GOP debate reveals a party that could benefit from a little conservatism where it counts

Who “won” the Wednesday night Republican presidential debate on CNN? Beyond CNN, which enjoyed record ratings, it’s hard to say.

According to CNN, the debate was viewed by an average of 22.8 million people,” making it the most-watched program in CNN’s history. ”

That’s pretty impressive, though not altogether surprising.

The cable news channel promoted the event for weeks as if it were a champion boxing match and kept viewers glued to the screen with a moderation style that encouraged candidates to argue amongst themselves.

The debate was also structured to give GOP candidates lagging far behind businessman Donald Trump in the polls the opportunity to gang up and attack the unconventional candidate.

Even Trump noted that this gave him way too much time in front of the camera, costing the candidates on stage valuable time that could have been better used giving clear answers to policy questions.

“I thought I was on too much. I felt badly for everybody else because every question had to do with me,” Trump said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

When it wasn’t all about Trump, the debate offered an illuminating— and depressing— look at what the GOP’s top presidential contenders think conservative voters want to hear; especially with regard to foreign policy.

We learned that, with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, solutions to the country’s problems based on constitutional principles don’t feature prominently in a majority of the candidates’ foreign policy positions.

There was so much talk from Sen. Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and others about the need to start more wars in the Middle East, further coddle Israel, and unendingly swing the big American stick throughout the rest of the world, that it almost seems they feel GOP voters are nostalgic for the George W. years.

Paul, meanwhile, has continued advocating a message of U.S. non-intervention.

“I’ve made my career as being an opponent of the Iraq War,” he said. “I was opposed to the Syria war. I was opposed to arming people who are our enemies.

“Iran is now stronger because Hussein is gone. Hussein was the great bulwark and counterbalance to the Iranians. So when we complain about the Iranians, you need to remember that the Iraq War made it worse.”

Though Trump and Ben Carson also noted their opposition to the Iraq War, the remaining candidates had a bit of a different message: Intervention in Iraq or elsewhere hasn’t been the problem in the Middle East; we just haven’t made the wars long enough.

Paul offered a different perspective Wednesday: “We have to learn sometimes the interventions backfire. The Iraq War backfired and did not help us. We’re still paying the repercussions of a bad decision….

“We have to make the decision now in Syria, should we topple Assad? Many up here wanted to topple Assad, and it’s like — I said no, because if you do…ISIS will now be in charge of Syria…”

For the other candidates, the answer is “yes, we should topple Assad, and we should make Russia look bad while we’re at it.”

And though no one said it out loud, for those hawks the logical next step in all of the GOP’s “tear up the deal” rhetoric on Iran is “we have to bomb them first.”

But lacking from all calls for further intervention in the Middle East is what has been lacking since U.S. troops were first sent to the region: Anything resembling an exit strategy.

Despite what neo-conservative hawks want Americans to believe, that’s not a conservative message.

Once Syria descends further into chaos, the U.S. will need to occupy the nation for the next few decades. Intervention in Iran, meanwhile, would create a quagmire powerful enough to keep the military-industrial complex humming for the next half century thanks to the country’s powerful international friends.

If there has to be a debate winner, it’s Paul, because he’s conservative where it counts.

Perpetual war and international babysitting are about as big-government as it gets.

The post GOP debate reveals a party that could benefit from a little conservatism where it counts appeared first on Personal Liberty®.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/gop-debate-reveals-a-party-that-could-benefit-from-a-little-conservatism-where-it-counts/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/gop-debate-reveals-a-party-that-could-benefit-from-a-little-conservatism-where-it-counts/