Side Tracked–my thoughts on the New Hampshire debates

I have no other place to post my political thoughts and filled with opinions I cannot hold back. I watched the New Hampshire debates tonight, this is my take, in order of seating:

The common themes of the Republicans could be summarized as speaking about the sanctity of personal freedom and the efficiency of market mechanisms.

John McCain was flat out childish in his personal attacks on Gov. Romney. I think he came across as one who thinks through the eyes of militarism and traditional Washington politics. Overly entrenched in politician life I think he has lost touch with the experience of common America.

Fred Thompson was the calm grandfather of the group. I don’t think he added anything very insightful on the issues. I liked that he emphasized that the Constitution should be the foundation of government policy (words Ron Paul has been using for thirty years).

Ron Paul impressed me with his understanding and focus on the root cause of problems and was extremely consistent on principles based on the Constitution. Refreshingly, he did not get involved in the childish attacking of other candidates. He was given very little air time to explain his opinions, seemingly unfair considering his neck-and-neck showing with McCain and Giuliani in Iowa and strong polling in New Hampshire. I think his enthusiasm has the tendency to come across as overly radical which is unfortunate because his ideas are extremely wise and cut to the heart of the issues. I recall that he was the only candidate to receive applause from the audience after a specific response. A good moment for him was when the moderator went one by one through the candidates regarding changing their policy positions according to political expediency and for Ron Paul the moderator had to admit that Ron Paul’s record and stances have not changed, only his party label–I think that exercise was the answer to the question and shows Paul’s integrity and principle based platform.

Mitt Romney came across as a leader who has the management skill and personal savvy to get his way. I was disappointed in how readily he gets involved in the bickering and attacking of other candidates. He is obviously trying extremely hard to play the political game: watching his word choice, very concerned with image, etc. I think he could make a good president but I worry that he is overly concerned with image and surface solutions.

Mike Huckabee won in Iowa because nobody knows who to vote for and therefore default to the one they see as standing for the moral values of Christians. As a leader, politician, and innovator he brings nothing to the table. I think he would be a wash as president.

Rudy Giuliani is still riding the wave of name recognition. His platform is weak. Some of his policies I believe are based on faulty assumptions. I don’t think I could handle his intermittent raising eyebrows for the next four years on the news although presidential impersonators would have a lot of material.

Democrats big government to ‘solve everyone’s problems’, continued foreign empire policies, have a good heart but wrong policies to achieve the desired ends. Best moment was when moderator called them all on the rhetoric of the word “change.”

John Edwards loves to use emotionally loaded examples and numbers that appeal to the working class; sounds good but clouds the issues and root causes. A pied piper. I think his accent could be a problem for foreign relations.

Barack Obama I think is all rhetoric. He is a great speaker and very likable because he paints a very Utopian picture but falls very short in any sort of record or ability to bring about the changes he describes. I thinks he is a bit naive in terms of management.

Richardson is an idiot in my opinion. Annoyingly always spouting his resume. Thinks the U.S. President can individually solve all the problems of the world. But scored a great laugh when he called on all the participants to be more civil in their exchanges.

Hilary came across as the most experienced among the democratic candidates but as a ruthless politician doing whatever it takes to woo the voters, not principle based at all. I agree that a woman president of the U.S. would be a revolutionary moment for America but she is not the best woman to be that person. I found it funny that for all other candidates ABC showed the spouse while they were speaking, for Hilary they only had Chelsea to put up on the screen.

Overall, pretty fascinating how open the race is. I think the public remains largely uninformed and cast their support for reasons other than solid principles. I fear that our political system is so tied up with money and the framing of media that the best person for the job will not emerge the winner.