Despite the multitude of issues that will be debated during the presidential campaign, all others will pale in comparison to taxes.
In these tough economic times, the last thing any of us need is the burden of increasing taxes. Tax increases will do nothing more than strain already strained household budgets. The two Democrats have already told Americans they will raise taxes, but only on the rich. The problem with this is their definition of rich. For far too many years the Democrats have defined rich as anyone with a job. That means you and me, folks.
They somehow have the belief the American people will stand still for that, not realizing the backlash against continually rising taxes has already started.
Mr. [Bart] Peterson was, until recently, the popular Democratic mayor of [Indianapolis]. Then voters went to the polls in November and threw him out in favor of an unknown and underfunded Republican. It was among last year's biggest political upsets, and marked the first time in 40 years Indianapolis voters had canned a sitting mayor. The source of their anger? Taxes.
In particular, the county's income tax rate, which Mr. Peterson raised to 1.65% from 1%. Coming into an election year with a 75% approval rating and a mountain of campaign cash, Mr. Peterson thought he could risk the tax-hiker label. He felt further bolstered by his argument that the tax was earmarked for crime fighting. He squeaked his levy through in July; by November he'd been washed out on a tide of outrage.
Indiana isn't alone in its tax discontent. As the economy has slowed and home values have slipped, state and local governments have been raising taxes to cover revenue shortfalls. This has squeezed middle-class households, just as surely as higher gas and food prices, or rising medical costs. Voters last year responded by shooting down tax-and-spend proposals in Oregon, New Jersey, Iowa, Washington and North Carolina.
Include New Hampshire on that list, at least when it comes to municipal taxes and budgets. Unfortunately at the state and county level the message about holding the line on spending and taxes has been ignored. The state legislature increased the biennial state budget by 17.5%, flawed and seriously out of balance. They overestimated the expected tax and fee revenues at a time when just about everyone else realized a slowdown in the economy was just starting to make itself felt. Housing sales and values were falling, and with it, revenues. Some of the counties in the state were no better, increasing their budgets while ignoring the calls by the towns within their borders to keep spending in check. Ironically, the county commissions are made up of the same representatives serving in the state legislature. That means the same people that worked to increase state spending are doing the same thing at the county level. It's obvious some changes need to take place and I think many of these representatives will find themselves out bag and baggage, asking themselves What happened?
With few exceptions the towns and cities in the state held the line on spending, keeping budgets flat or even slightly declining, knowing the taxpayers could not afford increases in their property taxes. Even so, property taxes will go up because of the actions at the county level.
The same thing is happening in other states. It all comes down to taxpayers being very unhappy with their elected representatives. And when the taxpayers are unhappy, tax and spend candidates tend to find themselves on the losing side of an election. That's what happened in Congress in 2006 and why so many Republicans found themselves replaced by Democrats. In 2008, the freshmen Democrats in Congress and a number of state legislatures may find themselves replaced in turn. They have to learn that the people are not ATMs to be tapped for funds whenever government overspends. Instead they have to learn that when times are tough they have to cut back on spending, just like everyone else does under those circumstances. Until they do, our wallets and bank accounts are in peril. It's up to us to teach them that their actions have consequences. In this case the lesson is this:
If they burden us with more taxes, we'll be more than happy to help them join the ranks of the unemployed.
'Nuff said.
The US Supreme Court upheld Indiana's Voter ID law, rejecting the argument that it disfranchised voters.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states can mandate photo identification at the polls without violating the Constitution. The ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is a big deal, and not merely because it continues a welcome trend on the Court of deferring to elected bodies.
The 6-3 opinion, which upheld an Indiana photo ID requirement, does a public service by debunking the notion that voter fraud is a myth concocted by right-wing partisans. If that were true, we must now conclude that the Court's most liberal justices are part of the conspiracy.
I never cared much for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which made it easier for people to register to vote. Making it easier to register isn't the part with which I disagree. Rather the problem with the law is that it makes it easier for those who intend to game the system and commit voter fraud. With a picture ID, it becomes much more difficult for someone to vote more than once, or for the dead to magically re-animate just long enough to cast a vote. The Supremes made the right decision, giving the states a means of reducing the potential for fraud the Motor-Voter law created.
Of course those who opposed the Indiana Voter ID law were the same who would have the most to lose from such ID laws, primarily those with a history of committing or condoning voter fraud. And of that group, most of them are Democrats. But then, the Democratic party has a long history of being supported through voter fraud. Don't let their protestations that voter ID laws will disfranchise voters fool you. Most states offer low or no cost picture IDs though their respective state Motor Vehicle departments. While some may argue that it is too difficult for many to obtain them due to their circumstances, the Supremes disagreed, saying it isn't as difficult as it was being made out to be by opponents.
Maybe now we can restore confidence in the election system by ensuring only those eligible to vote can do so.
The primary campaign season is still in full swing and the left-leaning media is already making excuses for their anointed candidate, Barack Obama.
Senator Obama is a charismatic man, coming across as a nice guy. In person, he may be. But as someone in the public eye he has to know he'll be under the kind of scrutiny that very few other people in this country will ever experience. He also has to know that he's not going to keep getting softball questions as the time of the convention grows near. And should he be the Democratic nominee, he better be ready to face some very tough questions when he faces John McCain. McCain has already shown he has no problems handling tough questions from the media. He does it every day. So why should Obama be any different?
Bird Dog over at Maggie's Farm posted this video of Fred Thompson being interviewed by Sean Hannity. After watching it I have to say that, like Bird Dog, I too still like Fred Thompson.
I have written little about the ongoing presidential primary races. Frankly, I was already exhausted from the campaigning that started all of two weeks after the 2004 elections. Other than a few comments and some plugs for Fred Thompson, I've haven't posted much about the race for the nominations. That's about to change.
While John McCain wasn't my number one choice as the Republican nominee, I have no problem supporting him for the election in November. He isn't my concern.
However, I cannot say the same about one of the Democratic candidates.
While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, I hope she can defeat Barack Obama and gain the nomination.
The more I read about Senator Obama, the more I've come to realize he's the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He's shown his elitist snobbery, his inexperience at the national level, and his hard core liberal beliefs that he knows what's better for us than we do. Barack Obama in the White House would be a setback to the Carter years, a time I have no desire to relive.
Want a preview of what a Barack Obama presidency will look like?
Four significant public policy changes are certain: the size, scope and spending of the federal government will substantially expand; income taxes will go up; protectionism will replace free trade; and a commitment to global internationalism will saddle America with a broad Kyoto global warming agreement that, according to the U.N. Climate Treaty Secretariat, should exempt China and India.
And that's just for starters.
I'd like to think the rhetoric about NAFTA being spouted by the two Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination is nothing more than campaign fluff, something to be ignored or repudiated once one of them attains the office they are so desperately seeking.
How could it be that either one, Clinton or Obama, actually believe that free trade has been a bad thing? Or are they pandering to the crowds in Ohio, a state that'd had more than its share of lost manufacturing jobs? Never mind that more manufacturing jobs have been created in Ohio than have been lost, mostly due to trade with Canada and Mexico. Both Clinton and Obama have been pointing the finger at Mexico, as if it's Mexico's fault for any perceived problems with NAFTA. But the problem lies within the Democratic Party, members of which have shown again and again over the decades they have no understanding of economics.
The assault on Nafta is a signal that the Democratic Party thinks the U.S. should abandon its leadership role in pushing for modern, democratic capitalism in Latin America. But that's only the half of it. When Mrs. Clinton says she wants "core" labor standards shoved into the pact, it is code language for forcing on the U.S., by treaty, what the U.N.'s International Labor Organization calls "core principles." The U.S. has signed only two of the ILO's eight conventions precisely because the others would lead to labor-market rigidity ΰ la Argentina. Big Labor bosses would love that but what about the rest of us? Probably not so much.
Canada got a mention Tuesday. But the whipping boy was Mexico, which stands accused of attracting firms by allowing worker exploitation. If an American lost a job in the past decade, the charge goes, it's because in Mexico business has no labor obligations. This claim is not only untrue, it is the opposite of reality. Mexico is home to militant, high-powered unions and the most burdensome labor regulation in North America.
Mexico suffered the tragedy of repressive corporatism throughout most of the 20th century. A one-party system under the Institutional Revolutionary Party -- PRI -- ruled for more than 70 years, making sure there was no economic or political competition. But in the late 1980s and early 1990s a young, educated class of technocrats began to break the chains of protectionism, isolation and monopoly. Nafta, signed and ratified in 1993, was central to this. Its benefits include greater access to capital and trade for Mexico and also an increase in information flows, which are the source of innovation and progress in any country.
It seems Clinton and Obama want the US to fall under the sway of the same kind of high powered union organizations and ever more restrictive business regulations. Do they really want to destroy America's economy in such a fashion? To listen to them you'd think so. All we can do is hope that their noise is nothing more than campaign rhetoric, otherwise we could be in very deep trouble.
It appears that more than one conservative out there in the GOP has given some thought to how John McCain can garner support from the conservative branch of the party. So far all of them have suggest the same thing: select a conservative running mate.
This will help pull the conservative voters towards supporting McCain without losing the moderates within the party. The right choice can help boost McCain's chances against the Democrats in November.
My choice, as I've mentioned before, would be Fred Thompson.
How can John McCain ensure a win against the Democrats in November? By making sure Fred Thompson is his running mate.
In one fell swoop McCain will gain street cred with the staunch conservatives in the Republican party, making him far more palatable to them. It also gives him something else:
Behind the scenes, Vice President Thompson offers President McCain private counsel, guided by our Founding Fathers, without drawing attention to himself. Mr. Thompson seems eminently qualified for such a role, eschewing publicity and advancing the cause which impelled him to mount his own White House bid.
It works for me.
(H/T Instapundit)
I am depressed.
McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:
"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."
The last real conservative running for President has withdrawn from the race.
In the latest Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll, Fred Thompson leads on the Republican side, and Barack Obama on the Democrat side.
I hope this bodes well for Fred in South Carolina this weekend.
I have listened to many of Ron Paul's ideas and campaign rhetoric, and while there's a lot to like about some of his beliefs, there is one that fills me with dread.
It appears that Mr. Paul is espousing isolationism, a withdrawal from the international scene, specifically the Middle East. It may sound great to him, but it would be damn near impossible to achieve, and dangerous to boot.
Of Israel's relationship with its neighbors, he argued that if only America got out of the way by cutting off the aid spigot (which, he claimed, favored the Arabs by a 3-to-1 ratio), there would "be a greater incentive for Israel and the Palestinians and all the Arab nations to come together and talk." And of America's relationship with the Arab world, the congressman said in a previous debate that "they attack us because we've been over there."
Dr. Paul's own remedy is that if "we trade with everybody and talk with them . . . there's a greater incentive to work these problems out." But here's a rub.
As historian Michael Oren observes in "Power, Faith and Fantasy," his history of America's 230-year involvement in the Middle East, as early as the 1790s "many Americans had grown dismayed with the country's Middle East policy of admonishing the [Barbary] pirates while simultaneously coddling them with bribes." It was precisely out of a desire to "trade with everybody" that the early American republic was forced to build a navy, and then to go to war, to defend its commercial interests, a pattern that held true in World War I and the Persian Gulf "Tanker War" of the 1980s.
These details of history pose a problem not just to Dr. Paul's views of the Middle East, but to the intellectual architecture of libertarianism itself. Liberal societies are built on the belief in (and defense of) individual rights, but also on the overawing power of government to transform natural rights into civil ones. In the same way, trade between nations is only possible in the absence of robbers, pirates and other rogues. Whose job is it to get rid of them?
As I constantly remind folks promoting ideas that have been tried before (and failed), Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And so it seems with Ron Paul. All American isolationism would do is promote more attacks upon us, not less. As I have said before, Dr. Paul assumes that our enemies think the same way he does. That belief is delusional and ultimately dangerous.
This is not someone I would want leading the United States.
CNN has reported that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will announce later today he's dropping out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Richardson has been unable to place any higher than fourth during the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary.
I finally got the chance to exercise my Constitutional rights and vote in the New Hampshire Primary, 2008 Edition.
When I dropped Beezlebub at the middle school at 6:55 this morning there was already a line of people waiting outside for the polls to open. That's the first time I've seen that in a very long time. Maybe it was the warm January Thaw weather. Maybe it was the two close races Republican and Democrat. Maybe it was a little of both that has turned out a large number of voters.
When I returned to the middle school after work to vote, there was quite a long line waiting to enter the gymnasium, where the voting booths and checklist tables were set up. Once through the door the single line split into four lines, divided alphabetically in order to make it easier for voters to check in and pick up their ballots. Another line that had a large number of people waiting in line was for those wishing to register to vote.
There were a larger number of younger voters than I have seen in a number of years, which pleased me to no end.
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner expects a record turnout, stating he thought that 500,000 New Hampshire residents would vote today.
Even as I write this WMUR-TV reports that there's still long lines of voters all throughout the state waiting to cast their ballots before polls close tonight.
Today the presidential hopefuls, Democrats and Republicans both, swept through New Hampshire, spending the last few hours before Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary campaigning in towns big and small in an effort to garner a few more votes.
Some may have managed to convince a few undecided voters, others may have lost a few.
Democrat John Edwards pulled out all the stops, campaigning non-stop for 36 hours and bringing with him his own celebrities Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in an effort to bolster his campaign. However a recent WMUR-TV poll shows that his standing haven't changed since after the debates Saturday night.
Fellow Democrat Bill Richardson spent the day out on New Hampshire's Seacoast area, walking the streets and visiting a number of businesses.
The rhetoric level has certainly cranked up to high levels, as have the radio and TV ads. In fact almost all of the ads airing on local television are campaign ads. Since I started watching the evening news all but 3 ads have been political ads. The only non-campaign ads I've seen on the local TV station so far have been for Bowflex, Verizon, and Pfizer. They stood out because they weren't campaign ads.
In my home the number of phone calls from the various campaigns peaked some time yesterday and they haven't leveled off as I write this at 7:50PM Monday night.
Some of the candidates are starting to sound a little desperate. Others aren't staying here for the voting, having already departed for South Carolina in order to prepare for the primary there as they see their chances for success are better there than in New Hampshire.
It's not just the candidates making their presence known. The media is here in droves. Dead tree and electronic media from other parts of the country as well as a good number of foreign media are so numerous that it's hard not to bump into them no matter where you go. It will only get worse on Tuesday.
I can't wait for Wednesday.
I have to say the two debates were by no means boring.
It became quite evident early on in the Republican debate that Mitt Romney can't seem to get away from the negative side, slamming John McCain every chance he got. He also slammed some of the other Republican candidates as well. John McCain got in a few good jabs in response, but he kept them to a minimum, trying to focus on the positive. It also appeared the other candidates were gunning for Romney as well, though the rest of the back and forth was, for the most part, cordial.
While I have already made my decision as to which candidate I will vote for on next Tuesday (Fred Thompson), I have to say that Rudi Giuliani impressed me. If he were to win the Republican nomination, I would have no problem voting for him.
The Democrat debate didn't get quite as negative as the Republican debate, but there were still more than a few pointed barbs thrown by one candidate or another towards Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that they were trying very hard to stay as neutral and as careful as they could, not giving any details about how they would approach this problem or that, unless they were trying to show that they weren't Hillary. The only issue where they seemed to have detailed plans was for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. That certainly didn't fill me with confidence and made it clear that I have nothing in common with them at all.
A poll by WMUR-TV after the debates show that McCain gained on Romney and that Obama may have edged out Clinton.
Now it comes down to the only poll that counts the vote on Tuesday.
The debate is being moderated by ABC's Charlie Gibson and local ABC affiliate WMUR's Scott Spradling. The debate will last 90 minutes.
The Democrats participating are: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson.
9:03PM EDT The debate will follow the same format as the Republican debate.
What about the greatest threat to America, nuclear terrorism? How aggressive would you be in going after Al Qaeda?
Obama - I would go into western Pakistan after them if we have actionable intelligence. Press Pakistan to go after them. If they don't, we will. Believe the present administration has not dealt with nuclear proliferation.
Edwards - I agree with Obama as far as going after Al Qaeda. But what should America do about nuclear proliferation and the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan in the long term? Our present ad hoc policy isn't working. Maybe best way to deal with it is do away with all nuclear weapons.
Richardson Use diplomacy first. Don't need another action like Iraq. Pakistan is a potential failed state, Musharref hasn't gone after Al Qaeda in his own country. Will ask him to step aside as president of Paskistan and hold elections.
Clinton Did take action about 10 years ago, sending in cruise missiles in an attempt to take out Bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been able to regroup because we didn't go after him with enough troops in Afghanistan. With actionable intelligence, we have to be careful otherwise could generate conflict between India and Pakistan. Must be careful about removing Musharref. Must repair failed policies of Bush in Afghanistan.
Richardson US backed the Shah of Iran, which we paid the price for. Must not support dictators at the expense of our foreign relations.
Obama Part of the reason we've been ignoring Afghanistan because we were focusing on Iraq. Must also makew sure we have Pakistan's agreement before we act against Al Qaeda.
9:18PM EDT The next President may have to deal with a nuclear attack. The day after a nuclear weapon goes of in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it and what will we actually do on the day after?
Edwards First, find out who attacked us. Second, it's the responsibility of the President to be a force for strength and calmness. It would be an enormous mistake to make it worse.
Obama We would have to retaliate. It would be more profound issue if it was a nuclear attack. We must work on nuclear non-proliferation. We should be taking a leadership position.
Clinton First, have a very high level of commitment to eliminate the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The stateless terrorist will have to operate from somewhere. Any state acting as a safe haven for such a group will face heavy retaliation.
Richardson When Secretary of Energy, worked with Russians to secure nuclear weapons. First, secure loose nuclear weapons. Will work with Soviet Union (huh?) to do this. Will not preempt.
89:28PM EDT What does change mean?
Clinton All of us are advocating change, overcoming Republican domination of Washington. There's a lot of room to ask all of questions about change. Obama could debate himself about change, with his change about health care.
Obama - I have been consistent about health care, but if was designing a health care system from scratch, would set up single payer health care system. Make health insurance mandatory for children. My system is affordable. On Social Security, think the cap should be raised so wealthier pay more into system.
Clinton Obama changed his position many times, saying one thing but voting differently.
Obama - I have been consistent on positions.
Edwards Obama and I have differences, but we agree on a number of issues. Any time anyone speaks out for change, the status quo will attack. We need unfiltered debate about change.
Clinton Making change is not about making speeches, it's about working hard. Made sure children and National Guard have health.
Richardson Been in hostage negotiations that have been more civil than this debate. What we need is change, no question. Is experience now a leper? What is wrong with having experience in Congress, the Cabinet, as a governor? Experience counts. We need someone with experience in the White House.
Edwards There are entrenched special interests that stand between America and the changes we need. I believe there are differences between us as to what changes are needed.
Obama Help make sure people can self-govern, make sure government is transparent. Make sure that government is responding to their needs.
9:45PM EDT Iraq, there are signs that the surge is working. You were all against it. IS anyone ready to say surge has worked?
Clinton Purpose of surge was to give Iraq government time for political solution. But they have not been doing what they need to do. Sees no reason for troops to remain another day.
Richardson It's a massive failure. Brings up the total casualties and says there's no military solution and there's no political solution in sight. No one is participating in a regional solution. There can be no change unless all our troops come home.
Obama The bar of success has become so low that we've lost perspective of what should be our long term goals. We haven't made ourselves safer in the process. We're wasting our time, money, and American lives to no purpose.
Edwards It is the responsibility of the President to make policy. I would listen to the military commanders. Will pull 40 to 50 thousand troops in first year of presidency, will end military operations in Iraq, and end the war.
Richardson Cannot leave a small amount of troops or UN peacekeeping to do what the US military has been doing. Must get out of Iraq to take care of our own people.
Clinton In agreement about getting troops home ASAP. Let Iraqis know there's no more blank check. Has to be done correctly to ensure a safe withdrawal. Will start withdrawal within 60 days of taking office.
9:59PM EDT Scott Spradling now moderating. Asks Clinton about UNH Survey Center's report that all candidates are qualified to serve, but see Richardson and Obama as agents of change and more likable than you or Edwards.
Clinton It hurts my feelings! I think Obama is quite likable. Bush was a President that everyone wanted to have a beer with, a uniter, not a divider. Americans think that wasn't the right choice. I think I am an agent of change. I have 35 years of making change.
10:03PM EDT - I revved up Republicans asking about running against you. What's your response?
Obama - I was going back and forth between Republicans and football. I think that we've seen a disaster in both foreign and domestic policy in the past 7 years. But we're seeing a hunger for a different kind of politics for pushing aside special interests and allowing people back into government.
More transparent government. Regardless of what Republicans are saying, the people have lost confidence in their government, and that Independents and some Republicans will cross over.
10:07PM Is prior executive experience important? Is relative youth?
Richardson - I think executive is very important. I'm the only one with executive experience. I'm the only one that's negotiated with foreign governments. The only one that's faced down Saddam Hussein and North Korea. Youth is not.
What about rising fuel prices?
Richardson Both parties have been failing in energy policy. I've created oil reserves that helped the Northeast. We need to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2020.
Edwards No. I won't have any lobbyist or those representing corporate interests in my White House. (Is this the answer to the question?)
Why don't talk about your 6 years of service in the Senate? what will you do as President?
Edwards Insurance companies are running all over the people. We need a president that will take on the powerful insurance industry. It's something I did in the Senate. It's personal to me. I don't like the idea of lobbyist influencing elected representatives.
Obama - I agree with John on this issue. I've seen the costs of the health care system that is broken.
Clinton Can we have a reality break? We've got to have a plan for a Patient's Bill Of Rights. We've got to translate talk into action and feelings into reality. (My God! She played the feelings card!) Also brought up Bill's administration and the changes he made to balance the budget.
Edwards Can't take lobbyist or PAC money and then stand up to them.
Obama Washington is designed to resist change, but it can be done by making big changes, not incremental changes.
Richardson This is the kind of bickering that turns people off. As a governor I am frustrated every time you guys and the President get nothing done, because the burden is on us. To resolve problems you've got to bring people together, to heal this country. You build coalitions, ask the public to make sacrifices, to do something to help the country.
10:30PM EDT Global warming. What about the Carbon Tax. Is it a good idea?
Richardson It's a bad idea. It's not a mandate. You want to go after the polluters. It's better to use a cap and trade system. A carbon tax hurts the consumer.
Obama - I agree a cap and trade system will work better. We fine polluters which will raise billions. (And they won't pass that on to the consumers?) We should change over to compact fluorescent lights, better insulation on homes.
Clinton Energy costs on families in New Hampshire have tripled since Bush has been in office. Wants to force utilities to become more energy efficient.
10:35PM EDT Are we heading into a recession? What about the Bush tax cuts?
Clinton Set the cap on the tax cuts at $250,000 per family. Wants to fix the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).
Edwards A few Americans are getting wealthier. The greedy corporations are making too much. Exxon Mobil made $40 billion on profits. American jobs are heading overseas. It will hurt the middle class. We need a different tax policy, a different trade policy.
Obama Proposes an immediate tax cut for middle class making less than $75,000 and would pay for it by closing loopholes in the tax code.
10:40pM EDT - What about the small business owners that are providing payrolls and health insurance that may lose out on the tax policies?
Richardson You've got to balance the budget. Line item vetoes. Get rid of corporate welfare. We have to improve our education system.
10:43PM EDT Is there something you've said in a debate that you wish you hadn't said?
Clinton Sure I have. I'll leave it to the pundits to say what I have or haven't said.
Richardson - I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court Justice. I then asked Dead or alive? Justice White...and then I found out he was against Roe vs. Wade and against civil rights. So that wasn't a good one.
Edwards - I made fun of Senator Clinton's jacket.
Obama - I made a few.
I will have my take on the debates tomorrow.
The debate is being moderated by ABC's Charlie Gibson and local ABC affiliate WMUR's Scott Spradling, with each party's debate lasting 90 minutes.
At one point it looked like one of the major Republican candidates wouldn't be participating. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas, had not originally been invited. There had been some controversy about Paul's exclusion, as there has been about Dennis Kucinich's exclusion from the Democratic debate. But Paul made the cut while Kucinich is still excluded.
The Republicans participating are: Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.
7:00PM EDT Charlie Gibson explains the format of the debate. First, no podiums. They'll all be sitting down in a semi-circle. Second, it will be more freeform, with no timers. The candidates will address each other. Third, the candidates will be taking questions from viewers via Facebook. you can join the debate by going here.
7:10PM EDT The first question was about foreign policy, particularly in relation to the Bush doctrine. Was it arrogant?
Huckabee Will make sure that the US is secure and that we will use our strength only when necessary.
Thompson - says that Huckabee has changed his tune, but understands that we are in a global war. Says that we weren't arrogant going into Afghanistan, but were going into Iraq with inadequate troops levels.
Giuliani Thinks that necessary changes were made, but mistakes were made. Military is too small, need to add 10 brigades to army and 300 ship navy.
McCain America is not safe, but it is much safer. Thought we went into Iraq without enough troops. Thinks we have more challenges ahead of us and gives Giuliani a lot of credit for his actions during 9/11.
Paul Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is wrong. Thinks no Third World nation is any danger to us.
Romney Slams Paul about his lack of understanding about the motivations of radical Islam. Believes Bush did the right thing going into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thompson Responded to the question of pre-emptive war, saying that the old ways of doing things won't work, bringing up the possibility of biological or chemical attacks by radical militant Islamists. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doesn't work. Giuliani agreed.
Huckabee Actually called the radical Islamists Islamofascists.
Giuliani - Thinks we should make sure to help moderate Islamic governments.
7:35PM EDT What about your principles and philosophies and do you change them according to opinion polls?
McCain Haven't changed since he raised his hand at the US Naval Academy. Has been steadfast and knew the Surge was needed to succeed in Iraq.
Romney Concerned about America and knows were are a great nation because of our principles. Thinks our families are our strength.
Giuliani Know what you believe! Says President Bush was right that politicians that change with opinion polls are weak, that we must stand by our principles.
Charlie Gibson brought up points that all of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have changed their viewpoints.
Huckabee and Thompson Both agree that all Presidents have their wish lists. Both agree that policies must change as situations change, but stick by your principles and your plans.
Paul Slammed anything that was not delineated in the Constitution.
7:43PM EDT Health care. US doesn't insure all it's citizens. Why not?
Giuliani US has best health care in the world. To do as other nations have, going to socialized medicine, would destroy the quality of our health care. If we socialized medicine, where will the Canadians go for health care? Health care should be free market.
McCain Health care costs are going up far faster than inflation. Health care should be outcome based, should be more free market. Give incentives to treat patients and make them well. No incentives to hold costs down now.
Romney Implemented mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts and state would help individuals pay for health insurance. Don't need Hillarycare.
Paul Should not be spending trillions on war. Could spend it on health care.
Thompson Best health care in the world but costs more than it should. Government take it over? No. Should be more free market to drive down costs. Some without insurance chose not to have it.
Romney - I like mandates! Force everyone to have health care insurance or force uninsured to pay.
Huckabee We don't have a health care system, we have a disease care system. It's all upside down. Too much health care costs go to treat chronic diseases rather than prevention.
8:04PM EDT Now using timed responses. Scott Spradling moderating: Path to citizenship?
McCain Illegal immigration a problem. Have to secure borders before going after illegal immigrants Use electronic status verification for immigrant workers, use guest worker program.
Romney Disagrees that the existing illegal immigrants should be deported. No amnesty. Should wait in line like everyone else wanting to come to America. Unfair to those wanting to immigrate.
Giuliani Should secure border. Require identification before entering country. Tamper proof Ids for guest workers. Deport illegal immigrants that have committed crimes. If illegals will register they can stay. If not, will be deported. Immigrants will have to learn and speak English if they want to become citizens.
McCain Did not advocate amnesty, despite claims by Romney.
I thought that McCain and Romney were going to come to blows about illegal immigration.
Thompson Enforcement by attrition by securing borders and stopping further illegal immigration, ensuring immigrant workers are legal, do away with sanctuary cities. It's a national security issue.
Huckabee Americans are upset about illegal immigration. Must secure borders. Agree with Thompson that it's a national security issue.
Paul Tamper proof ID's for immigrants is a back door to national ID's. A bad idea. Get rid of the incentives to immigrate illegally to the US.
Romney All candidates are in favor of legal immigration.
8:24PM EDT Assuming Obama is the nominee, why should voters not vote for him?
Romney Pushing some kind of socialized medicine, a bad idea. He wants change, but what kind of change?
Thompson Has adopted position of every liberal group, his first answer to every problem is the federal government. Should remember the idea of federalism, that the government is usually the problem, not the answer.
McCain Agrees Romney is candidate of change. Believes that Obama is too weak on foreign policy and doesn't have the experience.
Giuliani Obama would require too much on the job training during a time of war.
Huckabee Thinks Obama would raise taxes, weaken the military, and encourage our enemies.
Paul Obama and I are alike in some ways. Spoke out against the war like I did. Younger voters like us both. But won't deal with monetary policy and taxes, will push welfare state.
8:33PM EDT What about gas prices? Aren't they going to go higher?
Paul Look at price of oil related to value of dollar, euro, and gold.
McCain Thinks we need to wean ourselves off of oil.
8:35PM EDT - What bout oil company profits?
Thompson No windfall profits tax, the price is what the price is. It's bought on open market and economies of China and India are growing and increasing demand for oil. It's a free market.
Giuliani Must work on energy independence. Nuclear, wind, solar, other technologies. Must work on it like the Apollo program.
Huckabee Possible to be energy independent in 10 years. Provide incentives to innovate, don't tax them.
Romney Need to do it. Maybe not in 10 years, but must be done.
8:42PM EDT Democratic candidates joined the Republicans on stage.
An historic event will be taking place this evening in New Hampshire: a debate among the candidates, Republican and Democrats, on the same night. The debate, taking place at St. Anselm College just outside of Manchester, will host the Republican Presidential hopefuls at 7PM EDT, with the Democrats following at 9PM EDT.
It has been reported that the debates will be livestreamed, but the links have not yet been published. Once they are I will update this post.
I will be liveblogging the debates as well, mostly in an effort to make up for my lack of enthusiastic coverage of the campaigns to date.
The seats in the various caucus precincts had barely gone cold when the remaining presidential candidates were boarding their private jets and winging their way to New Hampshire. Most had arrived in the wee hours of the morning. John McCain was already here, deciding to remain in New Hampshire to campaign rather then spending another day in Iowa.
All of the candidates hit the ground running, either basking in the results from Iowa and hoping for a boost in their poll numbers or trying to make up for their less than stellar showing in the Iowa contest.
To say that there's going to be intense campaigning between now and Tuesday would be understating the case. While many of the TV networks had crews spread throughout Iowa, the networks have their news anchors here in the Granite State, running their nightly news broadcasts from sets in Manchester or elsewhere in the state.
The next four days will be interesting, with so much campaigning be crammed into a very short amount of time. If we aren't tripping over candidates stumping for our votes, will be bumping into the media covering them. To quote Bette Davis, Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.
Indeed it will.
While I haven't covered the campaigns in my usual fashion, I will attempt to add a few insights about the candidates and the issues over the next few days. I admit to a large amount of campaign fatigue, having put up with visits from presidential wannabes for the last 13 months. It's been a long road already and there's still another 11 months to go before the big election in November.
Two Democrat presidential wannabes have pulled the plug on their ambitions.
Both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out of the race after their poor showing in Iowa last night.
The first real contest in the race for the White House has finally arrived.
The Iowa Caucuses started this evening, with much of the media looking on. This is nothing new. However the fact that the caucuses are being held only a couple of days after New Year's is different.
While I haven't written much on the subject of the campaigns, I will be starting on the morrow. After all, the New Hampshire Primary is next Tuesday and I will be so glad when it's all over. It's been a long campaign already and we still have 11 months to go before the November election. So I'll have to hurry and get my licks in while I can.
If this doesn't make the case to Iowa voters that Fred Thompson is in the race to win the White House, nothing will.
Note: This is a lengthy video, running about 16 minutes. But it's well worth watching.
(Via Instapundit)
As any of you reading this blog on any kind of semi-regular basis knows, I am I dyed-in-the-wool Fred Head. I support Fred Thompson's run for the presidency. I am not a rabid supporter of Fred. I just think that he's one of the best choices for the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
That said, I have a confession to make. Well, more of an admission.
Fred isn't going to win the New Hampshire Primary.
I'm not the only Fred Head that knows this. So does Belknap County chairman for Fred Thompson, Joe McCormack.
As he said on today's Meet The New Press, Fred won't win here. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a chance of winning the follow on primaries, particularly in the South.
Time will tell.
The first time I heard the ad on the radio I thought I was mistaken. But hearing it the second time removed all doubt. (The quote below is not verbatim. I don't remember the exact words, so bear with me.)
I will end George Bush's war against science. I will end the ban on stem cell research.
So which candidate's ad was this?
Hillary's.
My problem with the ad? Both statements above are pure political BS.
First, there has been no administration war against science, unless Hillary considers that scientific ethics stand in the way of certain kinds of research as a war against science. Of course we could ignore ethics and go the route others have followed, conducting inhumane experiments upon the unwilling much as Josef Mengele did in Nazi Germany. Do we want to follow in his footsteps? Of course not. That's one reason why many condemn stem cell research that requires the creation, cloning, and destruction of human embryos.
Second, there is no government ban on stem cell research. However there is a ban on federal funding for research that creates and destroys human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells. Research with existing stem cell lines is being funded with tax dollars. To say this is a ban on stem cell research is disingenuous at best.
The ad is pure deception. No amount of spin can say it is otherwise.
Unlike those of Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Huckabee, et al, Fred Thompson's holiday video is far more powerful and thought provoking.
No self aggrandizement. No pithy words. No false humility. No reminiscences of childhood Christmases. If only more political candidates were like this.....
It appears I'm not the only one already tired of the Presidential campaigning.
Every four years the campaigns start earlier, run longer, and the primary/caucus schedule becomes more compressed. The madness has got to stop. Even Karl Rove agrees with me.
The Iowa caucuses are 14 days away, with the New Hampshire primary five days later. And what follows from there won't be pretty. The way Americans are selecting our presidential candidates in 2008 is, frankly, a mess.
The first problem is the overall length of the campaign. There are few more demanding physical activities than running for president, other than military training or athletics at a very high level--and this will be the longest presidential contest on record. The first candidate this season announced Dec. 12, 2006; virtually all the Democrats declared by late January, and almost every Republican by mid-March. So next fall we'll elect a president who's spent two years rocketing around the country in an aluminum tube and sleeping in strange hotel rooms on a brutal, exhausting campaign trail.
This gives America the longest leadership selection contest in the democratic world.
The joke making the rounds lately is a number of presidential hopefuls have been trying to make sure they won't miss any of the upcoming debates...for the 2012 elections.
By the time November 2008 rolls around most people will be bored to death with the lengthy campaigns. Most won't really care who's running. They'll just want it all to be over. So will I.
I have been remiss in keeping up with Fred Thompson's campaign. Call me lazy. So here are a few links that you might find interesting.
Proving once again that he does indeed have a sense of humor.
While addressing the issue of habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees, Fred said:
The detainees at Guantanamo are not American citizens, they are enemies of this nation and they do not enjoy the rights of American citizens, he said. And they are not entitled to habeas corpus protection.
The crowd of a little over 100 people in Waterloo applauded the line, as they did several others on the last stop of first day of The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down! tour across Iowa. Thompson also clarified when he would he would be willing to raise his hand. When Chief Justice John Roberts swears me in, I wont mind raising my hand.
Avoiding a Mike Dukakis moment, Fred decides not to don a fire helmet during a visit to a fire station in Waverly, Iowa.
Fred managed to pick up the endorsement of four major bloggers from the conservative side of the blogosphere. Pejman Yousefzhadeh, Polipundit, Frank J of IMAO, and Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy have endorsed Fred's run for the White House.
Fred's campaign appears to be picking up steam now that he's spending far more time in Iowa than in the past.
He won't be visiting New Hampshire again until after the Iowa Caucuses, appearing in a debate with his fellow Republican candidates on January 5th.
More to follow.
It's a little over a month until the New Hampshire Primary and I can honestly say that I am bored out of my mind with the whole thing. Not just the primary, but the whole presidential election season.
In the past I enjoyed the campaigning, the debates, the speeches, the face-to-face electioneering.
But this time around I care very little about the process, the campaigns, the visits by the candidates. It's not that I don't have a favorite candidate. I do. Anyone reading this blog know I support Fred Thompson. I believe he's the best one to take over the Oval Office.
Despite Thompson being 'my man', I can't seem to call up the enthusiasm for this election season. I've puzzled over this malaise I feel. It didn't take me too long to figure out why I'm feeling out of sorts.
The election season is too damn long!!!
This one started all of a day or two after Election Day November 2006. In the past it started sometime during the August or September before the primary. Oh, some of the presidential hopefuls would make low key visits to New Hampshire or Iowa before then, but they weren't in full on campaign mode. This time around candidate visits were more like the full court press one expects just before the election. It never let up. The compression of the primary schedule hasn't helped things either (something that is worthy of a post all on its own). At one point is was possible that the New Hampshire Primary would have been held this month due to other states trying to steal Iowa's and New Hampshire's thunder by moving their contests up on the calendar. And to top it off, the so-called Super Tuesday in early February makes it even worse because it forced a lot of the candidates to start campaigning earlier than ever.
Frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing and I'll be glad when it's all over..
So I guess he IS inheriting the Reagan mantle if conservatives like me vote for him. I'm still undecided, though. Mitt's got the organization and money, Rudy the rhetorical flourishes, McCain the character (the UL endorses him this morning), and Huckabee's from Hope.
Link here.
HT: Free Republic
While the 'debate' last night was, to all intents and purposes, more of a Q&A session, there was one topic that was near and dear to my heart: gun control and the Second Amendment.
Fred Thompson had one of the best lines of the night during his answer to a query from a YouTube questioner about what kind of guns the candidates liked and owned.
Fred Thompson was visiting central New Hampshire earlier today, making stops in Bristol and Laconia. As much as I wanted to be there I had other duties to attend to that got me back home too late to make to Fred's Laconia venue. However, all is not lost.
Our friends at Granite Grok ventured over to Laconia to attend Fred's visit and have a report about Fred's speech and the follow up Q&A session.
Writes Skip:
You know, I've read and heard other folks talking about Fred's laconic laid back style and the seemingly lack of fire in the belly attitude. While I cannot speak to that sentiment personally, I can definitely say that there was no evidence of that here today. While this was a short stop consisting of a small amount of time for opening remarks and only 3 questions from the crowd, he seemed upbeat in a serious type of way (no, he was not bouncing around the stage) as he brought his defense and strength message to this bastion of veterans.
Look, I was quite disappointed that the time between the "Ask Fred" event and his answers. Further, I thought that the lack of being in NH often kinda let folks go off the cliff as far as expectations were concerned ("Hey, where's Fred?"). This did not, his chances help.
That said, if he does come often and shows the same type of command of details and the speaking presence he did today, who knows? Maybe some of that "uncampaign sparkle and mystery" may return to the Fredster.
Let's hope that Fred will pick up the pace a bit, particularly since the New Hampshire Primary is only six weeks away.
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has finally set the date for the New Hampshire primary: January 8th, 2008.
It's about time.
It's been some time since we heard from former WorldNetDaily Commentary Editor Tom. He e-mailed me a link to one of his latest pieces, an endorsement for Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul. Even though I am not supporter of Representative Paul, there are a few areas where I agree with him.
However, the fact that I am not one of his supporters does not preclude a friend of the Weekend Pundit clan from voicing his/her support for a different candidate.
Despite long ago repenting from being a Republican and from voting for Republicans, I must confess I am momentarily backsliding: I will be voting for Ron Paul. People from all parts of the political spectrum - including many people from the so-called "third parties," like myself - will be voting for him as well. Because of this, he has a legitimate shot at winning the presidency and doing what needs to be done to fix our nation.
Tom brings up some excellent points, so RTWT.
Paul's recent fund-raising effort took quite a few of the pundits by surprise, raising over $4 million in a very short time. I have a feeling that Mr. Paul may end up becoming far more visible to the voting public than he has up to now. If nothing else, he'll make it interesting.
Bruce has a follow-up on the NYT blogger/Fred Thompson kerfuffle, where events the Times blogger reported and what actually happened do not resemble one another.
As Bruce writes about one commenter to his original post questioning the veracity of his take on the events:
Translated: Where is the proof that this video footage of Fred Thompson walking out of the Secretary of State's office on the second floor of the State House in Concord to an assembled group of supporters is actually video footage of Fred Thompson walking out of the Secretary of State's office on the second floor of the State House in Concord to an assembled group of supporters, as Ms. Hauser wrote about?
Of course, Bruce does cop to the possibility that the video was staged, as laid out by this commenter:
I don't know Bruce. This person makes a good point. It's much harder to just go to an event than it is to create a life-sized robotic Fred Thompson, hire a bunch of actors to form an "assembled group of supporters" and completely renovate your basement to look exactly like the second floor of the State House in Concord.
What they can do with video editing computers these days!
The Red Sox are playing in Game 1 of the World Series tonight, so this is going to be a short post I put together between innings. Nothing profound will be written tonight.
But tonight will be a Fred Thompson night.
First, Fred picked up an important supporter in New Hampshire: Charlie Arlinghaus. Granite Grok has the scoop on Fred's latest addition to his campaign.
Next, Real Clear Politics lets us see how Fred's non-traditional campaign has been pissing off and puzzling the media pundits and Beltway insiders at the same time.
And finally, NRO reports that Fred has an excellent understanding of the illegal immigration problem and has specific ideas of how to deal with it.
Who is the most powerful man in America?
Some might say it's George W. Bush. Others, Dick Cheney. Some might point to financial mavens like Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, or Rupert Murdoch. Yet others like Bill Gates.
But who is really the most powerful man in America? Would you believe New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner?
Bill who?
That's the reaction of many people outside of New Hampshire when they hear his name.
But what is it that makes Bill Gardner such a powerful person once every four years? It's quite simple, really: he sets the date for the New Hampshire Primary.
He's the seemingly always blushing guy who sits in a tiny, paper-messy, barren-walled office in a small corner of the State House. He's a wide-eyed, aw-shucks guy who loves raising chickens and, at 58, playing basketball with his brothers and watching the Patriots and Red Sox. At first, he comes across as a grown up Opie Taylor -- "never a tough guy," according to his thumbnail in the 1966 Bishop Bradley High School yearbook.
Well, he may not look tough. But when it comes to the New Hampshire primary, America, don't mess with Bill.
Gardner has those who would be President, their high-paid consultants, network executives and nationally-known political writers and pundits hanging on his every utterance, as rambling and imprecise as they sometimes can be.
[...]
But Gardner says nothing he does is more important than protecting the "tradition" of the state's first-in-the-nation presidential primary. As Secretary of State since 1976, he has stared down powerful political party leaders and legislatures and governors in other states who have been determined to end the first-by-a-week tradition and grab the national spotlight for themselves.
Does he bask in the limelight he finds himself in every four years? Not from what we've seen up here. And that makes him very different from many public servants.
It's been a while, but Fred Thompson has again started answering the Ask Fred questions submitted to him some time ago.
The latest comes from Instapundit reader Joel Anderson of Mesa, Arizona, who asked about completing the fence along the Mexican border.
While the focus is on the Presidential candidates, it's not too often that we hear all that much about the candidates spouses. A few stand out, like Elizabeth Edwards, battling cancer. Or Bill Clinton, former President and potential First Fellah.
One that has received attention as well, mostly on the negative side in an effort to smear her husband, had been Jeri Thompson, wife of Republican candidate Fred Thompson.
The press hasn't always been kind to her, trying to paint her as a gold digger who broke up Fred's first marriage (untrue). She's a self-made woman, successful in her own right.
And now there's a blog that covers her and her activities, both on the campaign trail and at home, titled appropriately JeriGirls. It's banner line says it all:
Defending a woman's right to be smart, beautiful, and Republican.
I plan to check in quite often.
How is it that while running a low key campaign that Fred Thompson seems to be gaining ever more support? He certainly isn't out there making the usual campaign stump speeches like many of the other candidates. If anything, he tends to be low key, simply stating his beliefs and ideas.
He doesn't speak like a preacher, slowly building up the excitement of his followers and working them into a frenzy. He just talks plainly about what he believes needs to be done in this country to keep America on the right track.
He's certainly not trying to be all things to all voters, something that far too many candidates past and present from both parties have been striving to do.
Maybe that's why more people are starting to pay attention to him. He's not laying on the b******t like so many of others. It's certainly a refreshing approach to getting the message across. It's also one reason that I've been a Fred Head for some time.
That's not to say that one of the other Republican candidates wouldn't make a good President. I can think of two that would likely do quite well. But I still believe that Fred Thompson would make the best President of all of the candidates, Republican or Democrat. Apparently I'm not the only one.
Conventional wisdom is hardening around the proposition that Fred Dalton Thompson is too lazy, ill-prepared, tired, old, lackluster, inexperienced, inconsistent and bald to make a successful run for President.
Of course, conventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it's only by accident.
In this case conventional wisdom is not just wrong but comically so. Thompson will win the Republican nomination for two reasons. First, he's a very impressive candidate. Second, there's no realistic alternative. He will win the general election for the same two reasons.
While I am not as optimistic as J. Peter Mulhern above, I think that Fred has got a pretty good chance. All we can do is wait and see what the outcome will be.
Fred Thompson gives us his impression of HillaryCare V2.0.
Frankly, he is not amused.
My favorite line?
"To some Democrats, choice to them is like a cross is to a vampire - they don't like to see it coming down the road.
As promised, here is Fred Thompson's answer to the second question those of you out there submitted during our Ask Fred session.
This question comes from a commenter at Right Wing News and asks about the 2003 Medicare Drug Bill (Medicare Part D).
After an unforeseen delay, the first answer from the Ask Fred questions has arrived!
Fred responds to a question submitted by a commenter to Captain's Quarters, who asks about tax reform and what a Thompson administration would do about the tax code.
Fred's also been taking questions from people attending his events. Here's an answer to a question asked by an attendee about how he would fix Social Security.
Follow on posts with more answers to your Ask Fred question should be following on an almost daily basis. Check back here for more answers to your Ask Fred questions.
I promised a breakdown of the questions submitted by those wishing to ask Fred Thompson about the issues that they believe should be driving the presidential campaigns.
I received 119 comments and 174 e-mails, for a total of 293. Many asked more than one question, giving us a total of 455 questions. Many of those multiple questions covered related issues such as illegal immigration and border security, Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran, the global war on terror and support for the military, and a host of other linked issues.
Some questions were expected. Some were surprises.
One of the two most burning issues among those questions s