Last weekend I was at two political social functions. Saturday I ate Mexican and Sunday I ate lobster—not too hard to take. I took the opportunity to take a very informal poll. The only question was, who will win the Republican Primary--John Stephen or Jeb Bradley?

The consensus was that John Stephen has a very good shot at winning. It’s no slam dunk either way, but in a low turn-out primary Stephen looks good.

Folks from Manchester tell me that Mr. Stephen is very much a favorite son there and Manchester Republicans vote in primaries. I’m also told that Mr. Stephen is working hard to make in-roads in the North Country. He will officially launch his campaign next week with a bus tour of District One.

Jeb Bradley is trying to capitalize on the recent UNH Poll that says he stacks up better against Carol Shea-Porter and is thus more electable. It will be interesting to see if that angle works for him. At the very least it might help him raise money. Then again it might not.

Here’s why I say it might not help raise money. I’ve been a public skeptic of the UNH Polls before and I remain so after this one. There are some very rough edges including the polling samples. The numbers favorable to Mr. Bradley would mean a lot more if the poll had targeted Republicans who vote in primaries. Most of the people questioned won’t be anywhere near a ballot box in September. And most big donors know that. So even fundraising based on this poll is iffy.

A number of people also responded that some Republicans just don’t want to back a candidate who lost a seat in the US Congress in a (so called) long shot. What surprised me though is how quickly Jeb Bradley secured the backing of three quarters of Republican State Legislators. That’s an impressive number.

This thing can go either way and will depend largely on who works the hardest.

I’m hoping for some fireworks too. C’mon Guys! Let’s rumble a little bit.

By the way my poll has a margin of error of 100%.

Housekeeping note: Last week I announced that I would devote a column to a "distinction without a difference." But Bill Gnade help me discuss this in the thread under my last column. I think its clear enough to move on to the elections.

I enjoy a lively debate. I’ve spent many hours over the past three years debating the role of government with front page bloggers and commenters. I’m usually happy to debate anyone who cares to do so as long as good faith and time allows.

But I’ve reached some time limits this year that necessitate a cutback in debate. Actually, my limits come in two categories: TIME and PATIENCE.

Frankly I’ve run out of both.

TIME: I have two elderly parent to help out. My father will be 92 this month and my mother is 83. My parents are more important than blogging ever could be. I also have a small business in the building trades to run and am finishing a building project of my own I started nearly two years ago. Additionally I’m active in a particular Congressional campaign, and am also Town Chair of Raymond Democrats. I also am playing gigs and recording this year. ( Appearing at the Press Room in Portsmouth this Wednesday--if you are on the coast drop by.) I like to ride my motorcycles now and then too. The list goes on from there.

So just like you, I’m busy as heck and have bills to pay.

PATIENCE: I’ve also reached my limits of patience. That’s in large part because ( in my humble opinion) some front page bloggers and most cementers don’t understand the finer points of debate. In particular they don’t understand what a distinction without a difference means, and why that kills legitimate debate.*

I’ve done too many laps around the truth with these folks to waste any more of my time.

Here’s why--people who don’t understand the concept of a distinction without a difference tend to hijack debate in endless semantics and detail. The larger questions are always lost and muddled. That’s when the name calling and accusations rev up.

The purpose of debate is to arrive a some kind of truth. There’s a social contract involved. That’s what good faith is all about.

So from now on, I won’t debate anyone who isn’t willing to both respect my time and play by the rules.

* Recognizing a distinction without a difference is so important and fundamental to good faith debating that I’ll devote my next column to that concept.

John Stephen is still mum on Iraq.

How much longer can Mr. Stephen evade the biggest foreign policy issue of our times?

The people of New Hampshire value honesty in their candidates.

We also value the dollar here in the Granite State. That’s one reason that Iraq has become such a hot economic issue. Who is going to pay for it? And why isn't the cost of this war in the Federal Budget. What kind of a shell game is that?

Some (not all) Republicans running for office want to continue the war. John McCain is one and deserves respect for honestly defending his position.

When will Mr. Stephen display the same honesty—one way or the other.

We all know people who contradict themselves regularly. It’s especially jarring when they come down hard ( and self-righteously ) on both sides of the same issue. They seem to be oblivious to the obvious—that you can’t be right both times. Their egos somehow short circuit logic and critical thinking. Harumphhhhhh!!!

With friends we usually zip our lips and absorb those tingles of anxiety. Scratching a friends psyche that deeply invites all sorts of pain and doubt.

But politicians have to face up to our doubts—we demand it.

A case in point is John Stephen’s bewildering contradictions on deficits, the Iraq war and the Bush tax breaks.

Here’s a quote from an op-ed written by Mr. Stephen. This appeared in the Union Leader on Friday October 19, 2007 .

“ We have seen record spending increases and deficits in Washington ...

It's time for us to get back to New Hampshire values.”

What are Washington values? Over the last five years, we have seen $1.5 trillion in deficit spending.”

The op-ed, titled In The Past Five Years, Congress has Lost Its Way, was an attack on Congress for running up deficits, but failed to mention George Bush and Iraq .

Now we see that John Stephen wants us to elect him to Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent even though they contributed to our huge deficits.

And on Iraq ’s price tag Mr. Stephen is still keeping us in suspense.

Something just doesn’t square here.

Its time to force John Stephen to reconcile his most jarring contradictions.

If you go to John Stephen’ campaign website and click foreign policy, you get nothing but a promise to post something soon.

Why is foreign policy blank--is John Stephen ducking the Iraq War?

Of course he is. Does John Stephen really want to tell the people of New Hampshire that he’s in favor of spending trillions of more tax dollars in Iraq while New Hampshire families are struggling to make ends meet?

No, of course not. He’ll duck that question for as long as he can.

Mr. Stephen web site is filled with plenty of rhetoric about returning NH values to Washington.

The voters of New Hampshire value open discussion over rhetoric. We are world famous for vetting candidates.

Perhaps he's taken a stand and I've missed it. But a campaign web site is where I go for definitive answers.

In the meantime can anyone tell me where Mr. Stephen stands?