Tonight’s Republican debate, although not unbiased in its execution, with the front-runners put literally front and center and given far more speaking time, went a long way toward revealing the individual personalities of the candidates, if not their individual policy positions. So many of their answers were artful dodges, such as avoiding a firm answer about what to do in September if no progress has been made in Iraq. Of course, one candidate who did speak clearly about Iraq was Congressman Ron Paul. Not only does he diverge from his opponents by disagreeing completely with America’s presence in Iraq, but he answered the question about what to do in September explicitly by saying that we have no business there and that we should bring the troops home.

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, two second-tier candidates, were, in fact, the only two candidates who consistently and firmly responded to the questions put to them. The unfortunate reality was that neither of them received much speaking time. In a spectacular display of disrespect, Wolf Blitzer solicited a response to the debate’s very first question, which was whether each candidate had read a particular military intelligence estimate, from every candidate except Ron Paul. Their speaking time may actually be all the two candidates have in common, however. Tancredo actually said that the fact that our country is becoming more bilingual is “not good,” and that every other bilingual nation was failing. Later, he also said that being an American citizen must mean cutting all ties to your home nation and that America must force immigrants to assimilate. On the political spectrum, this would put Tancredo just to the left of Adolf Hitler. At least he’s not suggesting (for the moment) that we engage in ethnic cleansing. Ron Paul, on the other hand, stressed that immigrants are really the scapegoats in America’s problems with border security. For him, the issue is not forcing cultural changes, but improving the security of this country.

Rudy Giuliani
On a related note, Rudy Giuliani’s explanation of the immigration issue was an excellent one. While he didn’t talk very complexly about how he would approach citizenship and immigration, he did make it clear that what is most important is not to keep people out, but to know exactly who is in the United States as a non-citizen. His prescription for this was a national database and ID system for aliens. While such a system seems reasonable and viable, we can only hope that he doesn’t intend to apply such a system to American citizens, who have every right to be in their country without explanation or harassment. Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzer didn’t think to ask Giuliani where he stood on a national ID card for citizens.

In a departure from his tendency towards attacking other Republican candidates in the first debate, Giuliani spent most of his time criticizing Democrats. After embarrassing himself by digging into Ron Paul and thus demonstrating his ignorance to the findings of the 9/11 investigation, this probably seemed like a good strategy this time around. I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact, if his advisers pointed out to him that, with his large lead, he has little to gain from engaging someone as far back in the polls and as demonstrably principled as Ron Paul. When asked by Larry King after the debate about his focus on Democrats, Giuliani said he’s not running against the other Republican candidates. That’s a good idea when it comes to everyone but Mitt Romney, whose performance tonight was incredibly strong and who is much closer in polls and finances to the former mayor.

Mitt Romney
Former governor, Mitt Romney, failed to say much tonight that was at all revolutionary, but what he did say was said with a sense of style and class that many of the other candidates lacked. Easily the best-dressed and most youthful on stage, he spoke clearly and remained cool-headed throughout the debate, even when given the opportunity to respond to comments Senator McCain had made about him the day before. When confronted with accusations of flip-flopping on issues and asked why his campaign site was in English and Spanish if he was for English as the official language, he did fumble slightly as he said that he wanted to reach out to immigrants and hoped that they vote for him. Of course, his advisers will probably remind him later that only American citizens can vote in a presidential election and those immigrants have to learn English in order to become naturalized. Still, he had a couple of shining moments when he defended his Mormon faith and later when he explicitly called out Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Venzuelan President Hugo Chavez for profiting immensely from oil sales from their respective countries. Romney certainly has a presence and demeanor that will be challenging for any of the other Republican candidates (and, this time around, the Democrats, as well) to overcome, and that is probably his greatest strength.

John McCain
John McCain defended his immigration boondoggle legislation fairly well, and his smooth responses to almost every question demonstrated his long experience as a politician. However, his delivery seemed particularly canned, even among this group of seasoned politicians. When asked by the sister of a deceased American soldier what he would do to bring the rest of the troops home, he started a trend by getting up from his seat and walking forward to address the woman. He began by thanking her and her family for her brother’s service and for their sacrifice, but he basically told her it was going to be a while before the troops came back. CNN analyst Bill Schneider thought this moment was touching, but, to me, it smacked of insincerity. As a war veteran himself, I’m sure John McCain truly sympathizes with the woman who asked the question, but his overtly dramatic display seemed phony in light of what he actually said, which wasn’t much. The question was what will you do to bring them home, and his answer was it will take a while. Here’s something to remember in case John McCain does get elected: When asked what he thought was the biggest mistake of the current administration, he cited spending, and he explicitly promised to veto every bill that includes money for pork barrel projects and to make the authors of those bills famous for putting the pork in there. Anyone want to do this website a favor and check how many senate bills Senator McCain has voted for that include pork barrel spending throughout his previous and current term?

Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul also received a question from an audience member about the troops, this time wanting to know what he would do to ensure that the new Iraqi government could support itself so that, when the troops do leave, the country isn’t overtaken by another dictator. True to his principles, Paul told her the cost of American lives was already too high and that it was time for the Iraqi government to take care of itself. He said we’ve given them something great, and the only way to motivate them to protect it themselves is to leave it in their hands and come home. Ron Paul has supported a non-interventionist foreign policy from the beginning, and he stressed tonight that American values should be promoted by example and not, “through the barrel of a gun.” The congressman from Texas was also asked about his position on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military, and Ron Paul stood apart from his fellow candidates (who all said the policy was fine, too) by saying that the problem inside and outside the military was that people should not be treated as if their rights are derived from being a part of a specific group or classification. If a soldier’s homosexual behavior is a problem, he said, then it should be dealt with as any other behavioral problem and not as some special case. This is in keeping with the Constitution and with Ron Paul’s libertarian values. At the beginning of the debate, Ron Paul introduced himself as “the champion of the Constitution,” and by the end of the debate, it was clear that no other candidate could threaten the simple truth of that declaration.

Conclusions and complaints
Most of the debate, unfortunately, consisted of a lot of political gas-baggery, and CNN, who hosted the debate, denied Ron Paul, the only candidate with anything radically different to say, much time to speak. That didn’t stop him from receiving a strong response from the New Hampshire dial groups or from the Internet viewers who posted complaints on CNN’s website about the limited number of questions that were fielded to him. It’s too bad that so much time was spent on knuckle-head topics like “English as the official language” when economic problems like a weak dollar and reports of a coming recession are far more threatening to most Americans’ livelihood.

On a personal note, I was offended by CNN analyst Bill Schneider’s comment after the debate that the catholic church is “the representative of Christ on Earth.” He said it while commenting on Giuliani’s abortion response, but someone should point out to him that there are fewer catholics than protestants living in the United States and that many protestants, including this one, are also opposed to abortion. CNN really can’t find someone more socially informed than this to be their “senior analyst”? Perhaps it was in keeping with the gas-bag nature of the debate they staged. Who’s to say?

Tuesday night at 7 PM Eastern, New Hampshire will play host to the next Republican presidential debate. This would not ordinarily fill me with any hope or anticipation, except that there is a dark horse slowly gaining traction within the party who threatens to stand the whole thing on its head. Former Libertarian presidential candidate and current Republican congressman, Ron Paul, is the first presidential candidate since Steve Forbes in whom I’ve seen a glimmer of hope for the future of our Constitution and our country. His hardline stance on voting against any legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution is without equal in American politics over the past hundred years.

During the last debate, he and Rudy Giuliani faced off over the source of terrorism in this country, and Congressman Paul forced the former New York City mayor into demonstrating that he had not read the Congressional report on the Sepetember 11th attacks, which strongly suggests that the motivation for Muslim terrorism is America’s presence in the middle east. Giuliani had attempted to smear Ron Paul’s comments about the motivation behind terrorism by saying that he had never heard anyone blame the 9/11 attacks on U.S. meddling in the middle east, thus exposing his ignorance to the findings of the report.

Ron Paul’s faithful voting record and reasoned, non-interventionist approach to foreign policy is going to force every other Republican candidate to D-up and make firm commitments to their stance on all issues. That is, if he can stay in the game. He’s gaining popularity and momentum, but he needs a strong performance and lots of support at the New Hampshire debate to spur his campaign forward. Fundraising will also be of paramount importance, as he lags far behind current leaders Giuliani and Romney. But, he has a lot going for him. New Hampshire is one of the most libertarian-oriented states in the country, which will mean a lot when it comes to the actual New Hampshire primary next year, and many of Ron Paul’s supporters across the country (myself included) are libertarians and registered independents. By attracting support from those camps as well as gaining the trust and support of Republican voters, Ron Paul has a real fighting chance.

The Republican debate will be broadcast on television on CNN and online on CNN’s Pipeline service, which will be free for the debate.