Top performers: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Tom Tancredo.
Who didn’t go over time limits too much: Giuliani, Thompson. While I am not a strong believer in the idea that a candidate be heavily judged on his ability to articulate policy in 30 second sound bites, it is a plus to be able to demonstrate that you actually paid attention to the rules.
Mitt Romney, for the most part very strong, but also seems rather rehearsed, and the seductive movements of his eyebrows didn’t help that perception. For him the timer was something that just applied to other people. I’m sorry, but in the context of the debates, I want to hear what your policy is and why I should believe it will work. Don’t break into anecdotes for 5 minutes.
Fred Thompson was a bit underwhelming, unfortunately, and didn’t talk enough about the implementation of his policies.
Giuliani was articulate, and very effective with the optimism angle. Certain policies on which he has a historical habit of weakness were not addressed very well by the questions. Although even if I were asking the questions I’m sure he’d still make at least second place.
Tom Tancredo did his part in keeping immigration in the forefront of people’s heads. In that respect he himself is something of a one-issue guy.
Ron Paul, was just embarrassing whenever he opened his mouth on foreign policy.
The questions themselves were unimpressive.
Who won the debate?
I would say the best performer was Giuliani, but in terms of who beat Chris Matthews the best, it was Thompson.
Some of the questions that I would ask:
Considering the problem with criminal aliens, it seems fair to say that the government of Mexico is being criminally negligent with regards to the lower classes of its people. To what extent would you go to encourage Mexico to take responsibility for its own people?
Assuming that all small arms are legalized, what sort of regulations would you suggest to keep crew-served weapons and artillery only in the hands of responsible citizens?
Do you think setting a Constitutional maximum on the tax rate is necessary?
There’s this Bill of Rights thing in the Constitution. If an elected official uses his or her official powers to violate any of these enumerated rights, should it be prosecuted as treason punishable by death?
Now this is my perspective on what needs to be done. Who should be in charge is whoever can agree the most with this: implementing public policy or avoiding interference where appropriate.
The Global Crusade on Islamic Imperialism
For starters, the War on Terror needs a more descriptive title. Our terrorist enemy is at this time Islamic in nature. While certainly not representative of all Muslims, the ideology is nonetheless globally pervasive, with the Wahhabi doctrines that are promoted by the Saudi government and accepted by a majority of Muslim clergy. And that I think is the warning sign that the theology of Islam itself is the problem. That the majority of Muslims are decent peaceful people just goes to show that most people are not theologians. But there are in fact severe problems that arise from an orthodox interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths, which include calls to warfare of every type against all infidels until they are subdued and dominated by Islamic government. And that’s just Jews and Christians. Atheists and pagans get completely hosed in the deal, in that they don’t even get the option of living.
With regards to any religion, you can’t simply ignore its established canon of authoritative holy scripture and then expect to be able to claim that you are practicing the truest version of that religion. And so far there isn’t much in the way of textual evidence from the Quran or those Hadiths that are considered reliable that the practices of the terrorists and of Islamic governments are something other than devout Islamic orthodoxy.
That doesn’t mean we need to be raiding every mosque in the country. While such a thing might be beneficial it would not do well in the long term to establish such a drastic precedent. A more effective opposition would be one with a similar type of organization as the jihadists, but based on a more benevolent ideology, with its various branches coming out of any compatible religion. Criticism of Islam in Art and Logic (two of three universal languages) should be heavily advanced, while the use of Violence (the third universal language) must be strictly defensive. With regards to that last bit, I am thinking that it would be a particularly good idea for this hypothetical Network to focus on providing trained and armed bodyguards to authors, speakers, filmmakers, cartoonists, and others who nonviolently criticize Islam. A vital step in this battle is crushing the myth that criticizing a religion is inherently an act of paranoid bigotry.
From there, we can track those who make credible threats and drop a train on them and all their friends, and then spread the protection effort to the rest of the world’s Islam critics, and see how things go from there when people feel like they can talk without being killed.
Other Things that Relate to Terrorism
Immigration: America is a big party, but it’s BYOB, and we need our bouncers to enforce this rule. It’s not just Mexicans that are trying to sneak in. There are jihadist terrorists coming in too, some of whom are remarkably good at playing Mexican. Therefore we need to be a little more serious about catching and deporting those who sneak in. Those who get in line and do the paperwork should of course be welcomed with open arms. That’s why this is not anti-immigration. To characterize it as such is deceptive and malicious.
Guns: The real issue is self-defense. People should be allowed to do it, especially with a gun, if they’re about to be attacked by terrorists.
Note that on these two secondary points I question Rudy’s seriousness, and suggest that he would make a better Attorney General or Vice President than President.
