CBS Presidential debate- Foreign Policy

If you weren't worried already, this debate was the most sobering of them all.  Afterwards, I started thinking about the probability, not mere possibility- that the end of the world as we have known it is at hand.  The problems are so deep and systemic that it would take a major miracle to get through all of it in one piece without the following:  1) major depression 2) nuclear war, or 3) both!

The above sentence seems alarmist as I read over it again.  It is shocking to read it.  Almost certainly it seems like the the Henny Penny "sky is falling" type of sentiment.  But there it is.  Accept it or deny it, the sentiment has existed and will continue to exist.  It has existed in all of it various forms for as long as I can remember- as the long as the story of Chicken Little itself.  However, there may come a day when the whole thing just might come true.  Civilizations have risen and have fallen.  It has happened before and it may well happen again.

Still, I am reminded of the Apollo 13 mission, and why I write, "Houston, We have a Solution".  Despite it all, I believe that a solution does exist out there if we are smart enough to find it in time.  Like Apollo 13, we only have the materials at hand, and we must fashion a solution to the problem now.  The situation is urgent, tomorrow won't get any easier.  It won't just solve itself.  But you can't lose your head and panic.  Just keep working the problem.

With that in mind, who would be the best to put in charge of this?  It is hard to tell.  The more of these debates that I watch, the more puzzled I seemed to get.  It is almost like a crap shoot.  Roll the bones on any of these candidates.  Then you get to the general election and repeat with the nominee and Obama.  It is not a real comforting thought at the moment.  You'd think that it was a no brainer but nothing is a no brainer when this all taken as it is.  Clearly, Obama can't be trusted with the economy.  But can the Republicans be trusted with the issues of war and peace?  I'm not so sure about that at the moment.  There's plenty to choose from though- from Paul's seemingly neo isolationist perspective to an almost war like statements that I heard sprinkled about here and there during the debate.

Update:


The Anti Cain train rides again.  Reviews of the debate are coming in and this site says:

It was not a particularly strong debate for Herman Cain.

But there wasn't anything that was offered in support of that statement.  As a matter of fact, the entire essay used Cain's name just once, in the sentence quoted above.

I don't get these good reviews for Perry.  Sure, he's got a sense of humor about his gaffes, but that's not something to base a campaign on.  Clever, perhaps, but not substantive.  His remarks about ash heaps of history were bombastic- not strong.   That particular point in the debate gave me the worst feeling that I've had in a long time in watching debates.  That was just plain awful.  The point about Reagan saying it was not well taken.  Reagan was talking about world wide communist movement- not about Chinese communists as they exist today.  This is a completely different flavor.  Not terribly bright, in my opinion.

I've got a problem with this quote as well from PJ Tatler

Rick Santorum let off an odd riff about how Pakistan “must” be America’s friend and so we have to redouble our efforts to make that so. The problem with that is we have lavished Pakistan with aid and assistance, for decades, yet the Pakistanis deal with us in duplicity and deception.

I took that to mean they must be our friends or we have to go to war with a nuclear power.  There's nothing "odd" about that.  Are we really willing to have our candidate go before the American people and advocate a warlike footing with every country we have an issue with?

But I agree with the post on this point:

And Ron Paul was Ron Paul, the isolationist outlier who would turn our Iran policy over to Congress.

Economically, Ron Paul is spot on.  But some of what he says is just not serious in today's world.  It is more fitting with the 19th century than in the 21st.  He is hopelessly lost in his belief system.  We tried isolationalism in the early 40's, remember?  It got us Pearl Harbor.  Sometimes, it helps to read history and to think about what one has read.

National Review's review say CBS lost the debate.  Nobody on the right likes the media.  I don't like  those guys either.  Interesting juxtaposition with the error in timekeeping by a moderator and Perry's continuing humble pie eating contest.

I don't want to be too hard on Perry though.  He didn't make too big of a fool of himself this time.

Update:


Analysis: Cain held his own, but answers didn't show depth  (CBS)


Actually, if you read the whole thing, Cain did pretty well.  But the headline is what people will see.  Also, they threw in some negative comments from Republicans in order to make themselves look even handed.  I'm not falling for this schtick.