Some thoughts on the GOP foreign policy debate

After 11 debates it’s pretty clear that some of the people on the stage are simply not ready for prime-time, and it’s time for debate organizers to stop offering up half-a-dozen or more candidates so we can start to hear a little more detail from the candidates that actually have a chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

I’d like to see no more than four candidates up on the stage, which would allow for more back-and-forth (it is a debate right? Not just a Q&A session with the moderator) like we saw last night between John Huntsman and Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. It’s time to stop playing regular season games and whittle the teams down to the playoffs.

So here’s what I want to see happen: Bye-Bye Rick Perry, Sarah Palin wannabe Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain (although Herman probably won’t drop fast enough in the polls to be uninvited for another debate or two).

That leaves us with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul (who I would like to see replaced with Governor Gary Johnson), and John Huntsman –if you need a hardcore “righty” then go ahead and leave Mr. 9-9-9 Herman Cain up there, he’s entertaining enough.

Here are some other observations I’ve made after watching my 11^th Republican debate (yes I watch them all):

·         Can Michele Bachmann open her mouth without saying “President Obama”? It’s like a SNL skit: “failed policies… President Obama… Socialism… President Obama… Fannie and Freddie… President Obama… Stimulus… President Obama… Obamacare… President Obama… President Obama… President Obama… Obamacare… OBAMA, OBAMA,OBAMA!”

·         The more John Huntsman speaks the more I like him. Unfortunately his delivery seems too formal to be appealing, and it comes off a bit insincere. He just seems meant for state dinners to me. While Newt Gingrich is confident Huntsman seems like a nervous guy at a job interview (which I guess he is sorta).

·         Mitt Romney thinks the idea of throwing good money after bad is a GOOD IDEA! [Paraphrasing] “after the sacrifice and money we have spent in Afghanistan we can’t just up and leave, we have a commitment”: Which is akin to a poker playing saying I know I can’t win this hand but goddamnit I’ve invested half my money already in this hand so far, so I guess I’ll just throw the rest in. Hey Mitt, we are INVOLVED in a war in Afghanistan, not COMMITTED to Afghanistan.

Here is a quote I like to live by that might help Mitt Romney out: The difference between involvement and commitment is like a ham and egg breakfast: The chicken was involved and the pig was committed.