Econ Debate II

It's probably the most interesting debate so far, but also the least relevant. All of the Republican candidates (with the partial exception of the protectionists) know how to speak a good game of tax cuts, spending cuts, and free-market economics. But it's all hot air: none of them, except for Ron Paul, is serious about any of it, and we'd get more Bushism under any of the non-Pauls: more spending, lower taxes maybe, but generally an incoherent economic policy directed mostly to favored Republican constitutencies.

Thompson has now been asked about Iraq. He says we didn't go in with enough troops, but he says there are signs of progress and it's the right strategy. Very generic answer. Says if "we leave with our tail between our legs" it'll be worse for America. Says "Islamic fascism" has declared war on us, wants to kill "millions of innocent people" (millions? They might want that; they have no prospect of doing so). He makes a joke, but nobody laughs--about 20-year-old soldiers vs. 20-year veterans of Capitol Hill.

McCain is asked about national sacrifice, serving a cause greater than themselves. Says he wants people to join the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. Claims that he's the only person on stage who says that the Iraq policy wasn't going to succeed years ago. He's lying: Paul said that all along.

Paul is asked about the "mercantilist" and "neo-colonial" point that we needed to go to war for oil. Paul debunks that idea, and emphasizes that this war is economically harmful, not helpful. "We're going broke, we have this huge deficit, we're spending over a trillion dollars maintaining this empire overseas." Says we have to change our foreign policy, live within our means, and can't have "paper dollars" as our chief exports if we want prosperity. Good anti-Fed material. Says war is a threat to our personal liberties and our economy.

Brownback is now asked the question. Says he voted for a "war on terrorism," which of cousre wouldn't justify war with Iraq, which had no WMD and little or no al-Qaeda. Brownie acknowledges that we haven't found WMD, but he says we shouldn't get out. Says he supports Biden's three-state solution--problem is, Brownie, the Iraqis don't like that "solution."

Thompson is asked whether he believes Saddam had WMD. Says that Saddam had a nuclear reactor back in '81 (Osirak, he means) and that he used chemical weapons against his own people. Believes that left to his own devices, Saddam would be developing a nuclear capability. "The whole place would be nuclearized," the "whole part of the world," Saudi, etc.

Romney asked if he would need to go to Congress to get authorization from Congress to attack Iran. Romney says he'd ask a lawyer, but it's clear that he thinks the president doesn't have to do so. He's giving a weaselly answer. But he does say we need to avoid war with Iran in the first place; says it was outrageous for the UN to invite Ahmadinejad to the U.S. and outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak. How is Romney going to avoid war if he won't talk to the Iranians?

Duncan Hunter says the president can bomb other countries without provocation without asking Congress. Good grief. Says he should ask for approval, if there's time, but otherwise, bombs away. Talks about pre-empting nuclear facilities. (Not, notably, pre-empting a military threat, but just pre-empting another countries "facilities.")

"Absolutely," says Paul, you don't talk to attorneys, you read the Constituion. "You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war." "Preposterous" that the Iranians could pose an immediate, short-term threat to the U.S. Says this is just war propaganda. HUGE applause!

Huckabee says "a president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," and that the president can bomb other countries without getting Congressional approval, which he describes as a "luxury." Huck is getting angry: he's a warmonging nutcase. He gets applause for it, though.

McCain says "it depends on the scenario," and at a minimum he would consult with the leaders of Congress.

My God, these guys are all saying that we don't need a legislative branch, we don't need the Constitution, we should have a warlord-president. This is pure, unadulterated Caesarism, and they not only believe it, they're touting it in public. Thompson says that getting permission from Congress is not necessary. So the president, according to the GOP, can now unilaterally start a war, bombing a country that poses no threat to us. This is dictatorial.

Giuliani says it depends on "circumstances," but it's safer and "desireable" to go to Congress. Cites Paul as saying that there never was an imminent attack, claims that 9/11 was such an attack. Paul says that we weren't attacked by a country. Giuliani says that we were attacked by Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Gee, if that's true, why didn't we attack Pakistan? Pak's government did not, of course, attack us.) Giuliani says Iran is a greater threat than Iraq.

Paul didn't get to respond to Giuliani's attack, so he's been left at a disadvantage here. Giuliani gets the next question as well, about energy independence, which he says he supports (ooh, risky!). Mentions a lot of power sources -- biofuels, wind power -- that are not really substitute for oil. HE's asked if he supports drilling off of Florida, California. Giuliani evades. Says "you can't do long term damage to our environment," but doesn't say whether he would do it. Talks about building more nuclear power plants -- hey, Giuliani, do you think Iran should be allowed to bomb those?

Brownback has been asked the question. Says he wants to be "energy secure" not "energy independent," which is fair but meaningless. Blah blah blah. "There a Chevy Malibu parked out here ... first twenty or thirty miles off of electricity, that you plug into at night ...." Zzzzzz. Supports drilling in ANWR and off the coasts.

Tancredo says "you better drill every place you can here."

McCain is asked about oil company profits and whether they should be taxed higher and forced to spend their profits to develop alternative fuel sources. McCain says no, and says he wouldn't drill off the coasts of Florida, California, unless the people of those states wanted to. Good--I'll give him a half-credit for a federalist answer. Says climate change is real and has taken place, "confluence" of climate change and strategic issues (mentions Chavez, Iran, Putin) as requiring energy reform. Slight applause.

Huckabee is asked about ethanol, whether the free market should determine whether they are used. Huckabee says it's critical for national security and economic interests to use "biofuels." It's a tremendous boondoggle, in fact, and Huck, a pinko through and through, is pandering. Blathers about "Islamofascism," as if ethanol gives us independence from the Arab world! "We can't wait till another generation." I hate Huckabee.

Thompson is asked about ethanol. Says ultimately the free market will decide, but in the meantime--of course!--he's for ethanol. Says there's plenty of oil out there for the indefinite future. Says U.S. since World War II has been a force for "stability and democracy."

Romney asked about farm subsidies. Romney says "I believe in domestic supports" for farmers. He's a socialist. He's as bad as Huckabee. Says he doesn't want our food supplies to be as insecure as our fuel supplies. What a sleazy liar Romney is.

Chris Matthew is asking about how Republicans will win back confidence of the public for handling the economy. Paul says if we want a prosperous economy here, we can't be "bailing out farmers and subsidizing ethanol" and we must bring the troops home and stop sending the money abroad. Huckabee is telling some tear-jerking story about Americans thinking their children will be worse off than they are. Says we need a "total overhaul of the tax system," but Huck's "fair tax" would be a nightmare. McCain says we need to restore "trust and confidence" in government, in part by reining in spending. "They [the public] want straight talk." Romney says Republicans have to be confident, not "going out with a message of doom and gloom" and GOP must say our future will be brighter than the past. Utter rhetorical gloss, no substance. Thompson: "we need to tell the American people the truth ... I don't think anyone believes anything coming out of Washington any more," says our security, prosperity, are on the line. Says we'll have to spend more than 4% of our budget on the military. "It's not all gloom and doom," he says, but he's just rambling.

Giuliani says we need "a vision of a robust strong America," providing an example of energy independence to China and India. Giuliani is awful, but he comes off as more knowledgeable of specifics than Romney and Thompson. He's talking about Hillary's 401(k) program.

Hunter: talking about protectionism, offshoring, trade deficit. He's a down-the-line protectionist. At least, unlike Huck and Romney, he's honest and unabashed.

Brownback: zzzzz. Oh, wait, he's proud that we represent "a third of the world's military spending." That's a plus for him!

Tancredo: "Stop illegal immigration." Says he's never voted with his party as often as now that the GOP is in the minority. Says GOP must stop pandering to special interests. Gets applause.

And now it's commercials.