See How They Run: Observations on the First 08 Republican Debate

The first debate is over and the political season is only beginning. I found Thursday's debate interesting on a couple of levels and walked away with numerous opinions. Here are a few of them:

* The minor candidates really need more forums such as this. It allows them to project an image of equality and most of them are as well informed and articulate as the major contenders.

* Two of the major candidates -- Giuliani and McCain -- were harmed by this debate. They were surprisingly rough around the edges, not the person whom you want on a platform with world leaders representing our interests, and simply did not come across as presidential.

* One of the major candidates, Mitt Romney, definitely benefited. He was articulate, smooth, and poised. If anything he was "too much" of those things. But I believe most were impressed.

* I believe the concept of "who won" is largely contingent on who you wanted to win. I really didn't care. Although I know some of the candidates and am old friends with Duncan Hunter (R-CA), I wanted to see who would win. After the debate I notice I had an article open on one candidate on the Internet and another window on his web page. His answers were the only ones I remembered. That was former Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Governor, Tommy Thompson (photo). He was one of the only candidates who was extremely specific on the issues, offered innovative (even memorable) reforms, and seemed to be more interested in policy than politics.

Thompson reminded me of a candidate I supported in 1988, Pete du Pont (the former Republican Governor of Delaware), who offered "damn right solutions" to the problems America faced. I believe he was right then and if we had listened to him then, we would be in a much better situation today. Unfortunately, most people are interested in politics than policy. Personality more than leadership. I don't think Thompson will catch on any more than duPont, 20 years ago.

So who won Thursday's debate? I believe the answer to that is in the eyes of the beholder. I know who I liked, how about you? I would love your comments.

Tommy Thompson's Proposal on Iraqi Vote Makes Sense

Former Wisconsin Governor and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (R) has come up with a proposal that could dramatically change the debate when it comes to the war in Iraq. Many liberals believe that the war is both a losing battle and an illegitimate one. Many argue that it was an act of imperialism on the part of the US government designed to put a puppet government in that country to support the objectives of the US. Thompson wants to have a referendum among the Iraqi people about a continued US presence in that country.

I believe recent elections (see photo) in Iraq have already validated the case for a US presence in the eyes of Iraqi voters. Terrorists told Iraqis that participating in the election equaled a vote for a US presence. As a result the allied forces had to take extreme measures in other to implement the voting process. Because of the possibility of bombers, people were forbidden to drive and often forced to walk for miles in order to cast a vote. The threat of snipers was rampant and voting at all was potentially very dangerous.

In the election in which the Iraqi Constitution was approved (something many considered a direct referendum about the US involvement), over 63 percent of the people voted. This is significantly higher than the 55.3 percent in the 2004 election (and 37 percent in 2002 in an off year) in the United States under much safer circumstances. The Iraqis seem very excited about the opportunity to cast a vote.

I believe Thompson's idea has a great deal of merit and should be seriously considered. My guess is that you will find very few opponents of the war who will get on board this proposition, I believe the voters should demand candidates to seriously debate this idea.