vovat | And on the right...

Since no one seemed to know the answer to this question, some of you might be interested in knowing that the list of your LJ friends' birthdays can be found here. So, since I've been remiss in acknowledging birthdays in the past month or so, happy belated birthday to

bartkolounger,

mmpoetatheart,

leolapyre,

arfies, and

mikeleffel.

I had intended to watch the Republican Presidential Candidates' Debate on Thursday, but I forgot. Fortunately, YouTube came to my aid again. If you read my comments on the Democratic debate, you might remember that I thought Kucinich might be a little too optimistic. Compared to these Republicans, though, his optimism is nothing. I mean, the very first anwer has Giuliani talking about how great optimism is. So much of modern Republican rhetoric seems to be based on the Power of Positive Thinking. You know, if you BELIEVE the troops will succeed in Iraq, then they will! Sure, morale is important, but is continuing to think positively about a situation that's been worsening for some time really going to accomplish anything? If anything, shouldn't the favored position be GUARDED optimism? But no, it's always the optimism of Ronald Reagan with these guys. I know they're in Reagan's library, Nancy was there, and some of the questions mentioned him; but their Reagan obsession is really over the top.

A few other things I noticed, and thought were worth commenting on:

Giuliani: "It's the worst nightmare of the Cold War, isn't it? Nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person...He has to look at the American President, and he has to see Ronald Reagan." Okay, not QUITE how I'd mention Reagan in the context of irrational people with nuclear weapons.
Romney on Bin Laden: "I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch that this is all about one person." Wait, what Democrat ever said that? It seems to me that it's mostly (but not entirely) the Republicans who keep talking about "winning" the war on terror, as if there's some King of Terrorism who, after his forces have their asses whupped, will sit down and sign a "No More Terrorism" treaty with the President. The language is significant. Getting back to the Bin Laden issue, though, isn't the concern not that the fight against terrorism should ONLY be about Osama, but that the current administration has decided to make it NOT AT ALL about Osama when he's the most prevalent threat?
Romney totally dodged the question about what he doesn't like about America, and instead started talking about about "hard-working, innovative, risk-taking, God-loving, family-oriented American people" making the country great. Hmm, despite his best efforts, maybe he answered the question after all. What he doesn't like are single people and atheists. Giuliani did a similar dodge when asked about his greatest weakness. The disturbing thing is, as stupid as these dodges seem to me, I'll bet there are a lot of people who think that candidates admitting to weaknesses in either themselves or the country would be reasons not to vote for them. More of the Power of Positive Thinking at work, I suppose.
Thompson actually said he was okay with an employer firing someone simply because they're gay? Now THAT'S messed up.
Three candidates claim that they don't believe in evolution. I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to vote for someone, but with the current President's talk about wanting the Bible taught in public school science classes, it's not a good sign.