As expected, Fred Thompson loomed large in the GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan Tuesday afternoon. After skipping out on all previous debates, given that he was not yet a candidate, the fact that Thompson has skyrocketed to a statistical tie with Rudy Giuliani meant that all eyes were on Fred.
Thompson even occupied the center stage in the debate, which inadvertently served to further highlight his looming stature, figuratively and literally.
Chris Matthews asked Thompson the first question of the debate. Thompson seemed to lose his train of thought at one moment during his answer. But after a rusty first shot out of the starting gate, the candidate proceeded to show that he can stand toe-to-toe with the big guys on the national stage.
Thompson's answers were down-to-earth, folksy, and exhibited his vast knowledge of legal and Constitutional issues after spending decades as an attorney.
While Thompson may not have lived up to the unrealistic expectations of those who expected him to be someone he is not, such as Ronald Reagan, the candidate nonetheless established himself as one who can hold his own with rivals who have been on the stage now for months.
Duncan Hunter also posted a strong performance, particularly on the issue of how the Chinese have taken advantage of U.S. trade policies to come back and hurt us.
The question was asked of all the candidates if they would go on record as supporting whoever wins the GOP nomination for President. Several candidates hedged, including Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.
Mr. Paul insisted that his litmus test was the War in Iraq and whether or not the GOP nominee promises to get us out. Clearly Mr. Paul knows that several top-tier GOP candidates, one of whom is likely to be the nominee, clearly do not share his views on Iraq. Does this mean that he will support Hillary? Or perhaps turn to a third Party?
If this is the intent of Mr. Paul, surely he knows that such a move will hand the election to Hillary. And if he follows through and does such a thing, he not only will lose all of my respect but be relegated to the ash-heap of political history along side of the likes of Ross Perot.
Perot's misguided and laughable campaign as a third Party candidate in 1992 is the single reason Bill Clinton was elected President. If Ron Paul does a similar thing, he will hand the election to yet another Clinton.
And this raises a serious political question. In terms of campaign strategy, when a candidate uses tactics that he/she knows at the start will help elect a sworn political opponent, does this not mean that the candidate in question in actuality supports the opponent who benefits from those tactics?
After all, every single Democratic candidate has pledged to 'get us out of Iraq.' Since this seems to be the Paul litmus test, I suppose he would rather support Hillary or Kucinich than a member of his own Party.
Not a single GOP candidate can be described as a European-styled Socialist. Yet most if not all of the Democratic candidates are exactly that.
But who cares? At least they will 'get us out of Iraq.'
Mike Huckabee, as always, posted a fine debate performance this evening. It is easy to see why many refer to his 'rising star' status within the Republican Party with his quick wit and thoughtful answers.
With regard to the rest of the field of candidates--McCain, Giuliani, Romney--all did well and provided thoughtful answers to a range of questions on Social Security, healthcare, open markets, taxes, and government spending.
Based upon the answers given in this afternoon's debate, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the GOP candidates based upon our exclusive 'liberty scale' which focuses on these key issues: taxes, gun rights, abortion, immigration control, national defense, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy.
Here are the ratings (10 is the highest score):
Fred Thompson--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Duncan Hunter--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Sam Brownback--7
John McCain--7
Mitt Romney--6
Rudy Giuliani--6
McCain's movement from a 5 to a 7 is due to the candidate's movement on the issues. We believe, at least at this point, that he has heard the outcry from the citizens about illegal immigration. His willingness to be flexible is a big point in his favor.
Showing posts with label Tom Tancredo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Tancredo. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Thompson Announces, Republicans Debate in N.H.
Former U.S. Senator and television star Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee, has formally announced his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination. Thompson began airing a television ad describing his campaign goals even as the rest of the Republican field of candidates debated in New Hampshire.
Demonstrating the power of the Thompson presence in the campaign, the very first question of the debate, posed by Fox News Washington Chief Britt Hume, centered on Thompson's contention that having armed students at Virginia Tech could have prevented the massacre unleashed by Cho Seung Hui.
The Second Amendment was a recurring theme during the debate, as the candidates made sure that listeners understood that they each support the individual citizen's right to bear arms.
However, the record shows a different story. When compared to the Democratic candidates, each of the Republican candidates come out smelling like a rose. But Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have less-than-stellar records on their support of Second Amendment rights.
The most exciting segment of the debate occurred when Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee sparred on the War in Iraq. Hume allowed the two great leeway in their exchange, given that it was one of the more spontaneous and interesting segments that has occurred in any of the debates in either Party.
Concerning Ron Paul, The Liberty Sphere continues to have great difficulty with the candidate's assertion that the 9/11 attack was due to the American troop presence on the Arabian peninsula--the reason given by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Mr. Paul makes the mistake of taking the words of Osama bin Laden at face value.
Why should we believe him? Bin Laden is one of the least trustworthy individuals on the planet.
The truth is we were attacked because radical Islamists, i.e., the Jihad, wishes to kill us all in the name of Allah and usher in Sharia Law under the Koran.
And this is why we have maintained all along that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. This shortsighted point of view on what our nation faces in the Jihadists is enough to deny him the support of most Republican voters.
This is, no doubt, a shame, for Mr. Paul is otherwise an attractive candidate with many laudable ideas.
The clear winner in this debate, in our view, continues to be Duncan Hunter, R-California. He has the honor, the integrity, the grasp of the issues, and the ability to articulate his stance on the issues that place him at the head of the pack.
If there was a clear loser in the debate, it would have to be Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who seemed to lose his train of thought a couple of times. This was not a good night for the Senator, although his lackluster showing did nothing to effect his stance on the issues, which for the most part is strong.
The Liberty Sphere rates the candidates who participate in the debates based upon eight key issues impacting personal liberty--taxes, healthcare, gun rights, immigration policy, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, and the War on Terror.
Based upon these key issues, we rate the Republican candidates in Wednesday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--9
Sam Brownback--8
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Demonstrating the power of the Thompson presence in the campaign, the very first question of the debate, posed by Fox News Washington Chief Britt Hume, centered on Thompson's contention that having armed students at Virginia Tech could have prevented the massacre unleashed by Cho Seung Hui.
The Second Amendment was a recurring theme during the debate, as the candidates made sure that listeners understood that they each support the individual citizen's right to bear arms.
However, the record shows a different story. When compared to the Democratic candidates, each of the Republican candidates come out smelling like a rose. But Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have less-than-stellar records on their support of Second Amendment rights.
The most exciting segment of the debate occurred when Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee sparred on the War in Iraq. Hume allowed the two great leeway in their exchange, given that it was one of the more spontaneous and interesting segments that has occurred in any of the debates in either Party.
Concerning Ron Paul, The Liberty Sphere continues to have great difficulty with the candidate's assertion that the 9/11 attack was due to the American troop presence on the Arabian peninsula--the reason given by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Mr. Paul makes the mistake of taking the words of Osama bin Laden at face value.
Why should we believe him? Bin Laden is one of the least trustworthy individuals on the planet.
The truth is we were attacked because radical Islamists, i.e., the Jihad, wishes to kill us all in the name of Allah and usher in Sharia Law under the Koran.
And this is why we have maintained all along that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. This shortsighted point of view on what our nation faces in the Jihadists is enough to deny him the support of most Republican voters.
This is, no doubt, a shame, for Mr. Paul is otherwise an attractive candidate with many laudable ideas.
The clear winner in this debate, in our view, continues to be Duncan Hunter, R-California. He has the honor, the integrity, the grasp of the issues, and the ability to articulate his stance on the issues that place him at the head of the pack.
If there was a clear loser in the debate, it would have to be Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who seemed to lose his train of thought a couple of times. This was not a good night for the Senator, although his lackluster showing did nothing to effect his stance on the issues, which for the most part is strong.
The Liberty Sphere rates the candidates who participate in the debates based upon eight key issues impacting personal liberty--taxes, healthcare, gun rights, immigration policy, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, and the War on Terror.
Based upon these key issues, we rate the Republican candidates in Wednesday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--9
Sam Brownback--8
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Tax Talk on the Campaign Trail
The campaign trail is already rife with tax talk as the candidates in both Parties gear up for their major push leading to the early 2008 primary season. Unannounced GOP contender Fred Thompson created somewhat of a stir last week by suggesting he may support the 'fair tax.'
Simply stated, the fair tax is like a national sales tax, except no sales tax would be assessed on food or medicine. This would greatly help the poorest among us.
However, the fair tax proposal has already generated opposition on the part of those with a vested interest in keeping the present system of taxation. Tax lawyers and accountants in particular are vehemently opposed to the plan, as are the tax preparation services.
The IRS is opposed to the plan. The reason, of course, is not far to find. With the fair tax in place, there would be no need for the IRS.
Liberal politicians, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are against the plan. The current system allows the socialistic notion of 'redistribution of wealth' to flourish. Plus, it is too easy to score political points by creating class warfare when a politician can always point to how 'rich people and corporations do not pay their fair share' under the current system, leading to their proposals for hefty tax increases for upper income brackets and U.S. businesses.
Curiously, however, the fair tax proposal is finding some opposition among the middle class that has greatly benefited from deductions for mortgages and charitable contributions.
Perhaps this is the one negative consequence of implementing the fair tax. The middle class would no longer have those deductions.
However, there is too much in favor of a system of taxation based upon the fair tax to dismiss it outright for failing to include provisions to which Americans have been accustomed.
For one, you get to keep your own money. No federal tax assessments will be withheld from your paycheck. With more money in your pocket, you have more choices at your disposal, such as buying a home or making provision for medical care.
In addition, when you make a purchase of food or medicine, you pay no federal tax whatsoever. Many states have already implemented this policy on the local level, meaning that food and medicine are much more affordable to the lower and middle classes.
Perhaps the most enticing advantage of all with the fair tax is that at the end of the year there are no lengthy and confusing tax forms to fill out. April 15 will no longer be known as the black day when the tax man cometh. You will no longer need to fear the heavy hand of the IRS pouring over your records for mistakes, or being told that you underpaid and owe more money.
Some critics have argued that the U.S. government could not survive under such a system. Such an alarmist point of view is a scare tactic alone. Not only would government survive but it would thrive.
For the first time in memory, corporations would pay their fair share like everyone else. So would the super-rich. With the demise of the system that makes corporate welfare possible, along with loopholes that allow some of the super-rich to escape large tax liabilities, government will actually begin to collect more money from some sectors of society.
Every person and every entity in America will owe the very same percentage on purchases except for food and medicine. This is actually a good thing. Everyone pays their 'fair share.'
For some mega-corporations this will mean millions of extra dollars flowing into the federal government.
At the other end of the spectrum government would actually lose money from those who can ill afford to make many purchases of consumer goods.
Any shortfall of funds from the fair tax would lead to a thorough consideration of the age-old question--does government live within its means? Clearly it does not. With multi-billion-dollar bridges built to nowhere by pork-barrel politicians, the Pentagon paying millions to ship 19-cent bolts, and unnecessary programs such as the BATFE and the Department of Education, the government is long overdue for some belt-tightening.
The abolition of the IRS alone would save American taxpayers billions of dollars per year.
So far, at least five of the GOP Presidential candidates are on record as either supporting or considering supporting the fair tax--Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson.
The Liberty Sphere is glad to see this issue taking center stage in the various campaigns. We feel that the nation's broken system of taxation should be an easy one with which to hammer the Democrats.
Simply stated, the fair tax is like a national sales tax, except no sales tax would be assessed on food or medicine. This would greatly help the poorest among us.
However, the fair tax proposal has already generated opposition on the part of those with a vested interest in keeping the present system of taxation. Tax lawyers and accountants in particular are vehemently opposed to the plan, as are the tax preparation services.
The IRS is opposed to the plan. The reason, of course, is not far to find. With the fair tax in place, there would be no need for the IRS.
Liberal politicians, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are against the plan. The current system allows the socialistic notion of 'redistribution of wealth' to flourish. Plus, it is too easy to score political points by creating class warfare when a politician can always point to how 'rich people and corporations do not pay their fair share' under the current system, leading to their proposals for hefty tax increases for upper income brackets and U.S. businesses.
Curiously, however, the fair tax proposal is finding some opposition among the middle class that has greatly benefited from deductions for mortgages and charitable contributions.
Perhaps this is the one negative consequence of implementing the fair tax. The middle class would no longer have those deductions.
However, there is too much in favor of a system of taxation based upon the fair tax to dismiss it outright for failing to include provisions to which Americans have been accustomed.
For one, you get to keep your own money. No federal tax assessments will be withheld from your paycheck. With more money in your pocket, you have more choices at your disposal, such as buying a home or making provision for medical care.
In addition, when you make a purchase of food or medicine, you pay no federal tax whatsoever. Many states have already implemented this policy on the local level, meaning that food and medicine are much more affordable to the lower and middle classes.
Perhaps the most enticing advantage of all with the fair tax is that at the end of the year there are no lengthy and confusing tax forms to fill out. April 15 will no longer be known as the black day when the tax man cometh. You will no longer need to fear the heavy hand of the IRS pouring over your records for mistakes, or being told that you underpaid and owe more money.
Some critics have argued that the U.S. government could not survive under such a system. Such an alarmist point of view is a scare tactic alone. Not only would government survive but it would thrive.
For the first time in memory, corporations would pay their fair share like everyone else. So would the super-rich. With the demise of the system that makes corporate welfare possible, along with loopholes that allow some of the super-rich to escape large tax liabilities, government will actually begin to collect more money from some sectors of society.
Every person and every entity in America will owe the very same percentage on purchases except for food and medicine. This is actually a good thing. Everyone pays their 'fair share.'
For some mega-corporations this will mean millions of extra dollars flowing into the federal government.
At the other end of the spectrum government would actually lose money from those who can ill afford to make many purchases of consumer goods.
Any shortfall of funds from the fair tax would lead to a thorough consideration of the age-old question--does government live within its means? Clearly it does not. With multi-billion-dollar bridges built to nowhere by pork-barrel politicians, the Pentagon paying millions to ship 19-cent bolts, and unnecessary programs such as the BATFE and the Department of Education, the government is long overdue for some belt-tightening.
The abolition of the IRS alone would save American taxpayers billions of dollars per year.
So far, at least five of the GOP Presidential candidates are on record as either supporting or considering supporting the fair tax--Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson.
The Liberty Sphere is glad to see this issue taking center stage in the various campaigns. We feel that the nation's broken system of taxation should be an easy one with which to hammer the Democrats.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Changing Complexion of GOP Race
The Iowa GOP Straw Poll on Saturday was only a preliminary poll. No delegates were won by any of the participants. Yet already there has been a casualty as Tommy Thompson drops out of the race after posting a sixth place finish in a state where he desperately needed to be in the top three.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll: Three Unlikely Winners
The Republican Party of Iowa held its heralded straw poll on Saturday. As expected Mitt Romney was declared the winner after garnering 31% of the 14,203 votes cast.
Romney's win, however, is not considered a major boost to the campaign of the former Massachusetts governor. Romney had visited the state no less than 17 times and spend a ton of money to bring his supporters to the polls.
The real story of this straw poll is that there were three unlikely winners.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee came in 2nd in spite of the fact that he spent very little money and has almost no presence on the Internet. Huckabee received 18.1% of the vote.
The real surprise of the day was that U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo came in 4th with 13.7% of the vote. Under normal circumstances a 4th place finish would not be considered significant. With Tancredo, however, such a feat is a major step forward in his campaign.
Tancredo was considered the darkest horse of the dark horses in the Republican bid for the Presidential nomination. His first debate performance, to say the least, was unimpressive.
Yet the Colorado Congressman has gradually improved in his ability to field questions in these forums, and he can deliver a rousing speech. Thus, the dark horse candidate who was having trouble reaching 1 or 2 percent in polling numbers received a double-digit percentage of the vote in Iowa.
The third unlikely winner in the contest was Fred Thompson. Although the former U.S. Senator from Tennessee did not visit the state prior to the straw poll, and was not even formally listed on the ballot, Thompson still managed to to come in 7th, ahead of both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
Giuliani and McCain decided to skip the event.
Sam Brownback's standing in the poll was not devastating by any stretch of the imagination, but it is almost certain the candidate was not pleased with his 3rd place finish. Although the Kansas Senator received 15.3% of the vote, political observers expected Brownback to do much better.
Huckabee's 2nd place finish probably surprised the Brownback campaign as much as it did Huckabee himself.
Although Tommy Thompson came in 6th with 7.3% of the vote, campaign observers expect the candidate to drop out of the race. Thompson had stated prior to the Iowa event that unless he finished in the top three in Iowa he would announce his withdrawal.
Participation in the poll was lower than expected. GOP voters indicated that this was due to their desire for another candidate, such as Fred Thompson, who has not yet announced. Others stated that because front-runners Giuliani and McCain decided to skip this event, many of the GOP faithful stayed home.
That remains to be seen. A sizeable number of Republicans across the board in all 50 states indicate they want another choice besides the current slate of candidates.
The question is, will Fred Thompson fit the bill?
Romney's win, however, is not considered a major boost to the campaign of the former Massachusetts governor. Romney had visited the state no less than 17 times and spend a ton of money to bring his supporters to the polls.
The real story of this straw poll is that there were three unlikely winners.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee came in 2nd in spite of the fact that he spent very little money and has almost no presence on the Internet. Huckabee received 18.1% of the vote.
The real surprise of the day was that U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo came in 4th with 13.7% of the vote. Under normal circumstances a 4th place finish would not be considered significant. With Tancredo, however, such a feat is a major step forward in his campaign.
Tancredo was considered the darkest horse of the dark horses in the Republican bid for the Presidential nomination. His first debate performance, to say the least, was unimpressive.
Yet the Colorado Congressman has gradually improved in his ability to field questions in these forums, and he can deliver a rousing speech. Thus, the dark horse candidate who was having trouble reaching 1 or 2 percent in polling numbers received a double-digit percentage of the vote in Iowa.
The third unlikely winner in the contest was Fred Thompson. Although the former U.S. Senator from Tennessee did not visit the state prior to the straw poll, and was not even formally listed on the ballot, Thompson still managed to to come in 7th, ahead of both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.
Giuliani and McCain decided to skip the event.
Sam Brownback's standing in the poll was not devastating by any stretch of the imagination, but it is almost certain the candidate was not pleased with his 3rd place finish. Although the Kansas Senator received 15.3% of the vote, political observers expected Brownback to do much better.
Huckabee's 2nd place finish probably surprised the Brownback campaign as much as it did Huckabee himself.
Although Tommy Thompson came in 6th with 7.3% of the vote, campaign observers expect the candidate to drop out of the race. Thompson had stated prior to the Iowa event that unless he finished in the top three in Iowa he would announce his withdrawal.
Participation in the poll was lower than expected. GOP voters indicated that this was due to their desire for another candidate, such as Fred Thompson, who has not yet announced. Others stated that because front-runners Giuliani and McCain decided to skip this event, many of the GOP faithful stayed home.
That remains to be seen. A sizeable number of Republicans across the board in all 50 states indicate they want another choice besides the current slate of candidates.
The question is, will Fred Thompson fit the bill?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Republicans Square Off in Iowa
The Republicans had a debate early Sunday morning in Iowa. Unless you are a news junkie you probably didn't even know a debate was taking place.
Yet Iowans get up early, and they packed the house to hear the nine Republican candidates spar on a variety of issues, one week prior to a major straw poll on Saturday, Aug. 13.
Significant in this debate was the fireworks that occurred between Senator Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. Brownback took Romney to task for his about-face on abortion, not that it isn't admirable for Romney to change his mind but that dyed-in-the-wool pro-life candidates such as Brownback have reason to doubt Romney's sincerity.
Romney has taken an about-face on several issues since his days as a Liberal Republican Governor of the state of Massachusetts. The Liberty Sphere has often asked the question, who is the real Mitt Romney?
Nobody really knows except for the candidate himself.
Brownback's offensive played well in Iowa, where most Republican activists are pro-life. Attendees and observers however did not give the Kansas Senator top marks in the debate.
Most of those who responded to various polls believed that Ron Paul won the debate. Other top contenders were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
John McCain registered a very poor showing in the polls following the debate, which only further solidifies the contention that his candidacy is pretty much washed up.
As always, Duncan Hunter showed great strength and grasp of the issues. From the beginning he has been our favorite candidate, and it is a shame that a highly respected Congressman of his stature has not been able to break out of single digits in the polls.
Tom Tancredo also registered a strong showing in the debate. His effectiveness in handling these forums has steadily improved over time.
That brings us to Tommy Thompson. Thompson has had a distinguished career in Republican Party politics and has definitely made his mark for conservative values. His debate performances are never lackluster, but we have come to expect a consistency about them that neither buries the candidate nor catapults him to the top.
As always, The Liberty Sphere provides ratings for the candidates based upon their views on the following key issues that are central to human liberty--national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these key issues, The Liberty Sphere rates the Republican candidates as follows, after Sunday morning's debate (10 is the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--10
Sam Brownback--8
Ron Paul--7
Tommy Thompson--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Yet Iowans get up early, and they packed the house to hear the nine Republican candidates spar on a variety of issues, one week prior to a major straw poll on Saturday, Aug. 13.
Significant in this debate was the fireworks that occurred between Senator Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. Brownback took Romney to task for his about-face on abortion, not that it isn't admirable for Romney to change his mind but that dyed-in-the-wool pro-life candidates such as Brownback have reason to doubt Romney's sincerity.
Romney has taken an about-face on several issues since his days as a Liberal Republican Governor of the state of Massachusetts. The Liberty Sphere has often asked the question, who is the real Mitt Romney?
Nobody really knows except for the candidate himself.
Brownback's offensive played well in Iowa, where most Republican activists are pro-life. Attendees and observers however did not give the Kansas Senator top marks in the debate.
Most of those who responded to various polls believed that Ron Paul won the debate. Other top contenders were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
John McCain registered a very poor showing in the polls following the debate, which only further solidifies the contention that his candidacy is pretty much washed up.
As always, Duncan Hunter showed great strength and grasp of the issues. From the beginning he has been our favorite candidate, and it is a shame that a highly respected Congressman of his stature has not been able to break out of single digits in the polls.
Tom Tancredo also registered a strong showing in the debate. His effectiveness in handling these forums has steadily improved over time.
That brings us to Tommy Thompson. Thompson has had a distinguished career in Republican Party politics and has definitely made his mark for conservative values. His debate performances are never lackluster, but we have come to expect a consistency about them that neither buries the candidate nor catapults him to the top.
As always, The Liberty Sphere provides ratings for the candidates based upon their views on the following key issues that are central to human liberty--national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these key issues, The Liberty Sphere rates the Republican candidates as follows, after Sunday morning's debate (10 is the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--10
Sam Brownback--8
Ron Paul--7
Tommy Thompson--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Democrats to Tax Cigar Industry Out of Business
Washington, DC (TLS). Fred Thompson likes them. So does Tom Tancredo. My grandfather loved them--he kept one in his mouth all day long and lived to be 80.
Bill Clinton smoked them. Sometimes he loved to smell them after they had been in a certain place.
This writer loves them too. But the Democrats in Congress are intent on running cigar companies out of business with a massive, unprecedented tax increase of draconian proportions.
Cigar aficionados and manufacturers were aghast upon hearing the news today that Democrats in Congress are planning on slapping a 10 DOLLAR PER CIGAR federal tax on premium stogies.
The Boston Tea Party was organized over much less of an affront to citizens that this.
For example, if a customer goes into his/her favorite cigar shop and buys three Fuentes at 3 bucks a piece, the total bill for that purchase will be at least $39.00. Nine dollars of that total will be for the cigars, and thirty dollars will be for the federal tax, and that does not even count state and local sales taxes.
Congress is justifying its robbery of the citizens by saying it will use the funds from these astronomical taxes to 'pay for child healthcare.'
To put it simply, BALDERDASH!
The proposals the Democrats have put on the table for child healthcare are simply a method for initiating socialized medicine in increments, starting with children.
And they are not just targeting the poor. They want ALL children covered by the government, regardless of need.
The Liberty Sphere has long advocated the consideration of methods to insure those who lack access to the nation's healthcare system. There are ways to accomplish this without the government taking over and dismantling American free enterprise.
We have no objection to implementing methods to cover the children of the poor. But we vehemently object to the government doing it and implementing a blanket socialized federal system that covers even those children whose parents have very good private insurance.
The Democrats hope they can pull this off by referring to the plan as a 'sin tax' to 'pay for children's healthcare.' After all, who can argue with that?
This is what they are counting on.
I don't buy it.
Their plan is a ruse to get a foot in the door of socialized medicine, using children as their first experiment. Every single one of them should be ashamed.
As for their 10-bucks-per-cigar federal tax, the outrageous, over-the-top, asinine nature of this proposal simply boggles the mind. The notion of such a thing is more evidence of the oppressive nature of Democrats with regard to taxation. They never saw a tax increase they didn't like.
And this time, apparently the bigger the increase the better.
And remember, these government thieves are planning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will amount to the single largest tax increase in U.S. history.
Perhaps all of us cigar smokers should somehow pile up all the Democrats into a room so that we can light up and blow cigar smoke in their faces. Take that, Pelosi. Reid, here's something for your lungs!
No wonder these clowns have a national approval rating at a mere 16%.
To find out more about how the Democrats' cigar tax will effect American business, click here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml
Bill Clinton smoked them. Sometimes he loved to smell them after they had been in a certain place.
This writer loves them too. But the Democrats in Congress are intent on running cigar companies out of business with a massive, unprecedented tax increase of draconian proportions.
Cigar aficionados and manufacturers were aghast upon hearing the news today that Democrats in Congress are planning on slapping a 10 DOLLAR PER CIGAR federal tax on premium stogies.
The Boston Tea Party was organized over much less of an affront to citizens that this.
For example, if a customer goes into his/her favorite cigar shop and buys three Fuentes at 3 bucks a piece, the total bill for that purchase will be at least $39.00. Nine dollars of that total will be for the cigars, and thirty dollars will be for the federal tax, and that does not even count state and local sales taxes.
Congress is justifying its robbery of the citizens by saying it will use the funds from these astronomical taxes to 'pay for child healthcare.'
To put it simply, BALDERDASH!
The proposals the Democrats have put on the table for child healthcare are simply a method for initiating socialized medicine in increments, starting with children.
And they are not just targeting the poor. They want ALL children covered by the government, regardless of need.
The Liberty Sphere has long advocated the consideration of methods to insure those who lack access to the nation's healthcare system. There are ways to accomplish this without the government taking over and dismantling American free enterprise.
We have no objection to implementing methods to cover the children of the poor. But we vehemently object to the government doing it and implementing a blanket socialized federal system that covers even those children whose parents have very good private insurance.
The Democrats hope they can pull this off by referring to the plan as a 'sin tax' to 'pay for children's healthcare.' After all, who can argue with that?
This is what they are counting on.
I don't buy it.
Their plan is a ruse to get a foot in the door of socialized medicine, using children as their first experiment. Every single one of them should be ashamed.
As for their 10-bucks-per-cigar federal tax, the outrageous, over-the-top, asinine nature of this proposal simply boggles the mind. The notion of such a thing is more evidence of the oppressive nature of Democrats with regard to taxation. They never saw a tax increase they didn't like.
And this time, apparently the bigger the increase the better.
And remember, these government thieves are planning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will amount to the single largest tax increase in U.S. history.
Perhaps all of us cigar smokers should somehow pile up all the Democrats into a room so that we can light up and blow cigar smoke in their faces. Take that, Pelosi. Reid, here's something for your lungs!
No wonder these clowns have a national approval rating at a mere 16%.
To find out more about how the Democrats' cigar tax will effect American business, click here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Senate Investigates Border Patrol Scandal
Washington, DC (TLS). The U.S. Senate has opened an investigation into the Border Patrol scandal that sent two innocent men, Agents Ramos and Compean, to prison. Each of the men will be in jail for over a decade.
President Bush's friend and crony from Texas, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, has made sure that anyone who seriously enforces U.S. law on illegal aliens will have a heavy price to pay. His intimidation tactics at the border have put a blanket of fear over those who attempt to control illegal border crossings.
The House of Representatives has repeatedly attempted to gain the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Justice Department in investigating wrongdoing on the part of the government in prosecuting and convicting two innocent men.
However, the White House, the DHS, and the DOJ have essentially told the House of Representatives it can go to hell.
U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, was even contacted by Karl Rove to be informed that he would no longer have access to the White House.
Tancredo has been a persistent warrior on behalf of the two falsely accused and imprisoned Border Patrol agents.
Another great American patriot in Congress who has sought truth and justice in this case is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California. Officials in the Bush Administration even admitted to lying to Rohrabacher's committee, which was investigating the scandal.
Despite the investigations, the pleas, and the threats of Republican Congressmen, absolutely nothing has been done to rectify one of the most despicable displays of prosecutorial misconduct and government corruption in the history of the U.S. Justice Department.
Not even the persistent pleas of the highly respected and longtime Republican Congressman from California, Duncan Hunter, could convince the Administration to do the right thing.
The Bush Administration may well regret that it did not cooperate with Rohrabacher, Tancredo, and Hunter. The U.S. Senate, under the control of Democrats, has now seized the issue.
Thus, no longer is the White House dealing with its friends in Congress. It will now go head-to-head with those who have a vested interest in completely destroying the Bush White House and putting a permanent stain on the legacy of this Administration.
To be perfectly candid, the Administration had it coming. They have brought this on themselves. By refusing to do the right thing and free the innocent Border Patrol agents, fire Johnny Sutton, and launch an investigation into government corruption of its own, the Bush White House will now suffer the consequences--a completely hostile investigation.
Normally The Liberty Sphere views investigations launched by Democrats in Congress as nothing more than political opportunism at its worst. In this case, however, we find ourselves fully supporting the Democrats in the Senate who wish to get to the bottom of this horrific scandal.
Perhaps this is one case where both Republicans and Democrats can work together to reign in an Administration that apparently operates under the assumption that it can do whatever it wants, legal or not.
Mr. Bush could help himself tremendously by admitting to the mistakes of Johnny Sutton and others, firing those who need to be ousted, and taking responsibility for those in his Administration who were neither ethical nor trustworthy.
I fear that unless Mr. Bush does his own housecleaning now, the Democrats will surely do it in 2008 with a massive sweep that will put both the White House and the Congress under their control.
And such a thing would be ominous for the country.
Read the complete story of the Senate investigation here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070716a.html
President Bush's friend and crony from Texas, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, has made sure that anyone who seriously enforces U.S. law on illegal aliens will have a heavy price to pay. His intimidation tactics at the border have put a blanket of fear over those who attempt to control illegal border crossings.
The House of Representatives has repeatedly attempted to gain the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Justice Department in investigating wrongdoing on the part of the government in prosecuting and convicting two innocent men.
However, the White House, the DHS, and the DOJ have essentially told the House of Representatives it can go to hell.
U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, was even contacted by Karl Rove to be informed that he would no longer have access to the White House.
Tancredo has been a persistent warrior on behalf of the two falsely accused and imprisoned Border Patrol agents.
Another great American patriot in Congress who has sought truth and justice in this case is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California. Officials in the Bush Administration even admitted to lying to Rohrabacher's committee, which was investigating the scandal.
Despite the investigations, the pleas, and the threats of Republican Congressmen, absolutely nothing has been done to rectify one of the most despicable displays of prosecutorial misconduct and government corruption in the history of the U.S. Justice Department.
Not even the persistent pleas of the highly respected and longtime Republican Congressman from California, Duncan Hunter, could convince the Administration to do the right thing.
The Bush Administration may well regret that it did not cooperate with Rohrabacher, Tancredo, and Hunter. The U.S. Senate, under the control of Democrats, has now seized the issue.
Thus, no longer is the White House dealing with its friends in Congress. It will now go head-to-head with those who have a vested interest in completely destroying the Bush White House and putting a permanent stain on the legacy of this Administration.
To be perfectly candid, the Administration had it coming. They have brought this on themselves. By refusing to do the right thing and free the innocent Border Patrol agents, fire Johnny Sutton, and launch an investigation into government corruption of its own, the Bush White House will now suffer the consequences--a completely hostile investigation.
Normally The Liberty Sphere views investigations launched by Democrats in Congress as nothing more than political opportunism at its worst. In this case, however, we find ourselves fully supporting the Democrats in the Senate who wish to get to the bottom of this horrific scandal.
Perhaps this is one case where both Republicans and Democrats can work together to reign in an Administration that apparently operates under the assumption that it can do whatever it wants, legal or not.
Mr. Bush could help himself tremendously by admitting to the mistakes of Johnny Sutton and others, firing those who need to be ousted, and taking responsibility for those in his Administration who were neither ethical nor trustworthy.
I fear that unless Mr. Bush does his own housecleaning now, the Democrats will surely do it in 2008 with a massive sweep that will put both the White House and the Congress under their control.
And such a thing would be ominous for the country.
Read the complete story of the Senate investigation here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070716a.html
Monday, June 18, 2007
'Sanctuary Cities' Lose Federal Funds!
Washington, DC (TLS). In a move that was long overdue, Congress approved an amendment offered by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) that will effectively bar any federal funding for emergency services from going to so-called 'sanctuary cities' that aid and abet illegal aliens.
Tancredo is also a Republican Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Congress has heard the ire of the voters, for even 60 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the funding ban.
Add a mark in the 'win' column for Tom Tancredo!
Perhaps now we can also start a move to tell San Francisco that if it continues to snub the U.S. Military, the city is entirely on its own if it is attacked by a terrorist or a bomb from North Korea. San Francisco should not be afforded the protection of the U.S. military if it is intent on treating our armed forces like they are dripping with evil.
Read the entire story concerning Tancredo's amendment here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56215
Tancredo is also a Republican Presidential candidate.
Apparently, Congress has heard the ire of the voters, for even 60 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the funding ban.
Add a mark in the 'win' column for Tom Tancredo!
Perhaps now we can also start a move to tell San Francisco that if it continues to snub the U.S. Military, the city is entirely on its own if it is attacked by a terrorist or a bomb from North Korea. San Francisco should not be afforded the protection of the U.S. military if it is intent on treating our armed forces like they are dripping with evil.
Read the entire story concerning Tancredo's amendment here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56215
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The 2nd Debate--Ratings of the Republican Candidates
Columbia, SC (TLS). The Republican candidates squared off for their second debate here this evening at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. The University, which boasts over 30,000 students here in a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000, became the focus of thousands of news personnel from around the country, some from as far away as Washington State, in order to see these candidates in action.
An estimated crowd of 10,000 gathered for this forum, which was hosted and aired by Fox News. News veteran Britt Hume, Washington bureau chief for Fox News, did his normally admirable job of moderating this debate.
The questions presented to the candidates were reasonable, thoughtful, thorough, sometimes confrontational, and substantive. In fact, Fox News, Britt Hume, and company, can take pride in the fact that tonight they displayed a brilliant presentation of professional journalism.
Tonight's format was decidedly different from what we have seen so far in these gatherings. Fox had stated prior to the debate to expect changes, and they delivered. There was room for interaction between candidates, with Giuliani going head-to-head with Ron Paul on the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. There was even an innovative part of the debate where Britt Hume presented a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on America. The candidates then had to describe what they would do in light of the attack.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will begin by presenting our analysis of the effectiveness of the candidates' presentation, i.e., clarity and style of communication, connection with the audience, logical progression of rhetoric, and ability to answer the questions asked rather than running off on tangents.
In light of these qualities, The Liberty Sphere ranks the candidates as follows, in order of their overall effectiveness of presentation:
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter (3-way tie)
John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (4-way tie)
Tommy Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Ron Paul
The person showing the most improvement over the first debate was Tom Tancredo, who was engaging, articulate, and powerful. The biggest disappointment was Ron Paul, who implied that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was directly due to our involvement in the Middle East for years. This played right into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who was visibly outraged at such a suggestion, and displayed the indignation of one personally offended by the mere suggestion that America itself is responsible for the terrorist murders of our citizens.
When we are dealing with radical Islam, no amount of isolationalism would have prevented them from attempting to carry out the will of Allah in slaughtering the infidels. Ron Paul should know this.
In fact, the major gaffe of the evening was by Ron Paul on this issue, who may have just insured his demise as a viable candidate.
Second, The Liberty Sphere will rate the candidates based upon our eight-point 'Liberty Scale.' This is the heart of our ratings system, for the emphasis here is exclusively on the issues alone.
The eight issues we have chosen by which to rate the candidates on the issues are as follows: taxes, gun rights, national defense, abortion, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, border security, and immigration control. These particular issues are at the heart of liberty, and they are consistent with The Liberty Sphere's mission statement.
For a full explanation on our rationale for rating the candidates on these eight issues, see our post on the first Democratic debate here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's analysis of each of the 10 Republican Presidential candidates and the extent to which they adhere to our eight key indicators of liberty, the candidates in tonight's debate are rated as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Jim Gilmore--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Mitt Romney--6
Sam Brownback--6
Ron Paul--6
Tommy Thompson--6
John McCain--5
You will note several items of interest. Tom Tancredo significantly helped himself in tonight's debate. So did Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul lost a great amount of ground due to his more complete explanation of his views on foreign policy and his apparent short-sighted take on the nature of radical Islam. We did not create Muslim terrorists. To merely imply such a thing either deliberately or inadvertently is to insure the end of one's candidacy, for all intents and purposes.
Our rationale on giving significantly higher marks to Rudy this evening revolves, in part, around his eloquent explanation of his views on abortion. Although we disagree on how to deal with a moral issue, we can respect his point of view because he is honest about it, and because he has obviously thought it through very thoroughly. In addition, we believe that his credentials as a player on the world stage against global terrorism were on full display this evening. And it doesn't hurt that he pledges to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts and that he believes in American capitalism and free enterprise as opposed to Hillary Clinton's socialism.
An estimated crowd of 10,000 gathered for this forum, which was hosted and aired by Fox News. News veteran Britt Hume, Washington bureau chief for Fox News, did his normally admirable job of moderating this debate.
The questions presented to the candidates were reasonable, thoughtful, thorough, sometimes confrontational, and substantive. In fact, Fox News, Britt Hume, and company, can take pride in the fact that tonight they displayed a brilliant presentation of professional journalism.
Tonight's format was decidedly different from what we have seen so far in these gatherings. Fox had stated prior to the debate to expect changes, and they delivered. There was room for interaction between candidates, with Giuliani going head-to-head with Ron Paul on the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. There was even an innovative part of the debate where Britt Hume presented a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on America. The candidates then had to describe what they would do in light of the attack.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will begin by presenting our analysis of the effectiveness of the candidates' presentation, i.e., clarity and style of communication, connection with the audience, logical progression of rhetoric, and ability to answer the questions asked rather than running off on tangents.
In light of these qualities, The Liberty Sphere ranks the candidates as follows, in order of their overall effectiveness of presentation:
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter (3-way tie)
John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (4-way tie)
Tommy Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Ron Paul
The person showing the most improvement over the first debate was Tom Tancredo, who was engaging, articulate, and powerful. The biggest disappointment was Ron Paul, who implied that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was directly due to our involvement in the Middle East for years. This played right into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who was visibly outraged at such a suggestion, and displayed the indignation of one personally offended by the mere suggestion that America itself is responsible for the terrorist murders of our citizens.
When we are dealing with radical Islam, no amount of isolationalism would have prevented them from attempting to carry out the will of Allah in slaughtering the infidels. Ron Paul should know this.
In fact, the major gaffe of the evening was by Ron Paul on this issue, who may have just insured his demise as a viable candidate.
Second, The Liberty Sphere will rate the candidates based upon our eight-point 'Liberty Scale.' This is the heart of our ratings system, for the emphasis here is exclusively on the issues alone.
The eight issues we have chosen by which to rate the candidates on the issues are as follows: taxes, gun rights, national defense, abortion, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, border security, and immigration control. These particular issues are at the heart of liberty, and they are consistent with The Liberty Sphere's mission statement.
For a full explanation on our rationale for rating the candidates on these eight issues, see our post on the first Democratic debate here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html
Based upon The Liberty Sphere's analysis of each of the 10 Republican Presidential candidates and the extent to which they adhere to our eight key indicators of liberty, the candidates in tonight's debate are rated as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Jim Gilmore--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Mitt Romney--6
Sam Brownback--6
Ron Paul--6
Tommy Thompson--6
John McCain--5
You will note several items of interest. Tom Tancredo significantly helped himself in tonight's debate. So did Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul lost a great amount of ground due to his more complete explanation of his views on foreign policy and his apparent short-sighted take on the nature of radical Islam. We did not create Muslim terrorists. To merely imply such a thing either deliberately or inadvertently is to insure the end of one's candidacy, for all intents and purposes.
Our rationale on giving significantly higher marks to Rudy this evening revolves, in part, around his eloquent explanation of his views on abortion. Although we disagree on how to deal with a moral issue, we can respect his point of view because he is honest about it, and because he has obviously thought it through very thoroughly. In addition, we believe that his credentials as a player on the world stage against global terrorism were on full display this evening. And it doesn't hurt that he pledges to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts and that he believes in American capitalism and free enterprise as opposed to Hillary Clinton's socialism.
What to Look for in Tonight's Republican Debate
Columbia, SC (TLS). The campus of the University of South Carolina in the state capital of Columbia will be the setting this evening for the second debate of the Republican Presidential candidates.
As a primer for this evening's debate, here are a few things to look for:
1. Fox News will undoubtedly provide a very different format and approach from that of the first Republican debate, which was sponsored by MSNBC. While Fox has not disclosed exactly how this forum will be different, it will be interesting to see if this meeting comes closer to being a real debate than any of the previous candidates' forums this year.
2. With news veteran Britt Hume as the moderator for tonight's debate, look for more questions of substance. Chris Matthews' stint as 'moderator' of the first Republican debate was nothing less than a debacle for two reasons: Matthews is a known partisan who favors Liberal Democrats, and two, many of the questions were downright ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. It will be hard to imagine this happening tonight with Hume in charge.
3. Ron Paul stands to make major strides in advancing his candidacy if he does well tonight. His first debate appearance set the Internet abuzz. Will he build on that momentum, or will he stall?
4. Tom Tancredo will more than likely stage a very strong appearance this evening, given that he was off his game in the first debate. Look for him to display his characteristic charisma and eloquence, particularly on the issue of border security.
5. The four candidates who helped themselves the most by their performance in the first debate--Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Mitt Romney--will be under the gun to pull off the same thing this time. Look for at least one of these to stumble a bit.
6. Giuliani and McCain have a chance to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park this evening. However, anything less than a stellar performance out of each will amount to a net loss, in our opinion. Neither candidate did or said anything in the last debate to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of desirability. Unless they change that perception, and change it soon, you can look for both of these top contenders to begin losing steam in the polls.
7. At this point we do not see either Kansas Senator Sam Brownback nor Tommy Thompson as viable contenders. Brownback could change that with an unusually strong showing this evening. He is a good man who certainly has a bright future worthy of greatness. The question is, is the timing right? With Thompson, his candidacy has had trouble getting off the ground, and we don't see that changing tonight unless a major miracle takes place.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will post our exclusive 'Liberty Rating' on each of the candidates following tonight's debate.
As a primer for this evening's debate, here are a few things to look for:
1. Fox News will undoubtedly provide a very different format and approach from that of the first Republican debate, which was sponsored by MSNBC. While Fox has not disclosed exactly how this forum will be different, it will be interesting to see if this meeting comes closer to being a real debate than any of the previous candidates' forums this year.
2. With news veteran Britt Hume as the moderator for tonight's debate, look for more questions of substance. Chris Matthews' stint as 'moderator' of the first Republican debate was nothing less than a debacle for two reasons: Matthews is a known partisan who favors Liberal Democrats, and two, many of the questions were downright ridiculous and not even worthy of consideration. It will be hard to imagine this happening tonight with Hume in charge.
3. Ron Paul stands to make major strides in advancing his candidacy if he does well tonight. His first debate appearance set the Internet abuzz. Will he build on that momentum, or will he stall?
4. Tom Tancredo will more than likely stage a very strong appearance this evening, given that he was off his game in the first debate. Look for him to display his characteristic charisma and eloquence, particularly on the issue of border security.
5. The four candidates who helped themselves the most by their performance in the first debate--Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Mitt Romney--will be under the gun to pull off the same thing this time. Look for at least one of these to stumble a bit.
6. Giuliani and McCain have a chance to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park this evening. However, anything less than a stellar performance out of each will amount to a net loss, in our opinion. Neither candidate did or said anything in the last debate to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in terms of desirability. Unless they change that perception, and change it soon, you can look for both of these top contenders to begin losing steam in the polls.
7. At this point we do not see either Kansas Senator Sam Brownback nor Tommy Thompson as viable contenders. Brownback could change that with an unusually strong showing this evening. He is a good man who certainly has a bright future worthy of greatness. The question is, is the timing right? With Thompson, his candidacy has had trouble getting off the ground, and we don't see that changing tonight unless a major miracle takes place.
As always, The Liberty Sphere will post our exclusive 'Liberty Rating' on each of the candidates following tonight's debate.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Muslim Congressman Calls Cops on Colleague
Washington, DC (TLS). Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, D-MN, has called the cops on a colleague in Congress. His offense? Smoking a cigar in his own private office.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-CO, was enjoying a fine cigar within the confines of his private office on Capitol Hill when police came knocking at his door. The officer informed the Congressman that his colleague, Keith Ellison, who has an office next door to Tancredo's, called them because Tancredo was smoking a cigar.
Tancredo has permission to smoke within his private office as do all Congressmen. This is in spite of Nancy Pelosi's politically correct smoking ban in the foyer of Congress. This is one more example of the fact that the Nazi smoke police, the food police, the speech police, and the fat police have moved into leadership in Congress.
Apparently Muslim Keith Ellison feels that cigar smoking in one's privacy is a law enforcement issue. This is in spite of the fact that for years Washington, DC has had one of the most problematic crime rates in the nation. But nevermind that. In this crazy, mixed up world of political correctness where the individual choices of private citizens are looked upon as legal issues, apparently to light up a cigar is cause for calling out the cops. The victims of murder, robbery, and rape will just have to wait. We have the much more important task of interrogating a dreaded cigar smoker!
What a complete, unadulterated idiot.
The Liberty Sphere has warned of Keith Ellison many times, even before the November election last year. Ellison has a sordid background of supporting cop killers, even lending his support to the woman who was arrested and jailed for attempting to bomb the home of U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein of California back when Feinstein was a San Francisco government official. The Liberty Sphere had called on Congress to expel Ellison immediately upon his election for being unfit for the job. The Constitution contains a provision that allows this move, no matter what the 'voters back home' think. Obviously, the 'voters back home' in Ellison's case are about as intellectually-challenged as Ellison. The Founders believed that sometimes voters are so wrong, so blind, so brainwashed by skillful demagogues, that Congress should have a right to expel members. I can think of quite a few other than Ellison who need expulsion.
As for Tancredo's cigar, the Congressman states that he has no intention of giving it up. To that we say, BRAVO!
Perhaps somebody should knock on Ellison's door and blow cigar smoke into his face.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-CO, was enjoying a fine cigar within the confines of his private office on Capitol Hill when police came knocking at his door. The officer informed the Congressman that his colleague, Keith Ellison, who has an office next door to Tancredo's, called them because Tancredo was smoking a cigar.
Tancredo has permission to smoke within his private office as do all Congressmen. This is in spite of Nancy Pelosi's politically correct smoking ban in the foyer of Congress. This is one more example of the fact that the Nazi smoke police, the food police, the speech police, and the fat police have moved into leadership in Congress.
Apparently Muslim Keith Ellison feels that cigar smoking in one's privacy is a law enforcement issue. This is in spite of the fact that for years Washington, DC has had one of the most problematic crime rates in the nation. But nevermind that. In this crazy, mixed up world of political correctness where the individual choices of private citizens are looked upon as legal issues, apparently to light up a cigar is cause for calling out the cops. The victims of murder, robbery, and rape will just have to wait. We have the much more important task of interrogating a dreaded cigar smoker!
What a complete, unadulterated idiot.
The Liberty Sphere has warned of Keith Ellison many times, even before the November election last year. Ellison has a sordid background of supporting cop killers, even lending his support to the woman who was arrested and jailed for attempting to bomb the home of U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein of California back when Feinstein was a San Francisco government official. The Liberty Sphere had called on Congress to expel Ellison immediately upon his election for being unfit for the job. The Constitution contains a provision that allows this move, no matter what the 'voters back home' think. Obviously, the 'voters back home' in Ellison's case are about as intellectually-challenged as Ellison. The Founders believed that sometimes voters are so wrong, so blind, so brainwashed by skillful demagogues, that Congress should have a right to expel members. I can think of quite a few other than Ellison who need expulsion.
As for Tancredo's cigar, the Congressman states that he has no intention of giving it up. To that we say, BRAVO!
Perhaps somebody should knock on Ellison's door and blow cigar smoke into his face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)