The lesser of _how many_ evils?

So the GOP candidates had their debate down in tha ol’ South last night. I guess I had hoped for more. Everyone was posturing shamelessly, of course. When one of the Forgettables suggested that US interventionism over the last decade (especially in Iraq) had brought on the WTC disaster, Giuliani got to be the first to smack him down:

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations.”

Everyone else followed suit, apparently. You can’t pass up an enemy exposing his soft underbelly. That pretty much sums up half of what was allegedly done at the debate: everyone trying to out-Republican each other for the Good Old Boys below the Mason-Dixon Line.

McCain and Romney (as two of the front-runners) tangled a bit.

Romney began the exchange by criticizing McCain’s sponsorship of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal and went on to compare it to McCain’s support for campaign finance reform.(Washington Post)

Yeah. How dare you be so moderate, seeking compromise during an election year. Jerk.

McCain struck back quickly. “I have kept a consistent position on right to life,” McCain said. “And I haven’t changed my position on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.” (Washington Post)

Good point. Romney was pretty moderate — even liberal — and very vocal about it, when he was Governor of Massachussetts. It’s been disappointing to see him try to out-hardline the hardliners as he’s moved toward the presidency.

…and here’s the bit that really got my attention. First, kudos to the debate organizers for asking this question. Second, I’m surprised this isn’t in more of the news stories I’ve read about the debate. Third… well, read for yourself (Fox News).

[hypothetical scenario:] homicide bombings at three shopping centers near major U.S. cities. With hundreds dead and thousands injured… [suspects believed to be planning a fourth attack are taken to] Guantanamo Bay… U.S. intelligence believes another, larger attack is planned… How aggressively should the detainees be interrogated about the where the next attack might be?

McCain gets all the points, in my book:

“We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people,” he said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they’re going to tell you what they think you want to know”

Rudy “The Diet Coke of Moderate” Giuliani went a little more hardcore, but he played his personal 9/11 card, which allows him to be tough on terror without losing his moderate voters:

“…I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn’t be torture, but every method they can think of,” Giuliani said, adding that that could include waterboarding. “I’ve seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don’t want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or anyplace else.”

Duncan “Border-Fence” Hunter responded:

“Let me just say, this would take a one-minute conversation with the secretary of defense,” Hunter said. “I would call him up or call him in, I would say to SecDef, in terms of getting information that would save American lives even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: ‘Get the information.’”

Not that it matters. He’s got no chance at the nomination.

Jim “Might-as-Well-Forget-My-Name-Right-Now” Gilmore got cheap points with the Republican audience for saying he would stick it to the U.N.

I’ve saved Romney’s answer for last:

“You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I’m glad they’re at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.”

As if I needed another reason not to vote for him, after his increasingly hardline stance on immigration issues.

So, I guess if I feel I have to vote for a Republican, I hope it would be McCain. He’s gone more right in past years, but at least he’s still willing to break ranks with the GOP on some issues I care about.

I guess now I should start thinking about which of the Democrats I would loathe least as a future President.