Iowa PBS Debate Impressions

I enjoyed watching the Iowa debates. There's a few things I learned:

Fred Thompson doesn't believe intelligence reports.
Alan Keyes is more of a preacher than Huckabee.
Romney insults others, but just a little less than Alan Keyes. Romney is proud that he's a flip flopper (but I actually like that about him).
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes continue talking when they should shut up.
Ron Paul looks tired, but he actually has Bills where others are just talk.
McCain doesn't admit to any mistakes.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were interesting to listen to, but they have less of a chance than Ron Paul.
Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson are a lot of talk but no substance.

Some candidates were still for attacking Iran, which suprised me. Ron Paul had the most clear and firm stance on that issue. He said that he would bring our troops home within his first year in office.

Romney and Huckabee kind of bickered over who had the best education plans. Romney made sure to point out multiple times that students in his state tested higher than those in other states. Romney cited a myth that the U.S. is in the lower 15% of testing scores internationally.

Huckabee is in favor of reducing government, (and I believe Ron Paul has influenced him with that,) but even though I enjoy listening to Huckabee, I don't believe his good intentions translate into action. For example, Huckabee said that education should not be federally controlled, but then turned around and said that education should be federally controlled just in more words. I believe there's too much dirt on Huckabee that if he was nominated, he'll be hammered down really quick.

Huckabee claimed that he wanted to unite the nation, "left versus right, liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican." That was a waste of a minute. It was rhetoric without a meaning or plan. Ron Paul tells us that we should be united under the Constitution, so I think that's a pretty good stance.

Ron Paul also stressed diplomacy to other countries - basically the difference between "non-intervention" and "isolation" - and wants to improve diplomatic relations to other countries.

Overall, I enjoyed it. It had questions that weren't on other debates and gave a chance to actually test candidates. They gave time to every candidate. Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo should not have been there - it would have given more time for more issues for the actual candidates with a chance. Alan Keyes doesn't even poll 1% nor has he a campaign staff in Iowa.

Huckabee and Paul probably will benefit the most from it. They had clear, good responses while I feel the others merely talked "politican speak" and were pointless.