Analysis of Tonight's Republican Debate  [Note:  Wednesday a.m. I'll flesh this out some.  I thought Tancredo went semi-whacko near the end, with his call to end "legal" immigration!  Tom, this is a country of immigrants.   Why I like Huckabee so much: he's a So. Baptist preacher and has a much different background from mine, but he has a sense of humor (he's also from Hope, Arkansas!) and he speaks with utter sincerity.  I could care less what he thinks about evolution.  His views about Jesus Christ being a real presence in our lives mirrors my own view.  In other words, even when I don't completely agree with him, I hear a human voice, one of concern and compassion, there, and I like it a lot.   I didn't like some of the anti-Bush undertone (Tancredo, Thompson).  GWB is as good a man as anyone on the stage.  I admired the men for speaking with real conviction about their religious faith, which I share.  Romney:  he doesn't register well with me, because I don't hear "the ring of sincerity."  Just wanting desperately to be President isn't enough.  McCain:  I'm close to worshipping the guy as a MAN.  He was the only one there that showed me real compassion for the plight of the Hispanics (mostly Mexicans).  Jesus Christ has some firm instructions on how we're supposed to treat people like the Hispanics, and I didn't see people sufficiently heeding Our Lord's admonitions.  I don't mean to be touchy/feely, churchy/churchy, but in life we are supposed to do many things that we'd really not -- including have love for our neighbors.  I talk about love in politics a lot (maybe too much).  I saw Ronald Reagan exuding it in his contacts with the American people.  I also Giuliani exemplifying it when he went to 25 funerals after 9/11 -- and giving away a bride whose father had been killed in the Towers.  I also see love in Hunter's comments about his son.  McCain showed it in his reverence for the sister of the young man killed in Iraq.  That was McCain at his best.   Prickley personalities (McCain, Giuliani) don't bother me.  We're electing a President, not Mr. Congeniality.   It might -- the idiotic "base" is howling -- come down to Giuliani vs. McCain.  The Democratic race already has come down to Mrs. Clinton.  Obama is an empty suit with melliflous tones.   Edwards should let his hair grow.  I was intrigued by the way Giuliani and McCain took it to the Democrats.  The girl from WMUR (Manchester) did a far better job than the Vulpine Man ("Wolf," don't call me "Donner," Blitzer).


Material below that I put up at 9 p.m. Tuesday (!!!!!!!!)

I mentioned in my analysis of the first debate (lo, those many days ago) that the debate made me proud to be a Republican and a conservative.  I feel even more so after tonight's get-together.  his is a good group of men, strong and clear-thinking.

Earlier, I said that I would ask several of the men to go back to their "day jobs" and get out of the debates.  Frankly, I think we could endure as a nation without Ron Paul, but I think all the others should stay in the race.  Tom Tancredo is too one-issue, but he said some good things (along with some that he may regret some day).

I said before the debate that I expected Rudy Giuliani to win the debate "big time."  I thought Rudy did an excellent job tonight.  He ran mainly against the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, the likely candidate for that Party.   He acted like the frontrunner and the presumptive nominee, and he did so without arrogance.  He was 9/11 Rudy again.
His health care plan was a new idea, and a necessary one.  He does not yet have the abortion/pro life issue down yet.

McCain was very strong tonight.  He defended the difficult -- immigration -- effectively.  He was as strong as Giuliani on national security and the WOT.
 He is getting better, and he is trying hard to make this a two-man race.

One of the most consistenly strong candidates is Mike Huckabee.  He is a very bright man, a clear communicator, and a deeply spiritual individual.  This guy is looking more and more like a great vice-presidential candidate.  In about a week, I'm going to beseech the Republican front-runners to look hard at two people, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, and Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas. 

Duncan Hunter?  I like the guy tremendously.  I wouldn't be surprised if he made a great President -- or Vice President.

Romney?  McCain is right about how much "Mitt" wants to be President.

I beat the drums for people like Huckabee, Hunter, and Sarah Palin, because I believe the Republican Party needs their ideas and their strength.  Almost all the candidates for President are "new," except for McCain, who ran eight years ago.  

The critical thing for us is to do everything to avoid becoming "The White People's Party," or, worse, "The White GUYS Party."  We need all different types of people in order to win serious elections.  There are currently 40 million LEGAL Americans of Hispanic background.  We need their votes.  

When you need people's votes, you go out to them and explain them how it serves their interests to vote for you.  Offer them -- credibly and forecefully -- security and offer them a good quality of life, and you will get their votes.



_______________

I wrote the following before tonight's Republican debate at St. Anselm's College in New Hampshire.   I'm calling it the "Immigration Debate," not because I'm prescient but because I believe most of the fire will come tonight from the proposed immigration legislation.  I expect the fireworks will go off between McCain and Romney, and I half expect "Mitt" to end up  -- metaphorically -- will come out something of a bloody mess.  I also expect Sam Brownback, not exactly an attack dog, to go after Romney.  I expect Rudy to come across like the front-runner -- and to come up with an interesting proposal on immigration.

I'm champing at the bit to write about immigration, because I believe I have something useful to say -- as do many other people who blog on TH.  (I'm not talking about Hugh Hewitt and crew, who would rather rub raw the sores of discontent than to heal.) 

Here's what one of Mitt Romney's top advisors said today about the immigration proposal:  "This is the most far-reaching and thoughtful reform of our immigration system in four decades and one that will significantly enhance American competitiveness. As with any political compromise, improvements can be made. But the basic framework is one that conservatives should support. Indeed, for conservatives who opposed last year’s immigration bill, this package represents a step forward."  (Greg Mankiw, who serves as co-chair of Mitt Romney's Economic Advisory Council, writing in an Op Ed in the Dallas Morning News)

Gee, I wonder if Wolf Blitzer will ask Romney (and McCain?) about that statement?  Actually, I don't wonder at all.  Wolf will ask all the predictable questions to all the usual suspects.

I also wonder (no I don't) if Wolf will ask them about the head of NASA's wondering if global warming is really such a bad thing -- and if so, why?  Essentially, he was raising a simple question about how we determine which is the optimum climate for the planet.   It's such a good question that no one has answered it yet, although there have been howls of pain "the sky is falling in" group.

Good questions, had questions just don't get asked.  The moderators aren't smart enough or creative enough to come up with questions that will force the candidates to think.  They all have "talking points," and we'll hear them recited tonight. 

Put Sanity 102, Shela, Sandy Wise, Bruce Sherman, and Wil Keepers (and my buddy, Palin4VP) up on the stage and let them ask questions.  It would be a wonderful show, trust me.

I'll comment on the debate after it's over -- unless another debate breaks up immediately after the St. Anselm's session. 

I expect Rudy to "win" this debate big-time.