1. There was no clear winner in last night's Presidential debate. Both candidates stated their positions clearly. However, on the basic issues alone, I say McCain wins for the reasons given in the last debate, which you can find HERE.
2. Something foul occurred in the debate. Tom Brokaw picked questions that the candidates answered in the last debate. So, why did we need this debate if it were merely going to be a rehashing of the last one?
3. There IS a reason why someone needed this debate. Severely limiting the types of questions that were asked only served to help Barack Obama. McCain needed to further differentiate himself from Obama on a variety of key issues such as abortion, gun rights, family values, etc., which he never got a chance to do. Brokaw made sure the types of questions that were chosen were in Obama's favor simply because they gave no chance for McCain to show that he is mainstream and Obama is radical.
4. For this reason, this was no real 'town hall' debate. Brokaw had all the power.
5. Citizens were not really free to ask Obama about his extremist radical associations, his former Pastor and church--issues that get to the heart of character. I'm sure such questions were submitted, but since Brokaw had the sole power to toss questions prior to the debate, they did not get asked. Thus, Americans still don't really know the real Barack Obama.
6. Mysteriously, whenever Obama answered a question, he stood right in camera view of a woman sitting behind him who gave him overtly positive facial affirmations, complete with broad smiles, nods of the head, and so forth. This happened at least a dozen times. This was not coincidental...it was as if he had rehearsed with the camera people where to stand in order to be shown with a person who acted like a big supporter. And thus, I cry 'FOUL!'
7. This 'debate' only further confirms my conviction that these TV debates are nothing more than dog-and-pony shows of no substance. TV is a medium that highlights the insignificant--the fluff. Once again, how a person comes across on TV is no indication of how effective they will be as President.
8. Brokaw should not have come out of retirement.
9. Someone should investigate the mysterious camera angle that was designed to help Obama.
10. No one asked Obama about his oft-repeated claim that he will 'give 95% of Americans a tax cut, although he has proposed a trillion dollars in new government spending. Where is that money going to come from?
Since so many of Obama's supporters act as if he is their Lord and Savior, the Messiah, then maybe they believe he can cause money to appear out of thin air. But one thing is for sure, his proposals make no logical sense.
Showing posts with label Presidential debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential debates. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Friday, August 10, 2007
'08 Nominees Chosen by Thanksgiving?
In a display that gives one reason to wonder if Party leaders in the various states have taken leave of their senses, the South Carolina Republican Party announced on Thursday that it will move up its GOP primary to Jan. 19.
This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.
New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.
Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.
We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?
If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.
Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?
In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.
The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.
These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.
Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.
And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.
To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.
And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.
Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.
Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.
Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.
Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.
It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.
But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.
What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?
Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.
This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.
New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.
Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.
We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?
If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.
Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?
In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.
The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.
These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.
Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.
And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.
To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.
And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.
Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.
Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.
Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.
Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.
It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.
But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.
What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?
Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Clinton, Edwards Plot to Oust Colleagues from Debates
Washington, DC (TLS). Unaware that a Fox News microphone was open and the tape was rolling, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were heard scheming to oust certain of their Democratic colleagues from future debates.
Upon hearing the news that Clinton and Edwards were plotting to exclude some of the contenders, campaign aides for Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage over the secret plan.
The exchange took place at a political forum in Michigan, which included Democrats Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
At one point Edwards turned to Clinton and said in a low voice, 'We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.'
Clinton agreed and stated, 'We've got to cut the number. They're not serious.'
Hillary further stated that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had already tried to limit the number of participants, and that 'we've gotta get back to it.'
It is difficult to comprehend how Edwards can consider himself a 'serious' contender given his fundraising woes of late and his plummeting poll numbers. The only true top contenders at the moment among the Democrats are Clinton and Obama.
Even so, it is nonetheless highly presumptive of any of the candidates at this point to attempt to limit debate so early in the campaign. Under normal conditions, a Presidential campaign doesn't get started in earnest until the winter of the election year, which in this case would be January of 2008. And even then it is normally early enough for ALL of those seeking their Party's nomination to be hitting the campaign trails, doing interviews, and taking part in debates.
Only as the primaries are held in late winter and early spring does the weeding out process begin.
No doubt this year is very different, given the fact that all of the major primaries have been moved up. This has forced everything to an earlier schedule. Even so, it is the height of arrogance on the part of Edwards and Clinton to merely think about excluding anyone at this stage. The elitist snobbery of such a thing is mind-boggling.
After all, the first primary is still six months away.
Upon hearing the news that Clinton and Edwards were plotting to exclude some of the contenders, campaign aides for Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage over the secret plan.
The exchange took place at a political forum in Michigan, which included Democrats Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
At one point Edwards turned to Clinton and said in a low voice, 'We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.'
Clinton agreed and stated, 'We've got to cut the number. They're not serious.'
Hillary further stated that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had already tried to limit the number of participants, and that 'we've gotta get back to it.'
It is difficult to comprehend how Edwards can consider himself a 'serious' contender given his fundraising woes of late and his plummeting poll numbers. The only true top contenders at the moment among the Democrats are Clinton and Obama.
Even so, it is nonetheless highly presumptive of any of the candidates at this point to attempt to limit debate so early in the campaign. Under normal conditions, a Presidential campaign doesn't get started in earnest until the winter of the election year, which in this case would be January of 2008. And even then it is normally early enough for ALL of those seeking their Party's nomination to be hitting the campaign trails, doing interviews, and taking part in debates.
Only as the primaries are held in late winter and early spring does the weeding out process begin.
No doubt this year is very different, given the fact that all of the major primaries have been moved up. This has forced everything to an earlier schedule. Even so, it is the height of arrogance on the part of Edwards and Clinton to merely think about excluding anyone at this stage. The elitist snobbery of such a thing is mind-boggling.
After all, the first primary is still six months away.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
COWARDS! Dems Ditch Fox Debates AGAIN
Washington, DC (TLS). For the 2nd time in two months, the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination have pulled out of debates sponsored by Fox News.
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Democrats Bail on FOX Sponsorship of Debates
Washington, DC (TLS). The Nevada Democrat Party has pulled out of a debate sponsored by FOX NEWS featuring the Party's contenders for the Presidential nomination. The move comes as the Democrats reacted to a remark made by FOX official Roger Ailes, who had compared Barack Hussein Obama to Osama bin Laden.
Yet Moveon.org and its extremists that are bankrolled by atheist billionaire George Soros had been urging the Party all along to separate itself from any association with FOX NEWS.
Thus, the cry babies of the Left, when they do not get their way, pick up their marbles and run home to Mama, or in this case, Papa George Soros.
The difference in the maturity level of these ultra extremists on the Left and conservative Republicans is striking. Republican and conservative candidates have had to face numerous news organizations and reporters that had a decidedly Leftist slant. For years Presidential debates were sponsored by the Leftwing 'League of Women Voters.' Yet Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and a host of other Republican candidates took their place behind the podium despite being at a decided disadvantage.
Not only that, but conservative contenders were forced to have debate questions thrown to them by openly hostile reporters from the mainstream Leftwing media. Yet never once did any conservative candidate throw a tantrum like a 2-year-old and stomp off to Mama because mean ole Liberals sponsored, moderated, and posed questions during the debates.
In the Nevada Democrat case, however, you have an entirely different cast of characters. For the first time in history a debate was being sponsored by a news organization with a conservative bent. Instead of stepping up to the plate and taking it like men and women of courage like Republicans have all these years, the Democrats instead pitched a hissy fit and demanded FOX be dropped from involvement in the debate.
All because that mean ole conservative Republican Roger Ailes said mean things about B. Hussein Obama.
Here is a message to Nevada Democrats and the Presidential contenders: why don't you run to Papa George Soros for your bottle, your rattle, and your pacifier. You itty bitty babies need to get some sleep. It will all be better in the morning. Papa George will see to that.
In the meantime, serious politicians with serious ideas based upon the traditions of our Founders will continue to try to govern the country, in spite of you troublemakers and turncoats who never matured passed the kindergarten years.
For Fox News' response to the pull-out, click here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
Yet Moveon.org and its extremists that are bankrolled by atheist billionaire George Soros had been urging the Party all along to separate itself from any association with FOX NEWS.
Thus, the cry babies of the Left, when they do not get their way, pick up their marbles and run home to Mama, or in this case, Papa George Soros.
The difference in the maturity level of these ultra extremists on the Left and conservative Republicans is striking. Republican and conservative candidates have had to face numerous news organizations and reporters that had a decidedly Leftist slant. For years Presidential debates were sponsored by the Leftwing 'League of Women Voters.' Yet Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and a host of other Republican candidates took their place behind the podium despite being at a decided disadvantage.
Not only that, but conservative contenders were forced to have debate questions thrown to them by openly hostile reporters from the mainstream Leftwing media. Yet never once did any conservative candidate throw a tantrum like a 2-year-old and stomp off to Mama because mean ole Liberals sponsored, moderated, and posed questions during the debates.
In the Nevada Democrat case, however, you have an entirely different cast of characters. For the first time in history a debate was being sponsored by a news organization with a conservative bent. Instead of stepping up to the plate and taking it like men and women of courage like Republicans have all these years, the Democrats instead pitched a hissy fit and demanded FOX be dropped from involvement in the debate.
All because that mean ole conservative Republican Roger Ailes said mean things about B. Hussein Obama.
Here is a message to Nevada Democrats and the Presidential contenders: why don't you run to Papa George Soros for your bottle, your rattle, and your pacifier. You itty bitty babies need to get some sleep. It will all be better in the morning. Papa George will see to that.
In the meantime, serious politicians with serious ideas based upon the traditions of our Founders will continue to try to govern the country, in spite of you troublemakers and turncoats who never matured passed the kindergarten years.
For Fox News' response to the pull-out, click here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Newt Gingrich Plan
Washington, DC (TLS). Newt Gingrich announced a plan this week that may well be his first step toward seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. Stating that Presidential campaigns have become mindless exercises in 5-second sound bytes, Gingrich has proposed a series of 90-minute discussion forums to take place each week from September through the November election in 2008.
The participants in these discussion forums would be the two Presidential candidates representing the two major Parties, plus a moderator. This is the most reasonable proposal for Presidential campaigns that has been placed on the table in many, many years.
One of the reasons I believe that Newt has put this proposal on the table is that he plans to be the candidate for the Republicans. Very few candidates in either Party would be able to withstand such a rigorous regimen of public debates. Newt is one of the few that could not only withstand it but excel. This is his forte, his arena. Possessing the verbal and rhetorical skills that surpass 99% of politicians in either Party, Newt would drive home his points with a keen intelligence and command of the English language that would put his opponent to shame.
As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we would not be opposed to a draft Newt movement, although at present our support is with Duncan Hunter. Newt has solid conservative credentials and easily grasps the nuances and intricacies of international politics.
Several questions must be answered by Newt, however. Where does he stand on enforcing the nation's immigration laws? Will he force a federal bureaucracy which at present is out of control to enforce the nation's laws against illegal aliens? Will he enforce the notion that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY, as stated in the United States Code?
Where does he stand on free speech? He once stated that he would be in favor of limiting some of our freedom of speech in order to fight terrorism. This is highly problematic for The Liberty Sphere and millions of others who value human liberty.
How thoroughly would he take up the mantle of 2nd Amendment issues in the face of a renegade Congress that is intent on robbing citizens of the right to keep and bear arms?
Newt will need to clarify these issues before The Liberty Sphere would support his candidacy. But we think his idea about a series of weekly debates from September to November prior to the 2008 election is an excellent proposal.
The participants in these discussion forums would be the two Presidential candidates representing the two major Parties, plus a moderator. This is the most reasonable proposal for Presidential campaigns that has been placed on the table in many, many years.
One of the reasons I believe that Newt has put this proposal on the table is that he plans to be the candidate for the Republicans. Very few candidates in either Party would be able to withstand such a rigorous regimen of public debates. Newt is one of the few that could not only withstand it but excel. This is his forte, his arena. Possessing the verbal and rhetorical skills that surpass 99% of politicians in either Party, Newt would drive home his points with a keen intelligence and command of the English language that would put his opponent to shame.
As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we would not be opposed to a draft Newt movement, although at present our support is with Duncan Hunter. Newt has solid conservative credentials and easily grasps the nuances and intricacies of international politics.
Several questions must be answered by Newt, however. Where does he stand on enforcing the nation's immigration laws? Will he force a federal bureaucracy which at present is out of control to enforce the nation's laws against illegal aliens? Will he enforce the notion that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY, as stated in the United States Code?
Where does he stand on free speech? He once stated that he would be in favor of limiting some of our freedom of speech in order to fight terrorism. This is highly problematic for The Liberty Sphere and millions of others who value human liberty.
How thoroughly would he take up the mantle of 2nd Amendment issues in the face of a renegade Congress that is intent on robbing citizens of the right to keep and bear arms?
Newt will need to clarify these issues before The Liberty Sphere would support his candidacy. But we think his idea about a series of weekly debates from September to November prior to the 2008 election is an excellent proposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)