I’d like to make a few comments about Monday night’s Republican debate so that the candidates might have time to jot a few ideas down in time for their next round. I’m just helpful that way.
Whenever Newt does well in a debate, as he usually does, somebody attaches a bicycle pump to his head right afterwards and he gets all swoll up. This last week he was magnanimous to Santorum (against whom he is 0-2), indicating that he would appreciate Santorum’s support, after Santorum got out of the way. In the next debate . . .
Santorum > Newt: “In South Carolina, they have a quaint little custom — the victory speeches come after the voting.”
Santorum did well defending the right of habeus corpus for American citizens, opposing the appalling provision for indefinite detention in the recently signed Defense Act. Romney rolled over on that issue, all four paws in the air, and so Santorum should tickle his belly a little.
Santorum > Romney: “And are you also in favor of the department that was responsible for Fast & Furious to be responsible for this indefinite detention of American citizens — no charges, no attorney, no trial? Why should the Justice Department have to answer questions about the murder of border agent Brian Terry when you think they shouldn’t have to answer questions about the arrest and indefinite detention of anybody else? What exactly has the Justice Department done recently that so inspires this confidence in you?”
Newt Gingrich proved his historical prowess by knowing the actual name of an American president from the early part of the 19th century, and he quoted Andrew Jackson on this wise — he at least knew what to do with America’s enemies, “kill them.”
Paul > Gingrich: “You mean like his treatment of the Cherokee?”
The audience made news and excited comment when they booed the Golden Rule, but to be fair, they were just booing Ron Paul’s jumbled applications of that Rule to international affairs. His treatment of the bin Laden question really was confused, mixed-up, contradictory, and greatly in need of an editor. Paul just plain set himself up for Gingrich’s comeback, when he said that Islamic terrorists “are not Chinese dissidents.” In other words, it is not simply a matter of process and procedure; who is being evil actually matters.
Santorum > Paul: “Do you believe that an application of the Golden Rule could be used to justify foreign aid? After all, the Golden Rule says ‘do unto others,’ not ‘do not do unto others.’ And in such a circumstance, which do you believe to be senior, the Golden Rule or the Constitution?”
At the same time, at the core of Paul’s foreign policy approach we find a necessary and standing reproach to the modern lawyerfication of international conflict.
Paul > Everybody: “You keeping saying that my opposition to international terrorism is anemic and inadequate. But let’s consider yourselves. You keep saying that terrorism is war, not criminal activity, you say that it is the threat of our day, you accuse multiple nations of harboring and abetting this terrorism which targets and kills American citizens, and yet you are flatly unwilling to ask Congress to declare war against those nations. Why are you so weak on terrorism? Under what circumstances do you believe Congress should declare war against them? What more would these nations have to do?”
The modern way of American war is real bombs under the cover of convoluted metaphors. I believe that real bombs belong in real wars — I am sick of all this kinetic military activity.
Anyway, there it is. Just call it a little after-the-fact blog-heckling.