I like to make some comments after each Republican debate, especially with Ron Paul being involved. After tonight's debate on CBS, it is hard to call it a debate and it is hard to say that Ron Paul was actually involved. If he had actually been asked more than two questions, maybe I would be able to comment on his performance better.
This "debate" was only nationally televised for the first hour. After that, it was only aired in certain regions, unless you wanted to watch it via the internet.
CBS did a hideous job of hosting the debate and the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) did a hideous job. Perhaps Jon Huntsman was a little less hideous and Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst, but overall, they are all bad. Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage who has anything near a rational foreign policy.
All of the others think the world revolves around the United States government and that the U.S. government should be calling all of the shots.
I found it interesting that some of the candidates think we need to be careful with Pakistan because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. In other words, they don't want to go to war with them. Meanwhile, they want to go to war with Iran (some more than others) because Iran might possibly be developing nuclear technology. So basically, that says to every country out there that if you don't want to be invaded and blown to smithereens by the U.S. government, then you should acquire a nuclear weapon. Now that is incentive. It is also the law of unintended consequences.
Now I'm not saying the U.S. should go to war with Pakistan. It is quite the opposite. The U.S. should not worry about Iran and the U.S. should stop getting involved everywhere. There should be no intervention in the world. Perhaps there could be exceptions if two parties both agree to a mediator, but even this could be done privately without the involvement of the U.S. government. The only thing that the U.S. government should do is to keep trade open so that Americans are free to do business with anyone in the world, so long as they are not directly inflicting violence on us. If someone does inflict violence, then that person alone should be held liable and not a whole country or group of people.
These Republican hacks may sound decent on some economic issues, but they are awful on foreign policy. Herman Cain is even dumber when it comes to foreign policy as he is on economic and social issues. Bachmann is horrible with just about everything she says regarding foreign policy. It seems that Santorum, the so-called Christian, is in competition to kill as many Muslims as possible. Newt is also pro-war and could potentially be worse than both Bush and Obama.
Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are both bad too, although maybe there would be a slight glimmer of hope that they would not be quite as bad as the others on the issue of war. Meanwhile, as I wrote earlier, Huntsman is probably the least bad out of the seven of them. Ron Paul, of course, is by far the best, even though he barely spoke for two minutes in the first hour of the debate, which was the only hour that was nationally broadcast.
Not much changed after tonight's debate, except that it solidified my opinion that I have no use for CBS other than for watching football, Survivor, and Amazing Race. It certainly does not qualify as a news organization.