Like many in the MSM I saw the focus at CPAC given to foreign policy. But unlike most in the MSM I didn't see that happen because the GOP would-be's fear that if they don't put together a credible (whatever one thinks that means) foreign policy that they will suffer when compared to Hillary (if she runs). But doesn't this presume that Hillary Clinton has a credible foreign policy herself? And, unlike the GOP would-be's, Hillary has an actual record that we can use to judge her policy by, and inform ourselves as to what a future with her in office might hold.
Shouldn't the MSM be asking the question differently? I would ask would-be's why Hillary's ideas are wrong, or to the extent they are wrong, and how each of them would do better at this foreign policy task. You can't forget the politics, I know, but as even Mr. Obama has come to accept (by his tardy and substandard replies) that the world isn't the improving place he claimed--and Hillary had claimed as well--doesn't it stand to reason that the policy ideas and the logic which supports them matters even more?
From the political angle only I am still surprised that the vast majority of the MSM tend to think that foreign policy is Hillary Clinton's strength. The surprise comes from the very questions to the would-be's about all the dangers in the world which are worse today than before. If the premise of the question is true, then how can the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a formidable foreign policy candidate also be true given the international degradation that took place on her watch? I think foreign policy is her greatest weakness. I wish it were domestic policy but I think that the average NV liberal poster, while being slightly more insane than the average liberal American, typifies the adoration of free stuff, and since the Democrat running for president will in every case be able to promise more free stuff to Americans than any Republican could ever offer, it makes this the Democrat's strong suit.
It remains to be seen by me that the GOP can defeat this free-stuff mentality. The current crop of would-be candidates are all better on the issue, some wildly better, than any Democrat on the radar screen, including even Jim Webb, but it's a tough slog to convince voters that free stuff is the costliest federal program you can imagine. Foreign policy looks to be the GOP candidates' strength this go around. But long term a strong America is the best foreign policy of all, and that requires liberal/left economic policies to be repealed. To the extent we don't we continue to weaken America.