A Review of the Republican Debate

The media failed to frame the debate properly, because clearly it's about the money!

Each informed voter has to assess which priorities for spending are the most critical to the United States and themselves. If one is a baby boomer nearing retirement, health care and social security loom large. Younger voters with children will probably be focused on education. The young single voter may be concerned with philosophical issues more than most. All are concerned about taxes. Immigration is a concern for many as America tries to determine the cost of illegals. Are they paying their own way or is America footing the bill? The same goes with the Iraq War. Is Iraq worth the price in treasure and lives? What might happen if we were to pull-out? Would America face another 9-11 or some other tragedy from those that are avowed to destroy democracy. What will it cost American taxpayers as we pursue solutions to the issues?

Which of these candidates, if any, can provide the leadership necessary to gain support from a majority of Americans if elected President?

It would seem to this reviewer that the Iraq War is the most critical issue. It has taken several years to gain the upper-hand in the war. Are we ready to leave just when it appears as if there is an opportunity for some sort of democratic governance in Iraq? Can we afford to leave and just as importantly what will be the cost for staying?

Well, this debate has concluded and the American public has had another opportunity to assess the candidates. Did they answer the questions or simply provide responses that clouded the issues even more? The clear answers to questions are always in the details and these debates both Democratic and Republican rarely provide the details.

The media has already framed the debate by focusing on the conflict between Giuliani and Romney over immigration and their political jousting for potential points from the American public. On the domestic front immigration is the clearly the critical issue. The responses to the questions dealing with immigration were insightful. Most seemed to first favor a security fence and increased surveillance along the border. Dealing with the 12,000,000 illegal immigrants that are already here was not addressed during this debate, but a review of the candidates positions indicates a range of possibilities from declaring illegals criminals and deporting them to a variety of guest worker programs that could lead to citizenship.

To this reviewer Huckabee was the smoothest in his responses. However, one has to believe there is more to the selection process than having smooth debating skills and smart one-liners that can grab a headline by making a point using memorable humor in the process.

John McCain and Duncan Hunter seem to be the most passionate candidates. McCain, because he knows first hand the minefield of politics and the horror of war. Hunter has sons serving our nation in the military and he too is well familiar with the inside political processes that are necessary to effectively govern the behemoth that is America.

While Ron Paul may be philosophically popular to some, one would be hard pressed to believe he is a viable candidate. He will most certainly drift into obscurity in the upcoming weeks and months.

Thompson was there.
Tancredo had one of the most important comments to make when he addressed the question of the US making a voyage to Mars by saying, ". . . how many questions have dealt with the issue of deficit spending, the debt out of control? And yet, we have somebody saying, but would you spend more money on going to Mars? . . . That's why we have such incredible problems with our debt, because everybody's trying to be everything to all people. We can't afford some things, and by the way, going to Mars is one of them."

While this question was never followed up, our individual economic situations reflect many of the same dilemmas that our government faces. It's about the money!