Tonight's GOP debate

I agree about Ron Paul. I want to cheer for him, but after the debate I don't think I can put myself too fully in the Paul camp---out of Iraq, yeah, I can reluctantly agree with, but I think if we move based immediately out of Saudi Arabia, it's a big statement: terrorism just doesn't work in Iraq, it works for whatever you want it to work for. He comes across as being, basically, totally isolationalist, and while I think we may need to be a bit more restrained in what we do overseas, become less involved, I think he's taking it a bit far.

And incidently, did anyone else wonder: he's against most of the government programs, like wiretapping and such, that are currently used in the country. I know those are controversial, but as they're the main anti-terrorism tool besides military operations, what exactly IS he going to do to protect the homeland from terrorism?

Still don't know who I'm voting for...I guess I'm tentatively putting myself back in the Romney camp.

God bless.

Ron Paul is right that the Iraq campaign must come to an end, but he’s wrong about the reasons, which sound like he’s been reading too many left-wing blogs. He keeps mentioning US troops in Saudi Arabia, which is an al Qaida pretext. To Islam, we are the Dar al Harb, the house of war, which must be subjugated: there’s no other reason than that. If the next president doesn’t understand Islam (which appears to be the case), then our security will be further compromised.

The real reason we should leave Iraq is because it’s a huge boondoggle that is doing nothing for our national security. It’s a futile act of nation-building and a waste of precious resources, both human and material.

We should defend ourselves from the jihad and fight the jihad when necessary, and we shouldn’t engage in neocon fantasies such as spreading the democratic gospel and nation-building.

I share the general contempt for this crop of GOP Presidential contenders. Bob makes a good point that Brownback has fairly sensible views about the war, but Brownback is going nowhere fast.

A big factor shaping how Republicans handle this war is the cultural shift toward politics as entertainment. Thirty years ago, the people who shaped conservative grass roots opinions were mostly op-ed columnists and writers -- George Will, William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert Novak, Patrick Buchanan (all of whom, by the way, recognize that the Iraq War was an insane misjudgment by G.W. Bush and his inept Administration). Today grass roots conservative opinion is chiefly shaped by the cable TV and talk radio hosts -- Rush, Hannity, Mark Levin, etc. There's no nuance with these people, to say the least. To be entertaining in a live medium, you stake out an absolute position and stick a nasty label on those who disagree with it. So to these boors, the Iraq War was a "liberation," those who think otherwise "don't support our troops," and everyone who loves America supports the Surge. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm not sure what can be done about this (the Democrats have a similar problem with the Nut-roots people who, like the conservative talk radio/TV personalities, are long on emotion and short on thought). But it leaves GOP candidates with few politically viable options other than (1) zealous support for the stupid Surge and Iraq War policy or (2) relatively muted support for the stupid Surge and Iraq War policy.

Unless you're Ron Paul and don't give a darn what the voters think of you. But Dr. Paul will be gone from the scene within 1 week of the Iowa Caucuses.

I'm a Ron Paul hopeful, but I'm realist enough to know that the Establishment will move heaven and earth to prevent any chance of him being nominated. I'm thinking more and more about Rod's Benedictine option. The underlying myths about America existed at one time, but those United States are long gone, and I no longer believe the government has any connection to the people they govern. Currently, the best one could argue is that we have a relatively 'benign' empire. How long the benign part lasts is anyone's guess. Say hello to war in Iran folks.

The US political reality -- sorry, guys -- is that the military progress is going to cause Congress to provide more time to see whether the Iraqi government can meet the political benchmarks. Even CBS News has Couric over there to talk about "the road ahead in Iraq," or words to that effect. The chance that Congress would force a near-term exit came and went early in the summer. Harry Reid tried his best then; perhaps he realized that there was a real risk that the surge would make military progress, changing the US political equation.

Buchanan was, and is, a crank. But maybe I'm a "free traitor," whatever that means. Kindly enlighten me.

Actually American hasn't caught up to Buchanan. His view still represent a small segment of society, they just happen to be the ones fighting for control of the GOP. Buchanan is still a crank, he's just surrounded by more cranks with louder megaphones.

OK, let's take a 20-year window and look at US GDP growth, unemployment and inflation. I'll take more disastrous effects like those every day of the week and twice on Sunday.