Look, I try hard to see where the other side of the aisle is coming from, but this debate was painful - an egregious can-you top-this panderfest, in which nothing surprising, intriguing, thought-provoking or original was said.More importantly, from my viewpoint:
The candidates knew what their audience liked and didn’t like, and served up soundbites accordingly.
No mention of the war on terror.And demonstrating why I'll be pushing the button for the Republican candidate in November 2008. The Democrats have had six years now to come up with some positions on the War on Terror - but instead pretend it doesn't exist.*
This is not to say that the Republicans have all the right answers. But they do acknowledge the problem, which is more than any of the Democrats can muster. They are still stuck on the "it's Bush's war" mantra.
As recent events have shown, the jihad that the self-annointed saviors of Islam have embarked upon against the West will not end when President Bush leaves the scene. it will continue regardless of who assumes the Presidency in January 2009.
And one half of our political establishment doesn't even want to think about it.
*This doesn't even cover all the usual socialist junk - as Geraghty mentions, there's not a social program any of the candidates doesn't like. If you thought government growth was too much under Bush - wait until one of them gets there. Canada, here we come...