From what I did hear in the last half of the second republican debate was some good old fashioned bantering with the candidates trying to separate themselves, to talk about what they want to do as president and what they believe to be good for the nation. They even took some shots at each other too, which was somewhat refreshing.

There are some candidates waiting to announce their entrance into the field, so to make room, we should now begin to narrow the field of candidates running to replace President Bush, who btw has now sold America down the UN/EU canal of globalization.

The job calls for doing what is in the best interest of America and providing for the national defense, but you'd never know that from listening to Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who gave me chills when he basically said that 9/11 was due to historic U.S. involvement in the middle east. Paul said we need to listen to the enemy and hear their message. This is an attitude of liberal appeasement that would facilitate Islam's ruling of the world as they brainwash us all with the Koran, or murder anyone who didn't want to hear it, especially atheist and gay liberals.

Paul said: "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."

Islamic radicals don't care about politics, as evidenced by their continued homicide bombings in Iraq against their own people. Clearly Ron Paul would put America back on a defensive posture where we were prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. He has proven that he has literally no clue about Islamic fundamentalism, and is not ready to do what's needed to protect Americans and our allies from them.

Rudy Giuliani blasted Paul with this...

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo also blasted Paul, saying;

"My dear friend Ron here, I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not — whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in Iraq or not, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it. And we have to defend ourselves,"

Tancredo is correct. The best defense is a solid offense.

Ron Paul seems to not understand that Islamic radicals like bin Laden hate us because of our freedom, power and way of life, not to mention our religious values, and because they simply like the power of telling their brainwashed followers to kill themselves and as many innocent people as they can, for Allah, not because we did anything to them.

Being a leader of the blame America first club on the radical liberal side, Ron Paul has marginalized himself badly in the second debate. Memo to Ron Paul: It's time for you to bail, and stop wasting our time, just as Kuchinich does for the democrats.


On the question of national security if America were attacked again, Mitt Romney showed his stength in this response:

"You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo."

Rudy Giuliani said:

"In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know that there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of," Giuliani said, adding that that could include waterboarding. "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or anyplace else."

John McCain has the weakest response, siding with the prisoners when he said:

"We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people," McCain said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know."

McCain has admitted that he's more worried about world opinion than protecting American lives from terrorists. He said "it's about us," but that doesn't cut it when the enemy is already cutting the heads off innocent American civilians trying to help in Iraq, and will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear bombs to use in New York and Washington killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans.

Just because McCain was a POW, does not mean we should give rights to an uncivilized enemy having no qualms about dying, that does not abide by rules of engagement or the Geneva Convention, and in fact considers it a weakness on our part to be used against us.

I think California Rep. Duncan Hunter attempted to hit the middle ground, but got lost in his delivery when he said: "Let me just say, this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of defense," Hunter said. "I would call him up or call him in, I would say to SecDef, in terms of getting information that would save American lives even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: 'Get the information.'"

Jim Gilmore added: "First of all, let me say that I would go to the U.N. But it would be to state an opinion and to take advantage of our rights under international law, not to go ask for permission."

The United States needs to get rid of the U.N., that would never survive without our tax dollars, but constantly chides and demeans us to the world. Democrats want the UN and EU to have more say in running the world, and president Bush is caving to it.

The U.N. paper tiger even allowed Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to recite his anti-Israel, anti-America, propaganda to the world, while allowing Iran to buy time to make their nuclear weapons in order to wipe us off the map, using the same silly UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein laughed-off 17 times.

I believe Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore can be taken out of consideration to make room for others waiting to join the race.


So who won the second debate? I think it was tie between Romney and Guiliani, but I would have to give the nod to Romney, not being able to bring myself to vote for Rudy with his pro-choice stance that he tried to wiggle out of previously, even though he had one of the better comments of the night when dissing Paul. Romney sounds better and can think on his feet, and he looks more presidential in the Reagan mold.

With so many primaries coming up, it will be difficult to keep track of the field, but it will also make for a stronger final nominee in the end, hopefully.

Labels: Gilmore, Giuliani, GOP debates, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|