The pundits seem to enjoy telling us how this rough and tumble that's called primary season is good because the candidates get vetted. Do they? The only one who is focusing on policy is Huntsman. The rest, including Romney, are focusing on destroying one another and in the process their party.
Take Gingrich. Again. Now that an angel has come out of Las Vegas with cash in hand for his super PAC he's doing his best to distort venture capitalism. A venture capitalist, Romney, is not a corporate raider. Actually their aim is to fix troubled companies. As with any business venture, they are not always successful. To do this, the capital for the venture (get it? venture capital) comes from investors who get a return on that investment only if the turn around is successful. One hardly goes into it with the intent to kill business. But then Newt marches to his own dictionary.
My issues with Paul remain the same. His foreign policy is not realistic considering the conditions we face. At least he had the good grace to ask that an ad by his PAC be withdrawn - one that called Huntsman a Manchurian candidate, focusing on his adopted daughters - one Chinese and one East Indian.
I don't care for Santorum's views on gays or abortion and, say what you will, the story of he and his wife taking their dead child home for their children to familiarize themselves with is unsettling.
Perry? I haven't a clue what he's about.
I understand why people just can't get excited about Romney. His policies aren't particularly innovative. Too much like big government Republicanism versus big government Democratism. He has devolved to the level of the others. Demeaning Huntsman because he served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration is fool hardy.
Huntsman's claim that when one is called upon to serve by the President, it's not easy to refuse rings true. He chose to do so for his country. He cited as an example his two sons currently serving in the Navy. It matters not to which party the commander-in-chief belongs, they are serving their country.
What ever happened to the idea that our goals for the nation, regardless of party, should be the same. The difference comes as to how to accomplish those goals. The ideas can vary greatly and of course that's where compromise enters. Or at least where it's supposed to enter.
For the moment I'm pretty disgusted with the way all of the candidates are conducting themselves, including the President. It seems to me all the nation building going on is outside our borders instead of within. Within it's ego building supported with delusion and falsehoods. That isn't vetting by my definition. If it is to be the standard by which we choose, none deserve the job.