redblueamerica.com

it would seem none have been immune to questions about their stance now compared to their actions and assertions in the past

Ooh, a softball! Might I suggest this candidate? I don't think any candidate from either party can claim a record of governance more consistent with their publicly stated principles. And they're good principles, too.

I believe if Mitt were to enter office, at the very least, I would feel a level of confidence in where our leader would stand.

Sincere question: Given Romney's fairly dramatic changes in position on several issues since he was Governor of Massachusetts, given his record of action as governor, and given that he hasn't any actual record of governance under the "new" positions, why do you have this confidence in Romney?

Gratuitous nitpicking: "Our leader" sounds very Orwellian. Or at least North Korean. Maybe both. :-)

Cheap shot at Romney: During the debate, didn't he accidentally claim his involvement in the Boston "Big Dig" as a qualification for leadership? Oops. Hard to choose whether that was better or worse than McCain claiming to be an expert on controlling immigration because he's from Arizona. Hey, look at that - two cheap shots in one paragraph.

In my readings on these individuals leading to the debate, I took great interest in watching how they would respond to the objections and barbs from each other, and as Ben has noted, I find it hard to deny Mitt his place as the winner.

I must admit as an avid sports fan, I was more familiar with McCain as a persona. He is always more than happy to welcome face time with ESPN personalities as a devoted fan of Arizona sports... and I'll say I like that about him, but it means nothing here. What I will say is this: In the few times when those sports personalities have turned the discussion to politics, I can remember no instance where I left with an impression that McCain was, in any way, conservative.

I believe the debates on Congress' decision to hold hearings on steroids and HGH in baseball serve as a prime example of a man that seems all too happy to embrace the liberal model of doing business... another discussion for another time.

This evening, I felt he reveled too often in responses that failed to address the issue at hand, instead choosing an attempt to humiliate Mitt rather than make a definitive statement that would give me a concrete impression.

Moving forward, I would express concern in viewing McCain as what I might consider a true Republican... and I wonder if he is simply using the party line to avoid competition from the left he knows can't be beat, and it is a self serving approach that only serves to hurt the effort of the group.

I believe if Mitt were to enter office, at the very least, I would feel a level of confidence in where our leader would stand.

And yes... it would be nice if CNN would consider another moderator. It wasn't a demonstration of beauty by any means.

On the snark thing, I didn't necessarily mean it pejoratively, merely pointing out that that was the only clearly negative comments about Paul that I noticed in a number of complimentary ones. I suppose I don't do praise well. :-)

I kind of expect liveblogging to include a lot of sarcasm and snark - I blame David Weigel over at Reason so I certainly wasn't offended. But I appreciate the attempt to keep the level of debate civil, nonetheless.

I actually find the universal recognition of gold as consistently valuable to be odd as well, but it is what it is. The key difference between gold and potatoes is, of course, that you can't easily "grow" more gold. At this point, the worldwide supply of gold is somewhat fixed. This is in marked contrast to, for example, diamonds, which are also universally regarded as valuable. But DeBeers could arbitrarily choose to flood the market with diamonds and their value would plummet. This happened to gold in the distant past (e.g. when Cortez and the Spanish flooded the market after their conquest of the Americas) but is extremely unlikely to happen again. The supply is close enough to fixed that it can be (as it has been in the past) a reliable standard of currency and exchange.

That said, keep in mind that what Paul actually argues for isn't a rapid (or even, necessarily, eventual) move back to the Gold Standard, but rather chooses to use the term "sound money" to emphasize that the problem is not so much measuring stick of choice, but rather the use of fiat currency. What he advocates is letting market forces correct federal fiscal irresponsibility by allowing competing currencies based on gold and silver. If people are allowed to trade using sound currency rather than the monopoly money printed by the government, they will gravitate toward that currency, and then values will stabilize over time and the government will be accountable.

Is that still kooky? In the sense of being overly idealistic, probably. But more and more financial experts are recognizing that the U.S. Dollar has only the illusion of value and that without allowing hard-money competition or other money supply restriction, it is doomed to become second-class currency in the world. And then our economy will be in a world of hurt.

I can't unring the bell, but you're right -- that's not in keeping with the spirit of this site, and I shouldn't have gone there. Paul does have some good things to say, I admit, but I don't think this country is ready for the whiplash it would experience from the wholly different kind of governance he would offer.

And I do find the whole gold standard thing ... a bit weird. Gold only has more value than paper because we say it does, when you get down to it. A Potato Standard makes more sense to me -- because, when the revolution comes, you're not going to be able to eat your watch.

And clearly I'm a bit tired.

Well, I have to vote for one of them in the primary next Tuesday, Jill. And I couldn't conceive of a circumstance in which I would vote for Clinton or Obama. Heck, I voted for Dole in 1996. It pained me, but I did it.

Considering that the fall of the Soviet Union was a bit of a surprise to the West, I'm not sure that Reagan knew that's what he was doing. He traded the chance to virtually rid the world of nuclear arms -- something that might've helped us in our current counterproliferation efforts, both as a matter of morals and logistics -- because he embraced a chimera.

Fun time - will try to be back tomorrow night for the Dems.

Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks

I hope your back gets better!

Time for me to do other types of work. Phew.

When you have nothing better to do, you should read or listen to the podcast of this interview I helped conduct of Ohio's 2006 gubernatorial candidate Bill Peirce (pronounced "purse") who ran as a Libertarian. He's an econ prof at Case Western and although I would never vote for him, he was fascinating to meet. His son who is in his 20s or 30s was also a totally cool guy who loved bloggers. lol

Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks

Someone had to blog that - sorry.

Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks

Boy, I was excited when Ron Paul mentioned something great: President's don't "manage" economies. They get out of the way of free people pursuing their own happiness ...

Then he drifted off, as he always does ... and ... (sigh).

Joel says:

8:24 p.m. CST: Romney should not say that he would have “loved” to serve in the military. He was a young man during Vietnam. He could’ve volunteered. That rings as hollow as anything he could’ve said.

Great point, and I have long thought the same thing. But, really, how much better can he do -- especially with McCain standing next to him. If you have an alternative script, I'd like to see it.

This all just emphasizes the point that outside of Charlie Gibson's performance, Fox News' serious journalists have far outclassed the other networks -- especially CNN.

No gimmicks (YouTube snowmen). No live-reading some crank's question on an email. Just probing, straight-forward questions.

This is yet another dishonorable tack that McCain just doesn't need to take.

McCain is to be praised for his extraordinary service to his country. But Romney does not deserve to be ripped for being a successful businessman. Besides, isn't the Republican Party the home of business people, big and small?

Romney, typically, makes his point with honor -- and smartly implies that McCain isn't just insulting him, but everyone in the private sector, including volunteers. Nice parry and thrust.

watching the "people meter" online? That's pretty nifty.

Do you see how close he gets to 90? Who've they got hooked up??

Jill Miller Zimon
Writes Like She Talks

I just visited the Reagan Library a few weeks ago. My wife's uncle is a docent at the place. It's definately worth a visit if you're in SoCal -- and liked Reagan.

But the spectacular Air Force One display shoudl be enough to get even liberals (Ok, maybe just Joel) into the place.

I still like my answer better. :-)

Bob Dole. 1988. That's why Romney didn't take the bait.

Hey! Romney is waking up!

Anyway, McCain made some good, accurate points -- quoting Romney about not wanting to weigh in on the surge because he was a governor. That was a clear dodge, and makes his point. He does not need to lie about what Romney said.

Andy McCarthy at The Corner posted a McCain quote that I had missed:

McCain: "There are some greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished."

Seriously? Isn't Enron sooooo 4 years ago? Who are these "greedy people," McCain? Is that John Edwards in a McCain suit?

Jeesh!

I think McCain could have used this opening to state his "Roberts/Alito" standard more forcefully -- that is, if he's really sincere.

I'm not watching, but listening. And to my ears, McCain's voice carried a combination of annoyance and weariness.

McCain is challenged directly on his crummy immigration bill. "If your own bill was to come up for a vote, would you vote for it?"

And, McCain -- amazingly -- says he now wouldn't even vote for his own bill! That makes no sense, and looks even more pathetic when he tries to explain it away through procedure-speak.

Asked the question directly, again, McCain again says "it won't be voted on." So border conservatives are supposed to believe that if the Democratic Congress passed McCain-Kennedy II, he would not sign it? Riiiight.

Not a good stretch there for McCain.

Romney is effective in reminding voters that McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts -- and did so because he said it was too tilted toward "the rich," something McCain lies about to deny.

And that might be the first time I've heard ANYONE on the Republican side take on serious talk about Social Security again. Bravo, Mitt.

"And for those who came here illegally? No amnesty."

That's what Mitt must do, draw contrasts between himself and McCain on McCain's weakest issues. Nicely done.