Why Romney?

As of right now I'm in the Romney camp. Things could change (we're a long way from NH), but see this:

"A vicious cycle may develop in which large (budget) deficits lead to rapid growth in debt and interest payments, which in turn adds to subsequent deficits," Bernanke said.

h/t Instapundit.

With respect to the war on terror, I think a couple things are vital:

1. A commitment to pursuing rogue nations and terrorist organizations through any means available that gets results.
2. Reforming the non-miilitary bueracracies in the goverment, e.g. State, CIA, etc. so that they can pull their wait.
3. The ability to effectively communicate with the public and internationally

What is also vital is that we have the economy to support our military expenditures, and reforming the federal entitlements is essential to that. You can make an argument for all three Republican candidates on point 1. On point 2, I don't see McCain as a viable option. Rudy and Romney are both effective communicators, albeit with very different styles. But when it gets to the entitlement reform, Romney has to be considered way beyond the rest:

1. Business experience
2. Executive branch experience with the budget and entitlement reform in MA

The Second Amendment

While I understand that some people believe #2 means that the state's militias are collectively allowed to own and use guns for the purposes of the militia (although I think you are wrong - and should read the Instapundit's work), this PDF explains why I don't care what the original intent was. We need to have a law that protects the individuals right to have guns and why I'm not in favor of gun registration. For example the NYT is quoted on how gun lists at the local town hall helped Nazis disarm the French citizenry effectively during WW2.

Thank about it.

Iran Shmam

Iran is threatening reprisals if we strike militarily at them or their nuclear program. Threatening action against US interests worldwide. Since they don't have conventional military capabilities to do that, either they are full of BS (in which case we should ignore their threats) or they are implying (admitting) that they have terrorists cells working for them. I believe it's the latter, which means that not only should we strike (despite these threats) if we can't make diplomatic progress, this threat is further evidence in support of such a strike. Of course the state department prefers to say that we are going to solve the nuclear issue with diplomacy - kind of makes the carrot less effective when you throw the stick away.

They also want to be involved in fixing Iraq. Hmmm. Well we can start with a good show of faith by pulling all your operatives out of Iraq. More realistically the US will need to aggressively seek out Iranian operatives and build an overwhelming slate of evidence that Iranians are committing acts of war against both the US and Iraq. Especially useful will be intelligence that shows any of the following:

• Support for Sunni insurgent (Baathist or otherwise) activity against Shia interest.
• Support for Al Quaeda or other terrorist (i.e. non sectarian) groups.
• Implicit approval or direct support for illegal Syrian activities.
• Plans for territorial expansion of political hegemony over Iraq, such as direct "acts of war" against the legitimate Iraqi government.
• Finally least important is support for Shia militia groups.

The reason this data will be useful, is that it can build the case to all parties in Iraq that Iran is the enemy. One thing that could help Iraq pull together is by providing a common enemy. According to my understanding Persian and Arab tensions might be greater than Sunni and Shia tensions at times. It's probably worthwhile to stroke some Iraqi patriotism by making Iran the bad guy.

It'd also be nice to hear some tougher first term Bush rhetoric coming from the lower levels of our diplomatic corps, instead of the realpolitik play nice verbiage mostly used. I'm convinced that this stuff makes us look weak in the eyes of the leadership of our enemies, but more so to the general populace. This is bad because it discourages them from taking any action to stand up for themselves against their oppressors. In fact a lot of our realpolitik has helped their oppressors in the past, so it may have the effect of making Persian dissidents feel like they not only have to topple the mullahs, but the US itself. (For example check out this piece by Michael J. Totten that describes how many Lebanese see America as an ally of Syria and Iran, and indirectly Hezbollah, in Lebanon's struggle for democracy.)

"Don't just do something: Sit There!"

I'm enjoying the Senate being tied up in debate over a non-binding resolution. If only they could have been this way when No Child Left Behind and Prescription Medicare bills were up for debate and votes.