No, seriously, I don't. Look back at my archives. I mean, there was this one about voting...but before that? Not a lot. And for good reason: I don't want this to be a political blog, because I am lazy intellectually. I don't want to have to think hard about politics. It's too much effort.
The topic du jour is the New York Times' questions to Republican candidates about their views on the limits of presidential power. I think this is a great idea: it forces the candidates to publicly define their conception of the limits of the office they aspire to hold.
My uninformed opinion of the candidates responses are below. Keep in mind that this is MY opinion, and that it's my OPINION. I'm not trying to make absolute statements about the candidates. If you, adoring masses, disagree with me, that's fine. Comment and let me know your thoughts.
- Newt Gingrich speaks in sound bites. Does he think in sound bites? Or is the brevity of his answers calculated, to pander to the short attention spans of readers?
- Jon Huntsman loves to talk precedent.
- Mitt Romney repeatedly references the past.
- Rick Perry does the cookie-cutter thing: he used the following sentence to begin his answers almost 50% of the time. "The Constitution clearly vests in the President full executive authority, and an absolute duty, to protect the nation when vital American security interests are at stake. "
- Ron Paul continues to cement his legacy as one of the most consistent presidential candidates in a long while.
- Paul's answer to the "Interrogation and Surveillance" question cracks me up.
I still don't know which of these candidates will receive my vote--if any of them do. Paul's answers are perhaps the most reassuring, however: he seems to have a firm conception of the boundaries of the office of President.
Long live impulse!