I particularly liked his answers on foreign policy!
All the candidates were clapping each other on the back that they weren't going to spend money on foreign aid - to heck with them if they are poor. We don't have the money to help. We should fix our own problems first.
Okay. I can see that is a pose one might strike.
Then the question came - but what about supporting Israel? Surely this must be ruled out. We don't have the money to support other countries. They must pay their own way. Yada yada yada.
180 degrees for everyone. Of course the US will spend money on Israel. That money is sacrosanct.
Oh the hypocrisy. Suddenly the over-arching principle was that the US must support its best friend in the world with all the money it needs. No explanation why. It was just beyond question. However poor the US is, Israel has its budget secure.
Except in the case of Ron Paul. Same principle applied that he originally proposed. They should support themselves.
Pregnant moment. The other candidates - the entire room - hated him, of course. But they didn't know what to say about it. All they could do was say "we will", but not "why".
He can't win. But he was the only one who had done any real thinking of his own. The rest just flow along with whatever the Republicans they talk to are saying, without thinking whether they are being consistent.
Do I agree with him? Nope. I think humanitarian aid is well worth it for a number of reasons. I think garrisons are cheaper than wars. I think it is legitimate for the US to spend money supporting Israel if it wishes, although that wouldn't necessarily be my choice.
But I thought Paul was worthy of respect, even if I think he is wrong. For the rest, not so much. Their principle was - let's remove support for the destitute but let's support our most powerful lobby.
That's some set of admirable folks.
| 
