I am sick of the debates.
My only hope after watching this “foreign policy” debate is for my antacid to kick in, bringing me to full strength so I can enjoy my Thanksgiving feast.
Last Night was ‘The Ron Paul Show.” I suppose CNN wanted to make up for the lack of coverage he has been receiving and decided to give him time to light up the stage with his unique brand of nonsense.
Dr Paul says we are not at war.
Dr Paul says Al Qaeda does not want to attack us on our land.
Dr. Paul says legalize drugs.
Okay, let us get this straight. Dr Paul, Congress may not have declared war against a particular country, but there is a group out there that has declared war on us. Therefore we are at war.
Living a mile away from ground zero, your statement about Al Qaeda not wanting to attack us here in America grinds me to the point where I cannot civilly respond.
Finally, your desire to legalize drugs simply explains your loyal following from a certain sub-group of the youth vote.
Now, I can give the standard rundown on the debate, because nothing really changed last night. However, these two paragraphs from a piece written by Ronald Brownstein in the National Journal sums up this debate nicely:
The candidates disagreed on an array of other issues, but apart from immigration none of them appear likely to move many Republican voters. Like an earlier national security-debate co-sponsored by National Journal, Tuesday’s encounter revolved less around contrast than competence: that is, the test for the candidates was not so much drawing distinctions with each other as in convincing viewers that they could cross the threshold as a credible commander-in-chief. On that front, Gingrich, Romney and Jon Huntsman probably scored the highest. Perry still looked like someone trying to remember his note cards, and Herman Cain provided several vague and gauzy answers that seemed designed to consume his sixty seconds with the least possible risk either of a mistake or imparting any actual information. (He still had one: misstating moderator Wolf Blitzer’s name.) Ron Paul gave his faction in the party more reason to cheer with a spirited affirmation of libertarian McGovernism (Paul did everything but cry “Come home America”), but also deepened the gulf that separates him from most Republicans on most foreign policy issues…….
The debate captured Romney’s approach on most domestic and foreign policy issues — an approach that resembles the strategy of “drafting” behind the leaders in a cycling race. On issues such as Pakistan and Iran, Romney consistently took positions slightly less conservative than the most ideological of his rivals. Consistently it appears he settles in a position not so conservative that he provides an easy target to President Obama if he wins the nomination, but not so moderate that he provides his opponents an easy target in the primaries. The big exception of course was immigration, where Romney moved immediately Tuesday to outflank Gingrich on the right, just as he did Perry. How Gingrich handles the tumultuous reaction that his qualified legalization proposal will almost certainly ignite will determine whether he can hold his position as Romney’s major challenger any longer than the previous aspirants for the job — Bachmann, Perry and Cain.
I will add this one last observation, Rick Santorum had his best performance to date.
Now, I’m going to take some Pepto-Bismol and get ready for Thanksgiving.