So, I'm watching the GOP debate. Here are some initial thoughts:

1. I really thought John McCain's linkage of the abortion issue to national security was odd. Do people in the Congo, or Bangladesh, or Iraq think better or worse of us, to any significant degree depending on whether abortion remains legal in this country? I must say, having traveled in countries that are not huge fans of the United States (e.g., Syria, Lebanon, Vietnam), and having talked to people there quite a bit about what their issues are with the United States, no one has ever pointed to abortion. That being said, I do think if the real point McCain was trying to make is that the way we display our values-- for example, by allowing things like what happened at Abu Ghraib to occur without serious, serious condemnation from our leaders-- to the rest of the world has a major impact on how we are perceived, and our national security, then McCain is 100% correct.

2. I really hate Romney, but God, that line about Obama having gone from saying he'll have tea with our enemies to saying he'll bomb our allies in just one week (and the Jane Fonda/Dr. Strangelove bit) was extraordinarily good.

3. Ron Paul seems to have gotten a lot of his supporters into this debate. If he's capable of managing that, will he manage to get a lot of the Paul backers out to Ames itself?

4. Romney just keeps trying to jump in, to bash Ron Paul, but he doesn't seem to be getting far, does he? George Stephanopolous seems to (rightly) be recognizing that the debate on Iraq is principally between the big voices on the issue-- i.e., McCain and Paul, and where terrorism itself is brought in, Giuliani.

5. Huckabee just said something extraordinary on health care-- not that we need universal health care, something that is controversial enough, but rather that either Congress needs to quit having truly government-run health care, or we need everyone to have a truly government-run system, as op...

> Read more & share

More thoughts:

1. It's a bad day when on any level, I agree with Tom Tancredo. But I did agree with his comment about it not being government's responsibility to provide "womb to tomb" health care.

2. Romney's banging on about everyone going to the emergency room, and how much that costs again. As ever, I'm wondering whether anyone is going to ask the question: if health insurance in Massachusetts costs $400 per month per individual, and government there subsidizes insurance for individuals and families well above the poverty line, is that really cheaper? More to the point, where poorer people who aren't eligible for subsidies have to pay $400 a month, or face a criminal penalty, is that really a good plan to replicate at the federal level?

3. Oh, hey, Duncan Hunter just alluded to it.

4. Giuliani's answer was exceptionally good on the health care point. But, he should have hammered Romney more. He's right on this issue, and is the only on who really gets it.

5. Giuliani is right on this Pakistan issue, to say that if Musharraf absolutely would not act against Al Qaeda, where specifically pinpointed in his country, he would. Taking military action against an organization which planned and carried out 9/11 where a host country refuses to act is very little different from a small scale version of what we actually did do after 9/11, which was recognized by pretty much everyone as perfectly legal, appropriate, and in our security interests. Romney seems to have shifted his answer after having heard what Giuliani had to say. Surprise, surprise, it's now not that we shouldn't bomb Pakistan under any circumstances unless they agree because "they're our friend," it's that it's not a good idea for presidential candidates to be advertising plans like this that might not sit well with foreign leaders. I agree with that point-- it's not a good idea for any public figure, candidate, president, whoever, to go around spouting off that...

> Read more & share