The Occasional Observer

I've been aggravated with the media (shocking, I know) and even Sen. McCain, for referring to the GOP candidates' foreign policy statements in the NH debate as "isolationist." Apparently, any candidate calling for disengagement in Libya, or who indicates a greater reluctance to use military force than has been our recent practice, makes him or her, by definition, an "isolationist."

Tony Blankely effectively refutes that claim here:

I was one of the first GOP internationalist-oriented commentators or politicians to conclude that the Afghanistan War effort had served its initial purpose and that it was time to phase out the war. As a punitive raid against the regime that gave succor to Osama bin Laden, we had removed the Taliban government and killed as many al-Qaida and Taliban fighters as possible...

But as the purpose of that war turned into nation building, even GOP internationalists had a duty to reassess whether, given the resources and strategy being brought to the new purpose, such policy was likely to be effective.

Now many others in the GOP and in the non-isolationist wing of the Democratic Party are likewise judging failure in Afghanistan to be almost inevitable. That is not a judgment driven by isolationism. Neither are we isolationist in our judgment (along with the opinion of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and almost the entire uniformed chain of command) that we see no national interest in Libya.

This is not isolationism; it is a rational effort at judging how best to advance American values and interests in an ever-more witheringly dangerous world. The charge of isolationism should be reserved for the genuine article. Such name-calling advances neither rational debate nor national interest.

I had to take down that weak *ss Coors Light bottle. Who does it think it is?

Not sure which one yet.

That is all.

Whoever gets a deer this year is officially nicknamed "The Eagle."

From the LAT:

“I talk to people. I care about people,” the Minnesota Republican told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity Wednesday evening. “The president has no understanding of what is happening in real people's lives.”

A line of attack that will hurt the President. Both the economy over which this President presides, and the perception of his personality, will feed into giving this attack legs.

And it's a great message for Bachmann. More effective from a female (Slick Willie is the only male I know that could pull off "I feel your pain"), and it has the other benefit of softening her persona, which some see as rigidly ideological.

Well played.

An article from the BloGlo on the other night's debate, that pretty closely captures my feelings about the aftermath. Mitt's rivals basically whiffed on their chance to lend their campaigns some credibility, and Mitt's status was enhanced.

It basically says the other winner was Huntsman b/c T Paw's gone splat.

I would throw Perry into the mix as well, since he has instant fundraising, credbility (as a long-tenured governor of our most economically potent state), and an instant political base in Dixie.

Rick Santorum
Like what he said, but he didn't stand out much except on right-to-life.

Michelle Bachman
I like what she's done. Did well in the debate as compared to prior performances. Not ready for prime-time.

Newt Gingrich
Smartest guy there. Already blew it.

Mitt Romney
Didn't come off as fake as 2008. Didn't decisively win, but didn't lose any ground.

Ron Paul
Great answers. I'd vote for him (* see explanation below before stoning me).

Tim Pawlenty
My current bet for nominee. Didn't stand out that much, but conservative across the board tonight.

Herman Cain
My favorite so far. Good, smart answers. Not a career politician. (The muslim in the admin exchange will hurt him)


* Why I'd vote for Ron Paul
Obviously he's a relatively extreme libertarian. He's also a conservative. On the issues that are affected by the federal government, especially the President, libertarian is almost alway aligned with the kind of conservatism we desperately need now (at least in my view). The issues where it diverges like legalizing drugs and gay marriage, are and should be handled at the state and local level.

And to think I used to enjoy Chris Matthews. This is so true: