Tuesday night's debate, Thompson's first since officially joining the race last month, involved nine GOP candidates and touched on trade, taxes and a range of economic and security issues.
"I've got to admit, it was getting a little boring without me, but I'm glad to be here now," Thompson said.
The former U.S. senator from Tennessee was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates in the debate, which CNBC and The Wall Street Journal sponsored.
Hate to burst your bubble Fred, but it's still pretty boring. I find myself still underwhelmed at the current line up of Presidential candidates.
"I brought taxes down by 17 percent. Under him, taxes went up 11 percent per capita," said Giuliani, the front-runner in most national polls. "I led; he lagged."
"It's baloney," said Romney, who leads the polls in key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. "Mayor, you've got to check your facts."
Who's right? It's a bit difficult to tell, but the fact that Guiliani so specified the context "per capita", I find very telling. Why couldn't he have said "I lowered taxes, he raised them" and left it at that? Perhaps that's not the case.
When someone does that, red flags go up in my head. But the other story was internet boy toy Ron Paul got a bit of applause:
The other topic that sparked fireworks was a provocative, albeit hypothetical, point of constitutional interpretation -- would the U.S. president need Congress' permission before launching an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
Responding first, Romney said as president, "you sit down with your attorneys" to determine whether such authorization is needed, but he said, "Obviously, the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat."
Romney's answer drew an incredulous retort from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who said the president would "absolutely" need Congress' OK before striking Iran.
"This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?" Paul said. "You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."
But unfortunately, Ron Paul is wrong. We're not talking about declaring war, we're talking about attacking a nuclear facility that may be a front for nuclear weapons. For that, Representative Duncan Hunter is correct.
"If you have a very narrow window to hit a target, the president's going to have to take that on his shoulders," said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California. "He has the right to do that under the Constitution as the commander in chief."
And that's why Ron Paul is so low in the polls. He sounds good on paper, but if it comes time to act, I get the feeling he'd be bogged down in some committee begging for permission to do anything that he already has the right to do.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment