Humph.
There's nothing quite like being chewed out by the boss to act as a motivational factor. For those of you who saw my morning post, I pretty-much kissed off any further debate posts because of the lack of responses the recent posts have been getting. Worse, of the five comments left in my last debate wrap-up, all five were deprecating and derogatory of the candidates, that same ol' whiny "Can't we have somebody ELSE?" attitude I see in the comments over at Hot Air and PJ Media. As I said to Bird Dog in email, I can abide 0 comments, but I can't abide -5.
Anyways, after a couple of verbal lashings from the boss and some emails drifting in from (now-former) friends calling me 'Dr. Bitchy' and 'jma' (a real long-time Farmer) piping up in the comments to another post, I figure I'm cursed with the job. Blogging isn't an easy life, let me tell you.
Maybe it's just a simple matter of imposing a new comments rule:
Happy thoughts only.
As far as the CNN debate goes, I don't have the time to write a full wrap-up, but I do think one interesting aspect of it should be mentioned.
In the previous two debates, not a barb or bomb was hurled. As I noted at the time, the candidates were all in complete agreement that Social Security needed a major overhaul and abortion-on-demand wasn't the way to go, and they only differed on exactly how they'd approach the problem.
But when it comes to things like national security, with such gems as a nuclear-armed, Islamic-driven nation like Pakistan on the table, the rules change. The question now isn't 'how to fix the problem', but where does the problem exist?
Do we threaten to cut off aid to them? Do we offer them even more money? Do we handle them with kid gloves? Do we talk tough to them, threatening them with sanctions? Do we seek their permission for every drone we lob at some bad guy or do we just tell them hey, if you aren't going to handle it, then we will, and lob away to our heart's content? Is there a 'problem' with Pakistan at all, and, if so, is it with the government or the fundamentalists?
So, while no bombs were hurled, there was a lot of electrically-charged "I highly disagree with..." going on as each chose to stake out their claim. I'm not sure two candidates agreed completely with one another the entire evening, in vast contrast to the amity they've shared in the last two debates. It wasn't quite cantankerous, but heading that direction quickly.
I'd also note that we had a debate on national security just a few weeks ago and there was nowhere near the distance between the candidates as was displayed last night. Credit the good folk at CNN and famed game show host Wolf "Blitz" Blitzer for coming up with just the right questions to create the most division and animosity between them. As they say, professionalism always shows.
