mycatharsis.com

So much for his supposed passion for sticking to his ‘principles’, no matter the popularity, Huckabee now supports deporting all illegals. As with all the GOP candidates, except possibly McCain, he supports this despite the complete lack of evidence that mass deportations will help us at all, and will only accomplish the breakup of families, cause thousands to lose their jobs, and thrust thousands, or even millions, of children into harder circumstances. Not to mention the costs, financially and constitutionally of rounding up 12 million people and shipping them out of the country. On the plus side, at least this idea itself is a complete fantasy. Facts right now seem to have no place within the GOP’s campaign.

So much for him being ‘a conservative, but not angry about it.’ Sorta depressing how quickly the GOP candidates will ‘go angry’ when they think there’s votes to be had. It’s so ludicrous that this Onion News piece has quite the tinge of truth to it!

Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

Obama’s speech last night was amazing. Inspiring, patriotic, reasonable and hopeful. You know he’s liberal, but you also get the impression that he’s pragmatic and will do what is best for the country, as opposed to what is good for him or the party.  A goosebumps kind of speech.  I sure hope he’s the Dem’s pick, I mean the difference between him and Clinton/Edwards? Wow, just leaps and bounds. I enjoyed watching the returns, but really wasn’t putting much stock in what happened, remembering Tom Harkin got 70 some percent in 1992.  But Obama just about had me believing I was watching history.  He brought to my mind the eloquence of Reagan and Kennedy, a once in a generation kind of candidate.  If he wins New Hampshire, he may successfully take the mantle of inevitability away from Senator Clinton, which would leave her with, politically speaking, nothing that I can think of.

Huckabee’s speech was excellent as well,  on content very close to Obama’s.  His urging not to hate, but to love seemed to me at least somewhat a repudiation of the angry nativism most all the other candidates are so eager to pander to.  I like his views on immigration, taxes, and abortion, but worry about him on the economy, which I think may be THE issue of 08, even if Iraq takes a turn for the worse.  But I like that he’s convinced me that he would try to do the ‘good’ thing as president, which goes a long way when his main competitors will do whatever is best for his own popularity, no matter the expense to others (Romney), seems rather uninterested in running (Thompson) or seems like he would make President Bush look like a beacon of openness and accountability in comparison (Giuliani).

And Ron Paul might be disappointed with 10%, but he did end up at the maximum level of his polling numbers. Double figures in Iowa, for him, really isn’t bad.  I wanna see how he does in Wyoming on Saturday, I think he has a legitimate shot at a top 3 or even higher finish among the GOP there…

Hugh Hewitt mentioned in his column something I’ve been saying for awhile, but not many people seem to be considering.

Maybe illegal immigration doesn’t matter that much after all?

Nope, I really don’t think it does, and I can’t understand why the talking heads  don’t notice it.  The one candidate seen as most soft on immigration won 95% white Iowa.  The one candidate who defined nativism as his pet cause didn’t even make it to Iowa, never rising above 1% in the polls.      Huckabee was the only GOP candidate talking about compassion for illegals, and he was the only candidate to come from nowhere and rise to the top of the pack!  In short, a vocal minority is still a minority ….

After sitting thru the entire debate last night, I have to admit to myself what a huge political geek I am!  That said, it WAS a lot of fun to watch.

A spirited and lively debate. The format is, I think, a big winner. I love a debate with tough questions, and Anderson Cooper was as effective as any moderator I’ve seen at keeping the candidates on topic and answering the questions they were asked. Mike Huckabee’s eloquence really impressed me. His answer regarding illegal immigration was excellent in turning away the nativist wing of the party. I’m slowly becoming comfortable enough with him to consider voting for him if he’s the nominee.

I really enjoyed watching Romney and Giuliani go after each other, if only to see them tear each other down. Romney seemed as slick as always to me, but not nearly as charming. His answer on his abortion flip-flop was quite good, but was also neutralized with me by his ineffective attempts at explaining another flip-flop on the issue of gays in the military.  By the way, the hullabaloo over the Brigadier General being a Hillary Clinton plant is a non-issue with me. The gay General who asked the question was quite clearly biased, and was the low point of the night for me, as he was obviously a shill pushing an agenda. I tuned out his post-answer rants, and figure most people watching this debate may have as well. And frankly, dedicating as much time as they did to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was ludicrous, with so many other important issues ignored, such as the plummeting dollar. Giuliani, on the other hand, did quite well, I think. I still am least comfortable with him above all others, but I respected his answers on abortion and New York as a ’sanctuary city’. He seemed to try to answer as honestly as possible, unlike Romney, who seemingly would not let a word escape his mouth that might possibly upset the far right. Giuliani even mentioned states rights a time or two, although unconvincing, it’s reassuring to know he’s at least aware of the concept.

Ron Paul was amazing, which was all the more impressive because of the ridiculous nature of the questions asked of him. The first had to do with the Council of Foreign Relations, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know. I am a huge fan of Paul and his views, but have long wondered if he is more of a policy wonk than an effective campaigner. But his answer to this attempt to portray him as a conspiracy nut was BRILLIANT, deftly turning away any insinuation that he has tinfoil hats in his closet, while directly answering the question that was asked, in an honest way, no less! For political and rhetorical skill, it was an amazingly effective answer. He also deftly turned away McCain’s attack, again having to repeat that simply because he doesn’t want to bomb everybody doesn’t make him an isolationist. McCain’s attack is a good sign for Paul, a sign that his views are finally being heard, even by deafest Republicans of all, many of whom, unfortunately, happen to be running for President. He also had the second or third to last question of the night, asking him to run as an independent. Again, his answer showed a skillful political touch, answering the question while also giving himself a chance to tout his fundraising prowess and the excitement building among his supporters, and doing it all in a humble manner, expressing simply that he’s lucky ‘to be a part of it’. A huge part, Mr. Paul!

McCain did quite well, I felt, although Paul did get the best of him on their exchange. I missed most of Romney’s hemming on torture, but McCain’s answer was quite good. I also liked his answer on the role of the Vice President, and got the feeling from him that, ever so slightly, he is trying to return to the agitator role he had in 2000. He seems like a natural fighter, politically speaking, and it’s a horse race between him and Huckabee for number two in my book (behind Mr. Paul).