think his principles suck.

4. I like the old guy with buck teeth. He's got spunk.

5. Brill girl is quite impressive. I can't figure out why the race isn't between him and Barak. I think it has something to do with Hillary's last name. It seems like his positions would have a much greater appeal to Democrats, and he articulates them pretty well, too.

6. I think Barak is the one that will ultimately get the nomination. Like Romney on the Republican side, he's polished and smooth. (They also both like big gov't.) But Romney's appearance alienates him from many. He looks and acts rich, and everyone hates the rich. Barak has the same smoothness, but comes off much more like the common man.

Ron Paul is the only one I really like. I'll be interested to see how the Straw Poll turns out. What are your thoughts at this point of the race?

Quick Hits

I usually blog during my abundant down time at work. Unfortunately, my employer has decided (for other reasons) to eliminate internet access in the building that I work in. The result: my blogging will have to be done at some other time. Since I try to spend as much of my time at home with my family as possible, I'll have to figure something else out. I will likely still type my blogs while at work, and save them on my flash drive, then post them when I get home in the evenings. Just thought I'd let you know why there might be some irregularities until I get into a new rhythm.

So Abbie is becoming quite the little Bible scholar. She can now say the Lord's Prayer, the Fruit of the Spirit, and the books of the New Testament all by her self. I don't mean to gloat, but ... ok, I do mean to gloat.

Does anyone else now wonder as you cross over a bridge whether it is one of the 170,000 or so bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete?

Why do I get more comments about a guy drinking urine than on matters of theology?

I'm really excited about watching the Republican debate on Sunday and seeing Ron Paul make all of the other candidates look like the partisan self-serving hacks that they are (see Giuliani and Romney specifically).

The Man Who Should Be President

I was raised to be a Republican. It was just a part of who we were. I remember in 5th grade giving a speech in front of my school endorsing George Bush, Sr. over Michael Dukakis. Being a Republican was part of my DNA.

In my adult life, I no longer see in the Republican party the things that I was taught to love about them. Small government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility, financial responsibility, etc. None of these exist in today's Republican Party.

I have also discovered some issues which I have only considered important as an adult. Non-interventionist foreign policy and maintaining national sovereignty are two more conservative principles that the Republicans utterly fail on.

But the problem isn't one of political philosophy. The politicians and the talking heads on TV try to explain it as such, but its not. I'm convinced that neither party sets policies or introduces legislation based on a core political philosophy. Rather, both parties operate based entirely on two things.

First, the Republicrats operate according to the desires of the special interests which fund them. The Dems are owned by socialist-leaning environmental, human rights, unions, etc. The Republicans are owned by corporate interests and fundamentalist Christian interests, among others.

The second factor that determines the activities of the Republicans and Democrats is the Republicans and Democrats. No matter the issue, if one party makes a proposal or takes a position on an issue, it is without exception opposed by the other party. It would stand to reason that, if these groups that were divided only along philosophical grounds, there would be occasional overlapping of conclusions, since different philosophies overlap on occasion. But agreement is NEVER present, thus indicating that political philosophy has nothing at all t0 do with American politics.

In the midst of this jaded cynicism, I see a ray of hope. Although Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican, he doesn't resemble one -- and for all the right reasons! He opposes the war and has from the beginning, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, wants to eliminate the current tax and monetary systems and drastically shrink the size of government. He also holds membership int he Libertarian Party and was their nominee for President in 1988. He is rarely even approached by special interest lobbyists because he has proven that he can't be bought. He actually operates according to a philosophy which is never compromised -- constitutionalism. In other words, he operates by principle, making him unique in Washington. His approach to legislation is to take the proposed legislation and actually consult the Constitution to see if it allows the federal government to act in such a way. If the Constitution gives permission, he votes Yes; if it doesn't, he votes No. What a novel idea!

I'll probably have more to say about him as time goes by, but for now let me just leave a few points from his website.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.


• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.


• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.


• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.


• He has never taken a government-paid junket.


• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.


• He voted against the Patriot Act.


• He voted against regulating the Internet.


• He voted against the Iraq war.


• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.


• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S.
  treasury every year.


• Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each
  year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

So what do you think? Who's your pick for Pres and why?