I watched the entire debate last night and thought I'd post my impressions. I don't have time to sit here and write a really long post and reflect on the debate. So instead, I'm going to post a few thoughts and continue to update the post as I have time during the day...

I will say that my overall impression is that two people came away with the greatest GAIN. Whether or not they "won" the debate is, well, debatable, but I think it is pretty clear that Mitt Romney and Gov. Huckabee raised their stock the most...

Let me start with why some other didn't do as well in my opinion. Part of this will be based on alignment with my policy preferences, the other portion will be based on the candidates overall presence, knowledge of the facts and ability to perform in this type of forum.

John McCain

I have enormous respect for McCain in a lot of ways and based on some recent speeches he's made, he actually started to work his way up my personal list of favorites. Last night, however, he did anything but appear presidential in my opinion. He was so clearly nervous at the beginning and while he improved, I felt that he was NEVER completely comfortable in that type of environment. I'm not sure that's a deal breaker, but it was disappointing to see him fair so poorly in this area. Sure I agreed with much of what he said and he has a long record of great service to his country, but being great Senator and being a great President is two different things. I'm not sure Senator McCain is the man as much as it pains me to say it.

Rudy

Had we not had such high expectations of Rudy already, he would have been, to me, one of the top guys. However, he happens to be the front-runner and I don't feel he lived up to that. Particularly in his ability to answer questions and "own" the debate forum. He annoyingly covered his great successes in NYC in almost every answer - I was reminded of the fact that John Kerry served in Vietnam - OUCH!! I still like Rudy, but I came away feeling a little less confident about his ability to "make it happen". Yes, I could still vote for him, but he dropped a notch after last night.

Brownback

Somehow, I saw Brownback as a mix of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Not his politics, his look and his mannerisms. I realize that's a strange mix of affectations, but I couldn't put my finger on it and I got flashes of both Bill and Al out of it somehow. Besides that, I think he came across as "too religious" for my taste. Not impressive.

Ron Paul

I LOVE Ron Paul. Ron Paul has NO CHANCE. Frankly, I like his ideas - Libertarian that they are - about smaller, limited federal government. It's unfortunate to say it won't happen. But it won't - and this in fact will be the reason that the U.S. cannot sustain world supremacy forever. But I digress. He - and the Democrats - can yell and scream all they want about "we should have NEVER gone into Iraq" and we should leave now and be isolationist like we were in the good 'ol days, but that it not a reality. We can't have it both ways. When we let our demand for oil so outstrip our own ability and capacity to produce it, we put ourselves into a position where we HAD to participate - and influence, and protect our interests - globally. We cannot have it both ways. Being isolationist was a lot easier a) when we weren't the biggest economic power ever and b) when 3,000 miles of ocean was at least somewhat of a hurdle. Ron, I would love to move more in your direction, but it's never gonna happen.

Thompson, Tancredo, Gilmore, Hunter

The four of these guys came out okay and just about even in my eyes. But given their second tier status, it's likely where they will stay.

Here's some of the policy discussion:

Abortion

This one's easy. I don't care what any one of the candidates thinks about abortion. First, worst case scenario for the pro-choice zealots is that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. That does not mean that abortion will suddenly be illegal and put an end to all women's rights ever - as libs would have you believe. In fact, the decision would - as it should - go back to the states. Some states would no doubt outlaw it, but others would surely keep the practice legal. Second, the pro-life zealots will NEVER make abortion illegal at the federal level as much as some of them would like to. And you know what, even if it was made illegal in all states, I wouldn't care. Abortion is an important personal issue, but it belongs no where in the federal government debate. It's a real shame that there are single-issue abortion voters out there on both sides that just can't get beyond this one stupid issue.

From a debate winner/loser perspective, I think the conservative that can get away with the most centrist view will have the better chance at winning a general election. It depends in part on how many single-issue conservatives would stay home because the Republican candidate can accept Roe v. Wade.

The Fair Tax!!

Two candidates mentioned the Fair Tax by name and thus I will be voting for one of them: Tommy Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. When asked about which taxes they would like to cut, 7 candidates danced around the AMT which even Democrats are liking less and less, 1 candidate (Romney) wants to bring the interest and capital gains tax to zero (talk about a savings boom!!) and then Tommy T and Mike H hit the jackpot citing the Fair Tax. Is the Fair Tax becoming a real possibility? I'm still mostly skeptical, but it's being talked about more and more. It could generate excitement for a candidate from the right and the left as there are at least some on the left that could buy into this idea. Fingers crossed!!

"What do you dislike most about America?"

One of the many stupid questions that only a lefty would ask. Romney handled it well -albeit he was temporarily speechless. He basically answered that he loves everything about America. Well, frankly I can think of only ONE thing that I dislike about this country - our Federal Government as it draws inexorably towards socialism and oppression. Ron Paul is our only hope ;-)

...

I can't tell you how many times I read an article only to come away with the exact OPPOSITE impression than what the title would want me to believe. This article is entitled "Gore Blasts Canada's Greenhouse-Gas Plan".

The first paragraph gets even more emphatic:

Environmental crusader and former US vice president Al Gore on Saturday accused the Canadian government of preparing a fraudulent emissions cutback plan, drawing a sharp response from Ottawa.

But then, if you are one of the 1% that reads more, you would learn that...

The strategy aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming by 150 megatonnes, or 20 percent, by 2020.

So, what makes the plan fraudulent for Gore? Apparently the following:

However, the cutbacks would be based on emission levels in 2006, rather than 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto Protocol...

and

Gore criticized Canada's plan for lacking defined targets for emission reductions.

I'm not sure what's not "defined" about "cut 150 megatonnes from 2006 levels by 2020", because it sure looks specific to me. Of course, similar to Kyoto, there are no solutions, just targets. Any idiot can set a target, but it takes a true moron to suggest a target as fraudulent. And the Canadian Environmental Minister, John Baird, knows a moron when he hears one...

Baird said it was "regrettable that the former US vice president decided to speak out without ever having been briefed on the contents of our plan."

He went on to say:

"It is difficult to accept criticism from someone who preaches about climate change, but who never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate [...]. The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member."

Sounds to me like Gore is the one that was "Blasted".

And finally, on a separate but related topic of how useless Kyoto is:

Canada had agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but emissions have instead increased by 35 percent.

Ouch!! Boy that Kyoto protocol is really working! What if Canada hadn't signed on?!?!

Just reading an AP story about the House vote on the Iraq supplemental funding bill which will have non-binding timetables for withdrawal. Bush says he's going to veto it. I say sign it, but make it 100% clear that he is going to ignore the timetable and rely on his generals.

But, I'm writing this post because of the last two paragraphs:

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's comments. "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," he told reporters.

Now I'm sure there is more to the story than just these snippets, but isn't it kind of funny to see who is really the name caller?

I respect John McCain. He seems to be one that stands more on principal than most, although I'm not sure that means a lot. But apparently a few days ago, he seems to have jumped onto the Global Warming Climate Change Hysteria bandwagon. I suspect it is in part to stake out the "unique" Republican position for his presidential campaign. Of course, I suppose it's possible he could really believe it is an important issue - in which case, he probably won't be getting my vote.

It's kind of hard to take any of the alarmists seriously, when their personal actions and decisions probably account for many times their fair share of carbon emissions that they talk so passionately against. When the chief Alarmist - the Goracle - lives his life in a substantially LESS GREEN manner than President Bush who most on the left deride as having the "worst environmental record ever", you have to wonder how serious an issue it could be.

People might actually take the idea a little more seriously just as soon as those that yell the loudest begin to practice what they preach. Until then, I don't need to the government forcing anti-capalistic, anti-freedom laws down everyone elses' throats!

(NOTE: I had posted this to my other blog on accident so I delete it from there any copied it to here. There were a couple of comments which while appreciated were deleted along with the post. Sorry)

So they finally found the cause of obesity. It's the FAT GENE!! Don't worry, it's NOT YOUR FAULT!

Oh I know, the fat gene might have just been discovered, but it's always been there. So why the obesity epidemic today? Are there more FAT GENES? Are carriers of the bad FAT GENE populating the Earth faster? Hmmmmm...

Well, actually it's quite simple. While I'm certain some people get fat easier than others, it still comes down to calories in versus calories out. The fact that we have more obesity today is not the FAT GENE. It IS that we eat more crap and sit on our fat asses more than ever before.

But this is emblematic of our whole society. "It's not your fault - your the victim. And someone will be along to fix it for you so don't bother to try to do anything for yourself. We wouldn't want to put you out or anything."

Poor? - not your fault; we'll just use gov't to confiscate money from rich people and give it to you

Pregant due to unprotected sex? no problem; abortions are us

Spent too much on the Credit Cards? don't worry, try bankruptcy

Too fat? No, you keep eating that Krispy Kreme, we've got gene therapy.

Too ugly, bored with your marriage, losing your hair, too hyper, not comfortable with being a man, doesn't matter. Between the force of government and our wonderful "health" care system, we can fix it for you.

The only consequences we have to face any more is for what we say (or maybe even think) - sorry Imus.