Jim Antle in Politico bemoans the lack of a genuine debate beyond the same old “Ron Paul versus everyone else.” Even Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman “have favored fighting with social conservatives over rethinking foreign policy.”
But the good news (if you can call it that) is that three of the stars who sat out this time (and may be in the running either for veep or for president in 2016 if Mitt Romney blows it) have all expressed skepticism about continuing our hyperactive and unaffordable foreign policy. Haley Barbour has opposed nation-building and acknowledged that there is a lot of fat in the Pentagon budget. Chris Christie has gone further in stating that “the United States must also become more discriminating in what we try to accomplish abroad.” And Mitch Daniels seems to have gone the furthest, by saying: “What size and kind of military is absolutely essential to preserve the physical safety of Americans? What, very strictly defined, are the national interests of our country?”
It’s about time somebody asked.