After seeing the Democratic debate prior to this one, it really makes me sit back and realize the difference in ideology. There were a few main issues that really stood out to me. Ronald Reagan is a God to all the candidates and the standard to which all Republicans are measured. So, who will be the next President Reagan? Well, every single one of them, except for Ron Paul, said that they are the next Ronald Reagan that America needs, but in terms of logistics, how is that even possible? Ronald Reagan was one person with one stylistic ideology — far right. How can every single one of these candidates be the next Reagan when many of them have contrarian views on a couple of key issues? It would seem then that they are trying to piggy-back on a once viewed successful politician trying to ride the late former president’s coattails.

The next main issue was the Iraq and Iran debacle. 90% of them believe that the war was mismanaged but were strong in conveying that leaving Iraq is a bad decision and is not supporting the troops in their valiant effort to democratize the country. Most were aggressive with Iran, saying that the country was a state sponsor of terrorism and still under the belief that they are an imminent nuclear threat — which by the way has been proven otherwise. Some were even suggesting that a preemptive use of military force against Iran was on the table. One of them even suggested that we go in tear down the regime in Iran and set up a democratic government, just as we are trying to do with Iraq.

One of the funniest moments was how the candidates responded to how they felt about Bill Clinton’s possibility of being back in the White House. All answered with a resounding negative opinion and didn’t waste time slinging a little mud in Hillary and Bill’s direction. Calling Bill’s policy as defensive against terrorism and not a republican offensive stance, and the hatred for socialized medicine was another that was obvious. All in all, the republicans did not seem as cohesive as the democrats and were not afraid to throw their opinions around.

Most of the candidates were for militarism/aggressive foreign policy, and definitely very afraid of being too harsh on Bush, his Administration and how the government is handling the public opinion. I was very surprised and a little worried about how they tip-toed around the Bush administration, even going as far as hesitating about Karl Rove, as if they didn’t want to speak out against another fellow Republican even though they need to separate themselves from the current administration. This on the other hand is very “Reagan” as he created the republican value that by no means do you speak negatively about a fellow Republican. Here’s my analysis of each candidate:

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas: [My favorite] Surprisingly he is a M.D. and the most truly Republican of all the candidates. He followed the ideology of the Republicans from 30 years ago. He did not like the idea of being liberal with our military, having a large government that was involved in the publics’ life and was against the Iraq War. He also mentioned that we are not responsible for policing the world saying, “If your goal is to police the world you lose liberty… If the goal is to promote liberty you need to unify and promote freedoms… When you concentrate too much on military you actually weaken the national defense.”

Phasing out the IRS, stopping the mismanagement of finances by stopping the exorbitant printing of money and lessening the divide between the rich and the poor were some of his more serious issues. He would like to change ideas about what the government needs to be by saying he believes in smaller government, and is against the government interference on freedom, privacy, civil rights and my favorite no governance of the internet.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas: I hesitate saying this, but he came off as being really arrogant. Brownback believes Iran is the lead sponsor of terrorism. When asked when even in the moderate Islamic countries only 12% have a positive view and the rest hate us, isn’t that a breeding ground for the creation of terrorists? Should we try to reduce that hatred or continue the war on terror? Brownback responded with, “We have to do both… we have to engage in [the countries]… have to confront the countries” with all avenues — economic, military and diplomatic.

When discussing faith, he says that we are a nation of faith trying to invite faith into our politics. “In God we trust” was mentioned. Then he goes on to say that faith in politics does not divide but “lifts us up”. So, what happens when that person does not believe in Evolution and ignores fact over faith? Sounds like Bush. No matter what stats, polls, history, evidence is shown to Bush, he will continue with his faith based policy [scary stuff].

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani: Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan; New York; New York; New York! Rudy is holding on strongly to his New York City and his actions during 911. He was attacked quite numerously on his “flip-flopping” with abortion and gay rights. Believes an attack against Iran would be “very dangerous and provocative” [thank God], but he too, along with nearly everyone, is believing in this “Iran is a threat to America mythology”. When trying to answer the dreaded question about the difference between Shia and Sunni, he got the gist right, but blew it on the history of why the two groups became violent.

The most worrisome is he believes Bush did the right thing with the offensive actions against terror and that he will make history for what he has done [Wow, Bush seems infallible to most of these Republicans].

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California: “Iran has crossed the line and the United States has the license to take any action necessary to stop the weapons from being brought into Iraq.” When McCain started talking about being pro-military and aggressive with foreign policy, Hunter wanted to join in with his “Defense” background, and he too can “protect” this country. Discussed in detail the California/Mexico fence that he was involved with, and how he drew up a bill that extends it to Texas. Obviously he is against illegal immigration.

When asked about Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, he said he did not watch it — which isn’t a big deal, but I think if you are going to have an opinion about Global Warming, you should at least watch the darn documentary. Some other issues were that he was not a fan of outsourcing American industry and when asked what does America do well, he mentions the precision military attack on Zarqawi. (He couldn’t think of anything but war and military? I can think of a lot of reasons why America is good and none of them are militaristic.)

Sen. John McCain of Arizona: [Preamble: What you are about to read is not liberal or leftist opinion on McCain, it is reality!] McCain was very aggressive verbally and showed little signs of smiles and warmth. When asked about whether or not he can be another Reagan, his first words were “defeating our enemies.” Not bringing America together, not improving America’s economy, not fixing our education system, but WAR! He also stated that he wants more time for our Iraq War since we now have a “new strategy”. Wants to preemptively involve America with Iran to respond to their alleged nuclear weapons capabilities. [note: Iran is 10 years away from actually attaining any nuclear weapons, and they are allowed by legal right to enrich uranium for energy purposes. There is no evidence that Iran is an imminent danger.] Protecting Israel was very important in McCain’s policy, and the country came up quite frequently.

In response to Osama bin Laden, “I will follow him to the gates of Hell!” Then informed us that he “know[s] how the world works and I have seen the evil in it.” Which worries me because of this “your either with us or against us” mentality — pitting good against evil. He was also standing tall and hard on issues that don’t really matter. He was beating the drum of vetoing “pork barrel” bills to death, but don’t let him lie to you. Vetoing “pork barrel” bills will not lower our deficit and will not help our economy. He is just using key words and sound biets to make you think he will help our financial problems ignoring that the war will eventually cost us trillions of dollars. And lastly, he is for a temporary worker program for illegal immigrants.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado: Looked quite shaky and lacked true confidence. When answering touchy questions he kept looking down instead of at the audience showing signs of confidence issues. Tom’s policy has very little to no light between Israeli policy and America’s Middle Eastern foreign policy. Another believer of Iranian imminent threat and will back Israeli militarily if Israel decided to wage war against Iran. One thing I liked is how he did not like Rove. Then he ruined it by saying he believes that being a “centrist” in policy is not the way to win, and mentioned that what’s important is how convicted you are in your ideas and beliefs [sounds like another stubborn extremist to me].




Tancredo sounded quite righteous on many issues and seems that he has no concern for the majority of Americans that are not on the left or the right, but somewhere in the middle. The last two things that irked me was how he wants to pardon Libby and does not believe in Evolution.

Former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts: [Preamble: After watching this over and over, it really surprised me that he was never cut off and continually allowed as much time as he needed compared to the aggressive time cuts to some of the other candidates.] His responses were very calculated and robotic lacking a lot of sincerity. When asked when 55% of respondents to a poll say that winning is impossible in Iraq, do you think the President should listen to the citizens? His response was no. “That is not what America wants [how in the Hell does he know what we all want] and not what America needs.” Romney displayed some ignorance when it came to his knowledge of the Middle East, specifically in regards to the origins of terrorism, Islamism and Wahhabism. He was just throwing out key words and sound bites, in my opinion. In response to Osama bin Laden, he said, “he is going to pay and he will die!” [but I thought he was pro-life?]

Faith played a huge role in his answers during the debate, yet no mention to being a Mormon (smart). He also concentrated much time on speaking about the American family and insinuated that he was going to “get more marriages before babies”. His continual rhetoric in regards to American families sounded really strange. I don’t know if this sounds like privacy invasion or government involvement in marraige. Either way, this is a scary candidate. He mentioned a pseudo-socialized medical plan that has been compared to Hillary’s. He assures that it is not socialized medicine, and that it is just a medical reform policy. And lastly, fully believes in Bush’s actions to protect the American people.

Former governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin: [Preamble: could not get much on this guy] When asked about Iraq he was in favor of splitting Iraq into “religious states” and having them vote for their own leaders and spreading the oil revenues to every man, woman and child [oh, boy]. What scared me the most about this guy is when he was asked should an employer be allowed to fire an employee because he is gay, Thompson said it should be left up to the employer if he wants to do that. [Are you kidding me?! This guy doesn’t care if someone gets fired for being gay?! This man does NOT believe in the equal and fair treatment to all American citizens, just the ones he agrees with.]

Former governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia: [Preamble: could not get much on this guy either] He sees the Iraq problem as an entire Middle East problem. Wants to bring all American people into a new more heavily committed foreign policy to engage in the Middle East and involve ourselves in the strife between Sunni and Shia, Israel and Palestine [Let’s spend another couple of trillion over there]. Then he completely ignored a direct question about Bush’s policy and did the same with a Karl Rove question [very evasive].

Former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas: Stood out with his humor regarding allowing California Governor Arnold S. to become president through amending the Constitution. He also came off as one of the most sincere of the Republicans, except for Ron Paul, and thinks Global Warming is something to care about. Huckabee uses the old Boy Scout saying, “Your leave the campsite in a better condition than you found it.” When asked about faith and politics, he said that if one’s faith is not intimately involved in their politics, then their faith is not real [I thought there was a separation of church and State]. Then says his faith does affect his decision making process [Very scary, especially when he does not believe in Evolution]. What I did like is how he was not for outsourcing of American jobs and removing pensions — “it’s illegal” he said.

After watching this debate, I was amazed about how being labeled the ultra conservative was the most sought out goal. The word conservative was treated like the the blue ribbon, and everyone wanted to covet it. Then the key phrase “consistent conservative” rang out very frequently during this debate. What does that mean? Are you going to be completely stubborn and ignore the American public because of the fear of changing your stance? Sounds exactly like Bush and his policy of ignoring 70% of his country’s citizens. With most of these guys, except for my favorite Ron Paul — who I actually like better than any of the Democrats — are so afraid of change and being labeled un-conservative that they seem irrational when it comes to their ideology. I hope this helps anyone out there who wants a centrist view on these candidates and wants a better, brighter future for America. And please, feel free to add your opinions to these candidates as I always like to hear what others have to say on these important matters.