This is a wee bit old news by now. But this past Tuesday (9 Oct.), there was an “Economic Debate” for the GOP candidates hosted in Dearborn, MI - (as broadcast on MSNBC) 9pm ET, originally rec. at 4pm ET.

Instead of the original dragged out play-by-play I had planned, I’ll sum it up with my observations thus far on the top three candidates. This post will be long enough as it is.

Fred Thompson: I have to wonder why the MSM seems to have devoted much effort to paint Fred as an irrelevant bumpkin who had no serious expectations for the debate. A quick summary of the MSNBC commentators (I hesitate to call them “journalists”) almost singularly agreed that between Fred’s earlier perceived gaffes and mannerisms, that he simply wasn’t Presidential material. At least that is the impression I got.

As for the actual debate… He did seem a bit nervous out the gate, but was able to give a straight answer, even if it was measured, carefully and deliberately given. Perhaps even “slow”. Since when is this a liability, I wonder? In the time-constrained format present in most (televised) debates, the only weakness this presents is for trying to pack as much content into a single 30 second soundbite.

However, Fred seemingly refused to be trapped by this - even offering a solid “yes” and “no” answer, and as he got into stride, even so, he spoke deliberately and for the most part, thought before he spoke.

Comparing this to some of the other debaters, such as Mitt Romney’s neatly packaged, almost memorized delivery of his answers, or Rudi Guliani hammering away at Hillary with almost every answer he had to offer, or the tragically comical explosive emotions of Ron Paul (who seemed to be on the defensive for the entire debate)… I, as a voter, would place more faith in what Fred was saying.

The condensed picture he provides of himself thus far is:

• Free & Fair Trade… rejects outright Pat Buchanan style protectionism, but advocates penalties for cheaters - particular in terms of sub-standard and even dangerous exports, and responding to Chinese currency manipulations with tariffs or import limits.
• Proactive Middle East Foreign Policy: Fred posits that Saddam had had WMDs (as used against the Kurds and Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War throughout the 1980s), as well as having designs on possessing nuclear capabilities (citing the Israeli strike on Osirak as a positive move). If Saddam and his singular son (gaffe) had been left alone, they would likely have obtained nuclear weaponry, in turn leading down (a “Slippery slope argument”) to a far more dangerous and nuclearized Middle East.
• On the Iraq “War”: He sees definite signs of progress. Continued action is necessary to prevent Islamists from making this a global war. Americans and their allies must understand that Islamic fascism is intent on destroying the west; we must stick it out. Commendably, he pointed out that the 20 year old soldier can be indeed more knowledgeable about Iraq than many 20-year veteran Congressmen.
• On accountability to Congress (War Powers act) : There can be a conflict of applicability. Fred knocked down the hypothetical argument that each use of American military power beyond her borders requires Congressional permission, stating that an imminence of danger to American interests may require fast action beyond the time constraint posed by “getting permission”. However, some consultation with Congress for longer range actions is necessary to get and keep the support of the American citizens.
• Realistic view of the Economic Picture: The short term is good (low inflation, low unemployment, etc) but the longer term, especially as Boomers start retiring en masse is not good. Our security, economy, and individual prosperity for the future is at risk, unless serious steps to make Social Security and Medicare (Hereinafter: SSA/MC) solvent. He encourages privatizing SSA and possibly MC to use retirement savings accounts to retirement, indexing those savings to that generation which funded them, and not to the next generation.
• Unions: Fred is a SAG member (establishes his union credentials). There should be no forced union membership, or misuse of union dues for political purposes. Concerning strikes/walkouts, the government should not intervene unless there is a matter critical to the economy or national security. Intervention should seek to relieve the imbalance behind the walkout.
• On waiting so long to enter the race: He has no regrets for waiting….. seems just right. (Which is to say, that the other candidate started WAY earlier than previous election years).

Rudi Guliani: He played from the NeoCon textbook… to a fault. Luckily for him, few if any social policy issues (or his uniquely liberal stances on them) came up.

A lot of his time was spent digging at Mitt Romney’s “tax and spend” compared to his tax reductions (NYC) taxes. (A caveat: Rudi did reduce some taxes and the dreaded commuter tax never saw light of day during his tenure as mayor. However, increased parking fines and Manhattan Bridge & Tunnel tolls went up several times more than they did in previous mayoral administrations).

Rudi offered quick, staccato blasts of facts and seemingly solid defense of his fiscal policies… but he spend a lot of time focusing his fire at Mitt Romney, and Hillary in particular. He made a point of laying a smack-down on Mitt for supporting the line item veto - and he makes mention of his successful attempts to supress Bill Clinton’s line item veto as unconstitutional in the past.

Like Fred, Rudi believes that in general, it is safer to get approval from Congress before conducting a military action. But not when faced with the threat of an imminent attack Rudi also shot back at Ron Paul’s hissy fit/denial of the possibility of the US ever coming under threat of an imminent attack… by calmly asking Paul “where were you on 9-11?”. That drew laughter from the rest of the panel, as well as cementing the general impression that Ron Paul might be a few sandwiches short of a full picnic basket.

Rudi laid into Hillary quite a bit more than anyone else (maybe it was the NY rivalry between the two) - slamming her on her question-dodging over preventing a nuclear Iran, and where she might get the money to fund her $5000 “Baby Bond”. Basically, the old reliable “tax & spend liberal” canard.

He also suggested that policing the internet was a very big need, emphasizing increased sharing of info between LEO agencies. He’d also rather see that make existing agencies work better than create an FCC style regulatory agency for the internet.

Without specifying any clear plans to do so, Rudi states that strengthening our economic position involves increasing our exports, especially in the innovation and design sectors (unspoken: since we are too fargone to seriously recover our industrial base). He was deeply optimistic, by claiming that with our American pride and by donning our entrepreneurial hats… if we apply ourselves to developing new technologies (especially energy technology, perhaps such producing viable solar hydrolytic cells to generate hydrogen fuel) - we could then sell the energy itself, or otherwise, the new products and services.

Mitt Romney was very polished and delivered his lines like one might have expected from a screen actor (such as Fred). Interesting. Although a Republican, he was nearly tarred with the same “tax and spend” liberal brush as one would any good Democrat. This likely comes from his days as the Massachusetts governor, where many a Republican wanting to keep his office might bend much further to the Left than his counterpart in a true Red state would ever consider. Keeping that in mind, this is part of what makes him palatable to the moderate wings of either party, and less so to the social conservatives who question his recent “dedication” to pro-life tenets, much less his stances on normalizing Gay marriage and other sensitive, social policy hot-button issues.

As mentioned earlier, Mitt favours a line item veto, to the tune of his 844 line itmes he vetoed as MA governor. Concerning the “imminent attack” question, and the limits of the POTUS to respond… he says we should “get lawyers” to look into it. Yikes. I certainly don’t want to convene a panel of lawyers to figure out whose backsides to cover before phoning up the DoD or the telling the commanding generals facing down an attack to wait until the lawyers get things sorted out… Strike One!

Mitt to not have to go to war with Iran, and mispronounces Ahmadinejad’s name (not a difficult thing to do actually… but the same people who pick nits at Bush’s ongoing issues with Standard American English ought to study themselves). As expected for playing more to the moderates… he claims that seeking (UN) sanctions, diplomacy, and then more aggressive sanctions should suffice, leaving military only as a last resort.

Mitt also might consider bargaining for lower (foreign) subsidies for farmers via DOHA… and somehow conflated this with more “Bravo Sierra” on anthropogenic global warming. As for Medicare, he seeks to “not replace, but repair” it. That is, he won’t seek a universal “Hillarycare” program, but market-based insurance programs (possibly supplemented by state-level implementations of coverage like S-CHIP). All medical expenses would be tax deductible, and we should apply market dynamics to any new medical insurance ideas.

And (questionably so) Honourable Mention:

Ron Paul. No offense to any of you who support him, but he comes across as a little bit easily unhinged. At the very least, he is exciteable - not necessarily a positive trait to have in a POTUS. Some of his reactions (to criticism) is a stark contrast to Fred’s calm reserve and measured responses to his own critics.

Paul struck a deeply Protectionist Libertarian stance, with a an aggressive approach. He put me in the mind of one of those nervous little yipper-yapping lap dogs that make much noise, which people might politely tend to ignore in hopes of him going away.

In contrast to the more or less realistic but no defeatist presentation Fred made - and the nearly Pollyanna Positivity of Sam Brownback and Rudi and Mitt… Ron Paul flatly states that we are deep in a recession for middle classes and on down, caused by our ongoing tendency to live well beyond our means (consumer credit bills, sub-prime mortgage debacle, and extravagant Defense spending) as factors in the debasement of our currency. He derides the other leading candidates and say that they should study monetary theory.

Frankly, the man is a populist, and for the most part, populist candidates have a visible track record of failure (Eugene Debs, Wendell Wilkie, Barry Goldwater?) in national-level politics. That coupled with his explosive reactions - such as “freaking out” at Mitt for his laughable suggestion of getting lawyers to mull over any Executive use of his War Powers:

“Lawyers?! Lawyers?? Why don’t we just open up the constitution, and READ it!”

After further criticizing any consideration of military action against Iranian Quds special forces, or a wider campaign to reduce Iran’s nuclear potential as “war propaganda… unconstitutional, a road to disaster…”which gathered much applause, but also laughs from most of the other candidates.

Although Ron Paul states that he will not support another GOP candidate if they continue down the Neocon path - the war, excessive defense spending, circumventing and denial of liberties, etc. etc… there was no indication that he would not consider an independent/third party run.

Given Paul’s finances and small, but significant number of supporters, such a run could yield the same results as the last time a populist Texan ran skunked the GOP campaign and put a Clinton in the White House.