Post-Debate

I like McCain, and feel OK about things seeming to coalesce around him. But when I watch the debate he just seem old. Compared to Romney he talks more slowly, repeats himself more, and doesn't seem as dynamic. Whereas, Romney seems to speak less from the script and to answer questions more directly. I respect McCain and really think he stands for what he believes in, but he lacks sharpness. Romney just seems to have a great grasp of the facts and a quick mind that cannot be developed even with twenty odd years in the congress. I was struck by the two examples he gave of the fees he increased as Governor of MA. He provided concrete examples! Instead of platitudes we got something real! Sure it was only freeway advertising signs and gas tank removal, but at least we are afforded the benefit of some content.

Speaking of content, Ron Paul seems to want to talk content, and I would love to hear a debate on his terms. I would genuinely like to hear the candidates debate guns vs. butter and the relevance of the gold standard to the problems of over-lending and the housing bubble. Oh well, I suppose that's why we have academics and think tank dwellers. I do worry about similarities between Bush and Romney. The both represent inexperienced (from a foreign policy standpoint) governors who came from outside Washington and might not have the grasp of the global scene and were touted as having business experience. I guess Romney is smarter, but that is not experience. Then again, out of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, some of the most experienced in the foreign policy realm, we got the miscalculations and unpreparedness in Iraq. So maybe there isn't as much to having been around the block a time or two as I might have thought.