Obama’s Ship of State Sinks in Shallow Waters

Today, Barack Obama makes it official: his overall strategy for achieving world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.

That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.

Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.

According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.

That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.

The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.

Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.

The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.

Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.

The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.

The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:

In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.

The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.

That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.

Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.

Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.

America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.

As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.

If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons

Hillary-Hsu Photo Flap Smears Security Crew

In their eagerness to contend that Hillary Clinton knew about Norman Hsu's status as a fugitive evading a warrant for grand theft in California before accepting $850,000 he collected through fundraising efforts, conservatives and Democratic opponents are unfairly and inaccurately maligning the work of the United States Secret Service.

In a Cybercast News Service article today titled, "Clinton Campaign Denies Secret Service Vetting of Fugitive," writer Fred Lucas argued that Hillary Clinton must have known about Hsu's fugitive status for one simple reason: the Secret Service performs background checks of everyone who comes in contact with the former first lady. CNS interviewed law enforcement "experts" who made several statements that, if true, would establish a Clinton conspiracy in which Hillary's campaign staff or Hillary herself were ordering the Secret Service to ignore an outstanding criminal warrant to protect Senator Clinton from embarrassment. The CNS article contained a number of factual errors put forth by the so-called experts who contributed to the story.

The article opened by stating the contention that since Norman Hsu has been seen in news photographs standing next to Hillary at fundraising events, he must have been "vetted" by the Secret Service. According to the first "expert" cited by CNS:

"I would absolutely be shocked if the protective intelligence division of the Secret Service was not fully aware of Mr. Hsu's status as a fugitive," Carl Rowan, a federal agent with both the FBI and the U.S. Marshalls for a decade, said in an interview. Rowan, now president of Securitas, a private security firm, said he has worked closely with the U.S. Secret Service in the past.

"It is standard operating procedure to run the names and Social Security numbers of anyone who will be close to the protectee," Rowan continued. "Besides the safety concerns, the Secret Service works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee."

Rowan claimed to have worked closely with the Secret Service during his ten year federal career split between two agencies, but his contention that the Secret Service "works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee" was overstated and not applicable to the Hsu donations debacle.

The Secret Service provides physical security by employing a number of protective measures, all of which are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, thus allowing a protectee to go about their business in a safe environment. Of course, unobtrusive becomes unrealistic when it comes to the security surrounding a sitting president or vice president, but even in that high threat environment a protectee still retains ample opportunity for embarrassing himself or herself. Rowan's contention is simply false from an operational perspective. The Secret Service is there to provide a secure environment but allows a protectee to engage in personal or political behavior that could be embarrassing as long as that behavior does not compromise the safety of the protectee.

The media criticized the Secret Service years ago when President Bush's twin daughters were caught by local police in Texas while drinking underage and using fake identification when ordering drinks. The criticisms then, as now, were focused on the perception that agents failed to protect the daughters from drinking underage and the ensuing embarrassment to the president and first lady. However, the Secret Service fulfilled its role in providing a secure environment and safely transporting the daughters home after their escapade to face the ire of their father and a media firestorm. The family suffered ample embarrassment due to the daughters' behavior, and it was not the Secret Service's duty to prevent the daughters from doing something that could lead to embarrassment.

Likewise, if the Secret Service was mandated to help a protectee avoid potential embarrassment, agents never would have allowed candidate Michael Dukakis to be photographed in a tank, or John Kerry to ski with news photographers in Idaho, where he promptly fell and berated his security detail with ample profanity for getting in his way. The Secret Service would surely never have allowed then-President Bill Clinton to "entertain" Monica Lewinsky anywhere, especially not in the Oval Office. The Secret Service does its job remarkably well, and the result is that protectees operate in an environment where they are perfectly safe enough to occasionally make fools of themselves.

CNS next cited another "expert":

"There are all kinds of levels of background checks that would make law enforcement raise their eyebrows," said Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

"I'm sure the Secret Service knew he was a wanted felon fugitive. What a scandal it would be if they didn't warn a president or first lady they were standing next to a convicted felon," he added.

It's standard operating procedure to check the Social Security number and date of birth of anyone who is going to be in a room with the president or first lady, Deeds said.

"If the Secret Service did not do the basic due-diligence check, then the questions are even more pointed," said Deeds. "Who ordered them not to do it and why? Was the Clinton campaign, and by extension the Democrat fundraising machine, so focused on money that they would violate basic security protocol?"

Deeds, like Rowan, may have some association with law enforcement, but apparently insufficient to have obtained accurate information about the Secret Service. It is entirely possible that the Secret Service had no idea that Hsu was a fugitive in a financial crime case, and it is also possible that a high level donor such as Hsu could be photographed next to Hillary Clinton without having been name checked. Since those two possibilities are separate issues, we will address them individually.

First we will tackle Deeds' inaccurate statement that the Social Security and date of birth of everyone who will be in the room with Hillary Clinton is checked. Imagine this scenario: Hillary Clinton will make a campaign appearance at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The arena seats approximately 18,000, and Hillary's campaign staff estimates that 8,000 free tickets have been distributed for the event. Hillary will, as Deeds contended, "be in a room" with this crowd of 8,000, but did her campaign staff record the name, date of birth, and social security number of every person who received a free ticket to the Staples Center event? No, because the event was free and open to anyone who wanted a ticket. Without that information, can the Secret Service perform name checks for everyone who will "be in a room" with Hillary during that event? The answer is obvious.

It is precisely because such name checks cannot be conducted for large crowds that those wishing to attend must pass through metal detectors and purse/bag screening before they can "be in a room" with Hillary. The environment for the protectee is safe of weapons and the Secret Service can provide close personal protection. As Hillary shakes hands with the crowd, photographs are routinely taken, thus on any given day her picture is taken with many voters or donors without providing their personal identifying information. Hillary is safe, but certainly unaware of the criminal records of the 8,000 in attendance.

The second inaccuracy set forth by Deeds and further supported by another "expert" quoted by CNS was the notion that Hillary's staff could have ordered the Secret Service not to perform a name check on Hsu (or anyone else), and that the more likely explanation was that the Secret Service knew Hsu was a fugitive but Hillary's staff told agents to ignore the outstanding warrant. This, according to CNS and the "experts" cited, is the only conceivable way that a fugitive who donated $850,000 could be photographed standing next to Hillary. This is how CNS's third expert stated it:

Clinton critic Gary Aldrich - an FBI agent for 26 years who was assigned from 1990 to 1995 to the White House during both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations to conduct background checks - thinks the Secret Service must have told someone on the campaign staff about the shady past of certain donors.

"Fundraising events, you don't want to be melees, so the guest list is carefully scrutinized," Aldrich told Cybercast News Service.

"It's likely the Secret Service would see there was a warrant for someone's arrest, and go to the point person. They may have been told to disregard the warrant. The Secret Service wouldn't tell the candidate, but the handlers, so she (Clinton) would have plausible deniability," he added.

Aldrich clearly knows very little about the Secret Service despite his assignment at the White House in the 1990's. Many people volunteer to work for political campaigns, usually as local volunteers. When their volunteer duties might bring them in proximity to a protectee like Hillary, perhaps as a driver of a staff car in a motorcade, the Secret Service demands personal identifying information and performs standard name checks. If a volunteer is found to have a criminal history that suggests a potential security risk, that volunteer is rejected and the Secret Service advises the permanent political staff to find another volunteer. The political staff cannot override the rejection.

The same principle applies to donors or celebrities who will be in close contact, such as meeting in small groups, with Hillary. If the Secret Service, in performing name checks for such meetings discovered that a potential guest was the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant, the agency would contact the jurisdiction that issued the warrant, verify that it is a currently valid warrant, and notify that jurisdiction of the subject's location. Aldrich, a known Clinton critic, also ignored the possibility that the state of California may have been unwilling to extradite Hsu. It is possible, if a name check was performed for Hsu, that the Secret Service contacted California officials, established that the warrant for Hsu was valid, but also learned that California would not extradite Hsu for a financial crime as opposed to a violent crime.

Not all local law enforcement agencies have the resources or legal authority to extradite fugitives, especially non-violent fugitives, from other states or Washington, DC. In that circumstance, the Secret Service would only be concerned with whether Hsu posed a safety risk to Hillary, which he clearly did not, and allow him access as requested by her staff. Unless California was willing to extradite, the Secret Service could not request that local police take Hsu into custody.

Conservative Clinton critics have seized upon the photos of Hsu standing with Hillary as proof positive that either she or the Secret Service, or both, knew about his warrant and did nothing about it either out of greed for campaign donations or a desire to avoid embarrassing a protectee. In the Hsu donation situation, however, there are more than enough plausible explanations to establish reasonable doubt that Hillary, her staff, or the Secret Service were aware of the outstanding warrant for Hsu. Best-selling fiction author Vince Flynn and the Clint Eastwood action thriller In the Line of Fire both offered plausible scenarios in which wealthy campaign donors get close to a protectee without raising red flags with the political staff or security detail. Political staff members have far too much freedom to personally vouch for visitors, which under some circumstances can bypass the Secret Service altogether. That was the weak link in security that Vince Flynn captured effectively in his novel Transfer of Power. A similar tactic is employed by John Malkovich's character in the film In the Line of Fire.

Rather than launching an opportunistic attack on Hillary Clinton by maligning the integrity and professionalism of the Secret Service, CNS should have more thoroughly researched the working relationships between a protectee's staff and security detail and the very different roles each plays. A political staff concerns itself with avoiding embarrassment, and Hillary's staff has vowed to be more proactive in checking the backgrounds of significant donors. The security detail concerns itself with keeping a protectee safe from harm, not embarrassment. Not surprisingly, the Secret Service declined to comment to CNS on the Hsu situation, as it is a political rather than security matter.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton Norman Hsu Campaign Donations Fugitive Secret Service Campaign Staff Presidential Candidates

Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz

Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.

There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.

Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.

Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction.

Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:

Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”

Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:

The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.

Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.

"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."

Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.

This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.

Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.

Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence

Mistake for Romney to Follow JFK Lead

Many observers of the 2008 presidential campaign are convinced that Republican candidate Mitt Romney should deliver a speech similar to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 explanation of how his religion would influence his political actions. The fact that JFK’s speech on his Catholicism ultimately succeeded in blunting criticisms from Protestant activists, political analysts suggest, is reason enough for Romney to adopt a similar strategy to assuage evangelical concerns over Romney’s faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). The temptation for Romney to provide potential voters with a JFK-style declaration on his faith is very strong, and Romney’s comments on the subject indicate he is likely to follow JFK’s example. That would be a mistake.

Romney should be wary of evangelicals or others who insist that a speech clarifying the role of faith in his life would benefit his campaign. When weighing advice given, one must consider two simple questions: what is the motive of the adviser, and who benefits from following the advice? For Romney, the answers to these questions as they relate to the advice that he should give a JFK-style religious speech suggest that Romney stands to gain little or nothing, while those giving the advice will receive their intended reward: the derailment of Romney’s candidacy.

First, Romney should examine the motives of those advising him to give a speech on his faith. Who are they? Some, of course, are fellow members of Romney’s faith who naively believe that by candidly discussing his faith and its influence on his politics he will silence criticism of the LDS church. Some are misguided but not malicious political pundits who take the lone example of JFK and extrapolate from it predictions of similar campaign success for Romney. Most are evangelicals and others who are far more interested in keeping Romney’s religion front and center in voters’ minds than they are in actually reconciling their doctrinal differences with his faith. This third group poses the greatest risk to Romney’s campaign because it capitalizes on the religious ignorance, indifference, or blatant bigotry of potential voters. The third group is well aware that as long as Romney’s religion is talked about more than his political views or policy positions, he will never be taken seriously enough to win the GOP nomination regardless of his early poll strength and impressive fundraising prowess.

Who benefits if Romney decides to deliver a speech addressing concerns over his faith? The prime beneficiary of such an act would be the media, through an endless stream of stories on every conceivable aspect of the LDS church and its history. One need only observe the media frenzy that occurs whenever an obscure polygamist from Arizona or rural Utah is discovered to get a sense of what would be in store for Romney. Every religion has some doctrine or controversy in its history, but the media rarely point out that very few Mormons ever practiced polygamy and the church ordered those who did to terminate the practice in the 1890s.

Romney should expect unfair characterizations, misleading headlines, and biased articles by the thousands in response to whatever he chooses to state about his faith. It is important for Romney to remember that anyone who advises him to stand in front of television cameras and reporters and talk about his membership in a church that is frequently stigmatized by the media likely does not have the candidate’s best interest in mind. It is revealing that the same choruses shouting for Romney to defend his religion are unwilling to demand that other candidates state their level of religious activity or explain their failures to live the tenets of their own faiths.

By following JFK’s example, Romney also will forever lose the constitutional high ground he now enjoys when he and his supporters point to Article VI and remind Americans that no religious test should be applied to candidates for office. Currently the talk of Romney’s faith emanates mainly from religious critics or media figures seeking to stir controversy where none should exist. If Romney addresses his faith in the manner he is considering, he would give the issue ample fuel to compel him to spend the remainder of a short-lived campaign answering endless questions about religion rather than why he would be a good choice for president. That aspect of his life is what makes him uniquely different from the other candidates, but what he should seek instead is to stand out from them through knowledge of the issues and charismatic leadership. Being different from the other candidates is a positive, but Romney must be mindful of what differences he chooses to emphasize.

This does not mean that Romney should evade all questions of religion or be secretive. On the contrary, Romney should allow the media to discover firsthand, as Reverend Al Sharpton did recently, that the LDS church routinely makes spokespersons or leaders available to address public and media inquiries about the doctrines and history of the church. Rather than stand as an unofficial representative of his church, Romney should refer his critics and the media to those who are officially qualified to answer questions such as what influence church leaders would have over an LDS president or to address controversial portions of LDS history. If Mike Wallace’s “60 Minutes” interview of LDS church President Gordon B. Hinckley several years ago or President Hinckley’s interviews with Larry King and the National Press Club in Washington DC were any indication, Romney’s church appears quite capable of engaging the media. The LDS church reportedly does not endorse any candidates and declares political neutrality. That fact is evidenced by the antics of Harry Reid on the left and polar opposite views and votes by Romney, Orrin Hatch, and others on the right.

Critics of Romney’s faith and his GOP rivals for the nomination are counting on religion to be the anchor that will hold Romney’s campaign securely in port rather than steaming confidently toward the presidency. By casting that anchor at the feet of his church’s highest leaders for handling, Romney’s campaign ship could sail far more smoothly and with fewer detours or course corrections than if he tackles the issue of faith on his own. The media and evangelical sharks are circling Romney’s boat, eager for a taste of religious debate. Romney would be well advised not to swim in those waters. Anyone in his camp who suggests otherwise should be made to walk the plank.


Technorati Tags:
Mitt Romney, JFK, Article VI, LDS, Mormon, Presidential Candidates, Campaign Strategy, Evangelicals, Gordon B. Hinckley, Religion in Politics

Gore's Denials Are Evidence He Will Run

Al Gore will officially become a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination. He just hasn’t admitted it to himself yet. Although he attempts to deny to the media that he intends to run, his denials themselves actually provide the best evidence that he will in fact seek the presidency again.

Experienced interviewers/interrogators will recognize certain patterns in Gore’s responses to questions about his potential candidacy, patterns consistent with attempts to deceive himself and the interviewer. There are noticeable similarities between Al Gore’s denials of presidential ambition and standard denials of involvement by criminals undergoing law enforcement or intelligence interrogation.

For example, many murderers, when asked during interrogations if they killed the victims, offer the following responses: “I could never do something like that” or “I loved her, how could I hurt her?” While these responses give an outward impression of denial, when examined closely they actually contain no denial of guilt and reveal an avoidance of the actual question. Such answers also demonstrate the inability of the suspect to admit to himself that not only was he capable of murder, but he actually went through with it when the opportunity presented itself. In the minds of many who have murdered or committed violent crimes, there remains the faint hope that what happened did not really happen and that they must be innocent because they have no explanation how they could be involved in something so grave. They literally attempt to convince themselves with internal arguments such as, “that couldn’t have been me, I’m not that kind of person, I would never do that.” Yet these are merely conscious deflections from the unconscious knowledge of what they have done. The conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true, and the conflict is expressed in the attempted denial that contains a belief about them rather than an admission of what actually occurred.

Now, Al Gore is not a murderer or criminal (although there was that pesky issue of selling military and nuclear technology to China), but his responses when asked if he will enter the presidential campaign contain most elements of deception and denial commonly encountered by law enforcement and intelligence interrogators. In a mere two sentences, Al Gore's words confirmed for me that he fully intends to run but refuses to admit to himself or the media that he cravenly harbors that ambition. In an interview with ABC News this week, Gore was asked the question everyone wants answered: will he run for president in 2008? Gore’s response follows:

Gore underscored in the interview that he is "not a candidate," and that he is "not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics. I'm really not."

But he does leave some wiggle room for the possibility of running in 2008. "Look, we're a year and half away from this election," he said, "[I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'”

As the ABC headline provided by Gore proclaimed, “I Am Not a Candidate.” That was Gore’s initial response when asked if he was running in 2008. While this gives the impression of a denial, it is not a denial but is instead a deflection. In this response Gore is stating a truth: he is currently not a declared candidate. This does not answer the question as to whether he intends to become a candidate. By answering in this fashion, Gore clearly wants to give the impression that he does not intend to seek the presidency but his conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true: he has already made plans to run.

Gore’s expanded response is even more revealing. He claimed that he is not actively looking for exactly the right circumstances that would force his run for the presidency, such as adulation and begging from his party. He even reinforced this claim by adding “I’m really not.” This statement also bears some resemblance to a denial, but it is not a denial. It demonstrated that Gore cannot consciously admit to himself that he would hungrily seek the presidency if the door appeared open to him. He may not be looking for the open door, but he will walk through it when he comes to it on his own or his party beckons him toward it. “I’m really not” simply means “I really am, but admitting that would mean I am ambitious and power hungry, and I cannot admit that to myself or the media yet. Not until the door is open.”

He has made similar comments in the media. To Time Magazine, Gore stated:

…that he "has fallen out of love with politics" and that he was unlikely to run.

"I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen," Gore told Time, explaining that he considered the role he was now playing as a global spokesman for awareness on climate change to be an important one.

"If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis. And I'm not convinced the presidency is the highest and best role I could play," he said in the cover story for the Time issue dated May 28.

Gore, who has repeatedly referred to himself as a recovering politician, warned however: "You always have to worry about a relapse."

The problem with falling out of love with politics, or anything else, is that falling back in love is common and unpredictable. In fact, the phrase “fall in love” is entirely inaccurate. Love is developed over time, through experience, trial, and sacrifice. One can become temporarily infatuated, but that is not love. Gore’s lifelong pursuit of political achievement and high office was akin to love, while his obsession with global warming and propaganda movie making is an extended infatuation dedicated to one convenient truth (sorry Al): keeping Gore politically viable while he licked his 2000 election wounds in preparation for 2008. His statement about falling out of love, while giving an impression of denial, was not a denial. If shown sufficient adulation by his party and his pet cause, Gore’s love of politics would quickly rekindle to its normal flame of obsession. Likewise, he claimed that he was not convinced that the presidency was the best role for promoting his global warming hysteria. He did not state, “I can never be convinced,” thus if the right people whispered the right things about global warming and the “bully pulpit” in his ear, he would surely find that convincing enough to jump into the ring while claiming he was issued a call to duty rather than fulfilling the lifelong ambition he publicly conceals.

Al Gore loves politics more than Priuses, campaigning more than carbon offsets, and the White House more than greenhouse gas reduction. If you believe Al Gore would rather be the world’s global warming guru than the President of the United States, you do not know Al Gore.

McCain Misses Point Of Democracy

If you hired an employee who only showed up for work 50% of the time, would you fire him? Any budget conscious employer would object to paying a full wage in return for a 50% effort. If you are an Arizona resident, you are paying the salary of someone employed to represent your interests, but who only shows up to represent you 50% of the time. You would not tolerate that from your personal attorney, or from your physician, but for some reason 50% is all you require from someone who influences your border security, your highway funding, your national defense, how much you pay in taxes, and other trivial matters. The Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing Blog tracks presidential candidates who masquerade as senators or congressmen if it does not cut into their visits to key early primary states. Which candidate leads the pack in dereliction of the duties voters hired him to perform for them? The culprit is Arizona Senator John McCain, who has now missed 42 straight votes in the Senate. To put that in context, voters have paid McCain’s monthly salary from mid-April to mid-May, and with the salary for that month McCain did not vote once in the Senate. Post reporter Paul Kane cleverly edited McCain’s political byline, which normally reads (R-AZ) to (R-Campaign Trail), and for good reason.

Of course, the demands of campaigning are very real and often underestimated by those who have never witnessed the daily operations of a campaign staff, security, and the candidates themselves. I do not begrudge McCain the need to be out on the road getting his message out, which if you’re an illegal alien celebrating the proposed Senate immigration bill appears to be “we’re glad you’re here and don’t care that you broke our laws, and we’re giving you a leg up on legal immigrants who continue to wait patiently and obeyed our laws.” But I digress. Additionally, other candidates who unfortunately (for their constituents) are also hampered by the pesky demands of holding public office are missing votes, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although both have missed far fewer votes than McCain (1.8% and 6.4%). Others seem to find time to campaign and continue doing the job for which they were elected, but not McCain. What caught my attention in the report of McCain’s missed votes were the criteria used by McCain and his staff to determine that missing 42 straight votes would not matter.

The following is a paragraph from Kane’s report that also contains a brief statement from the McCain campaign:

Granted, McCain isn't the only senator missing votes in favor of the presidential campaign trail. And as his staff has pointed out repeatedly, none of McCain's missed votes has made the difference in a bill's fate. In a statement to Capitol Briefing, McCain's campaign said, "Regrettably, it is impossible for a presidential candidate to avoid missing votes. The Senator has not missed a vote where his vote would have affected the outcome, and he will make every effort to be in the Senate on the occasions when it would."

The next time you hear a politician urge citizens to be actively involved in politics and to exercise their right to vote, or when you hear the bleak reports after each election in which barely 40% of Americans care enough to vote even when the handling of a war is at stake, the statement from McCain’s campaign should come to mind. When citizens in a democracy adopt the attitude that they should only vote when they are sure their vote will influence the outcome, democracy no longer functions. Yet McCain has adopted just such an attitude, and instead of voting so that his support or opposition is officially recorded he just skips the opportunity to cast his vote. The hypocrisy of McCain’s actions is clearly illustrated in his urging young Americans to become more active in politics and to vote.

The following is an excerpt from an article John McCain wrote for Washington Monthly in October 2001 titled “Putting the ‘National’ In National Service”:

Beyond such concrete needs lies a deeper spiritual crisis within our national culture. Since Watergate, we have witnessed an increased cynicism about our governmental institutions. We see its impact in declining voter participation and apathy about our public life---symptoms of a system that demands reform. But it's a mistake, I think, to believe that this apathy means Americans do not love their country and aren't motivated to fix what is wrong. The growth of local volunteerism and the outpouring of sentiment for "the greatest generation" suggest a different explanation: that Americans hunger for patriotic service to the nation, but do not see ways to personally make a difference.

What is lacking today is not a need for patriotic service, nor a willingness to serve, but the opportunity. Indeed, one of the curious truths of our era is that while opportunities to serve ourselves have exploded---with ever-expanding choices of what to buy, where to eat, what to read, watch, or listen to---opportunities to spend some time serving our country have narrowed.

Perhaps the decline in voter participation and the growing apathy about public life is a direct result of declining voter participation in the Senate. Why would McCain expect young Americans in particular to seek out opportunities to serve their country when he does not make good use of his ample opportunities to vote on important legislation? He decried selfishly serving ourselves, yet he avoids voting in the Senate while serving his own personal desire to be president. The excuse that a bill’s fate does not hang in the balance is inconsistent with conservative principles. If the constitution is to be taken seriously, then Senators should lead by example, conducting the people’s business and voting regardless of any predicted outcome.

Consider the case of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. One of the most intense controversies occurred when CNN, CBS, and other liberal-leaning networks declared that Al Gore was the projected winner in Florida long before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state, which is strongly Republican. Many voters in the panhandle, upon hearing that Gore was projected to win the state regardless of votes that had not yet been cast, made the unfortunate decision not to drive to the polls and wait in long lines. Like McCain’s Senate voting attitude, the outcome did not appear to be in the balance. The reality, realized later of course, was that every vote did count and had Florida panhandle voters not adopted the McCain criteria for voter participation, a large number of Republican votes would have made the entire vote count fiasco in West Palm Beach County completely unnecessary.

Senator McCain is a war hero and a patriot, but he appears to have missed the point of democracy, a point that we have been trying to teach in the fragile Iraqi democracy: we do not vote only if our vote will clearly make the difference, we vote because we can. Once we no longer appreciate that privilege, we have surrendered our right to freedom.

Other posts referencing John McCain:
McCain’s League Proposal is “Super”
Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors “Not An Option”: Heroic POWs In History Considered It The Only Option
McCain: “I’m Sure I Have A Policy On That, I Just Need To Check What It Is”
Forgetting The Unforgettable: Pills May Soon Erase Traumatic Memories

Report Cards For First GOP Debate

It’s difficult to imagine that any Capital Cloak reader did not watch last night’s first GOP presidential candidates debate on MSNBC with rapt attention, but in case you missed it or only caught some of the mocking pre- and post- debate commentary from MSNBC, I offer my observations on and grades for each candidate and the moderators. Before I delve into those items, I have to express my absolute shock that a 90 minute debate featuring ten Republicans included not one mention of the 2nd Amendment gun control issue, particularly in light of the Virginia Tech massacre last month. Nor was there a question about gay marriage or a marriage amendment. This was truly baffling. If the debate was intended to help conservative voters determine which candidate shared their values, it fell far short by omitting two critical issues for most conservatives. A word on the grades I have assigned; the grades represent how the candidate performed in this debate and are not an indication of my endorsement of any candidacy. If this post seems rather long, well, remember there were 10 participants, all of them politicians who spoke for 90 minutes. Enough said on that! Now, on with the show:

Rudy Giuliani: grade B+
Memorable quotes:
-“We should never back down from terrorists.”
-“Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational. When our enemies look at the U.S. President, they have to see Reagan. They looked in Reagan’s eyes and in 2 minutes released the hostages.”
-“I hate abortion. I encourage adoption, but it’s an issue of conscience. A Woman should have choice.”
-“President Bush made the right decision on 9/20/01 by putting us on offense. The Clinton administration had left us on defense.”
-“I ran a city that was 5-1 Democrat.”

Observations: Giuliani was strong, as expected, on 9/11, national security, and tamper proof identification cards and databases to control immigration and provide monitoring of visiting foreigners. He pointed out that in the recent Democratic candidates debate none of the candidates even spoke the phrase “Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.” Giuliani was candid on abortion, clearly stating he wanted women to have the choice even if he is morally opposed to it. When asked whether he would welcome the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Giuliani stated, “it would be ok,” while the other candidates (except Gilmore) welcomed an overturn with great fervor. He also seemed ok if it were not overturned. This was hardly a reassuring answer for those concerned with his future Supreme Court nominees if elected. Giuliani also spoke in favor of amending constitution to allow naturalized citizens like Governor Schwarzenegger to run for president. He was not the only candidate to agree with that position, but appeared to be the one most blatantly pandering for “The Governator’s” endorsement. Voters seeking a candidate who will be tough on terrorism, crime, and national security likely heard what they wanted to hear, while social and judicial conservatives heard little to ease their concerns on abortion, gay marriage, and original intent constitutional advocates.

John McCain: grade B
Memorable quotes: In describing the applause on the House floor after passing the Iraq War emergency funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal, McCain asked, “What were they cheering on the House floor? Surrender?”
-“I will follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell.”
-“I would not have mismanaged this war.”
-On embryonic stem cell research, McCain stated, “I would fund it. It is a tough issue, but these embryos will be discarded or indefinitely frozen. We must do all we can to alleviate human suffering.”
-When asked if there were any names he was considering for cabinet positions other than Joe Lieberman, McCain stated, “Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman.”
-On the same question, McCain added, “I don’t care if people with expertise are Democrats, I would ask them to come and serve their country and share their talents.”

Observations: McCain was clearly nervous and had difficulty with stammering and dry throat as he began each of his responses. However, he warmed to each topic and while delivering his answers he became more confident in his delivery. He made a mistake by pointing out to viewers that he was not the youngest candidate even though no one had raised the issue of his age. He also appeared irate when he felt he had been cut off by Chris Matthews before his time had expired, testily stating, “I thought I had a yellow light.” He was right, but he came across as easily angered and less than gracious. McCain (and later Romney) were the only candidates who directly named names in their critiques of Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, with McCain taking Harry Reid to task for his “this war is lost” remark. McCain stood firm on his support for embryonic stem cell research, but curiously he provided a weak response when asked what he would do to contain Iran’s nuclear program. On that issue, he advocated every conceivable form of political, economic, and diplomatic pressure, but did not agree with the assertion that Iran had crossed the line requiring military intervention. A follow up question from Matthews asked what McCain’s “trip wire” would be with Iran that would prompt a military response, and McCain listed Iran building a nuclear bomb as that trip wire. Duncan Hunter would later hammer McCain effectively on this “trip wire.” MSNBC’s post-debate analysts recognized McCain’s emotional, flustered initial responses, but appeared sweet on him while taking shots at Romney and Giuliani. This kid gloves treatment from the liberal media is precisely what fuels talk about McCain’s embrace of too many liberal ideas and his hero status among the MSM.

Mitt Romney: grade A-
Memorable quotes:
-“Don’t buy into the Demo pitch that the War on Terror is all about one person, Osama Bin Laden. This is a global jihad effort to topple all moderate Islamic governments and destroy freedom.”
-“Americans unite over faith. Our enemies divide by religion and faith.”
-“I vetoed tax increases hundreds of times as governor. I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington’s budget.”
-“We need to get more marriages before babies. The most important work we do is within the 4 walls of our homes.”
-When asked whether it would really be bad for America to have Bill Clinton living in the White House again, Romney replied, “You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing that would be worse than that would be to have the gang of three running the War on Terror: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton.”

Observations: Romney was well prepared, smooth in his responses, and clearly is comfortable with the media. He spoke passionately on strengthening national security, winning the Iraq War, and dealing aggressively to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. His response on what to do in Iraq was less than stellar because he did not talk about winning the war. Talk of preventing chaos upon our eventual withdrawal is not the same as stating that winning is what we should do before we pull out. Romney was firm on his stance against embryonic stem cell research, making a good case for adult stem cell use instead, even citing the research of a specific doctor who has had success without the need for embryonic cells. His responses on abortion helped viewers follow the progression of his position on government involvement while clarifying that personally he has always opposed abortion on moral grounds. Romney ducked the question of whether he would pardon Scooter Libby if he were were president, but he forcefully and with a full command of the facts of the case castigated the federal prosecutor for questioning Libby about the Valerie Plame CIA leak incident even though it had already been established that Libby was not the leak (Richard Armitage was). Romney’s defense of Libby could be viewed as a display of loyalty to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as both will campaign hard for the GOP nominee next year. That cynical interpretation is unlikely, as it is widely rumored (for good reason, I might add) that President Bush and Former First Lady Barbara Bush already favor Romney in this race. MSNBC’s Scarborough stated after the debate that Romney is a skilled public performer and “pops” on stage, like Reagan used to. In short, in MSNBC’s estimation, if anyone came out of the debate bearing Reagan’s mantle, it was Romney.

Mike Huckabee: grade A-
Memorable quotes: “We gave our troops limited funds and many restrictions and told them ‘you have to do it with this.’ That was wrong.”
-When asked whether he would favor amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens (Schwarzenegger in particular) to run for president, Huckabee looked at “The Governator” and stated, “After 8 years as president I would be happy to amend the Constitution for the Governator.”
-“We celebrate life. This separates us from the terrorists who strap bombs to their children and blow them up. When hikers get lost on Mt. Hood, we move heaven and earth to rescue them. When coal miners in West Virginia are trapped we go after them. Ours is a culture of life.”
-“My faith explains me, no apology for that. My faith affects my decision making process. One’s faith shouldn’t qualify or disqualify anyone from office. But we should be honest about the impact of our faith on who we are.”
-“It’s too early to give the Bush admin a final grade before the test is over.”
-“I know the Clintons better than anyone here and it would be bad for either of them to be in the WH.”

Observations: I was not as familiar with Huckabee as some of the other candidates, and his performance in this first debate was impressive and a pleasant surprise. He was not flustered by any questions, did not try to be all things to all people, and seemed most comfortable expressing his personal views without apology. That may be because he is polling so low he feels he has nothing to lose by his candor, but even so, he came across as personable, genuine, and well prepared on the issues and how to perform on stage. As someone who opposes amending the constitution for The Governator, Huckabee’s response on that issue was disappointing. On social issues, Huckabee pleased the conservative base by opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion. When discussing national security, his responses were not as specific as Giuliani, Romney, or Hunter. Huckabee drifted more into the McCain ambiguity, citing platitudes but offering no clear indication of what he would do in Iraq or to contain Iran.

Duncan Hunter: grade B+
Memorable quotes: “Let’s not get to the edge of the cliff with Iran’s uranium enrichment. Iran has crossed the line already by moving weapons into Iraq that are killing our troops. America already has license to use any force necessary to halt Iran’s efforts in Iraq.”
-Responding to a question about illegal immigration, Hunter described the border fence erected in his Congressional district in San Diego, “It’s a double fence. it’s not that scraggly little fence you see on CNN. I built that fence. And we have made an enforceable border.”
-“The dumb trade deal we signed with the rest of the world is killing our manufacturers. We need to give tax breaks to businesses that stay in US and hire American workers.”
-“China is cheating on trade and we are losing our industrial base. China is an emerging threat.”

Observations: Hunter was another somewhat pleasant surprise, and as expected, he was the most forceful on winning the Iraq War and keeping America on a strong defense footing, reminiscent of Reagan’s peace through strength philosophy. His response on what should be done about Iran came as a direct slap at McCain, who declined to state he would commit to military action against Iran until they were building bombs. Hunter seized on that and offered his terrific rebuttal quoted above. The edge of the cliff analogy was very effective and made McCain seem like an appeaser by comparison. Hunter was emotional when answering questions about Iraq, but given his son’s military service there it would be more troubling if Hunter spoke dispassionately about the topic. I felt he made a good point about our trade policies and how they are hurting American businesses while strengthening China, an emerging potential threat. Unfortunately he continued making that point in more than one answer, and came across on trade like Ahab fixating on his white whale. Hunter needs to do a lot more research and work on issues dear to the hearts of social conservatives, as his responses on Abortion and stem cells were canned platitudes that seemed far less genuine than Huckabee’s, Romney’s, McCain’s or even Giuliani’s.

Tommy Thompson: grade B
Memorable quotes: “We should require the Maliki government to vote on whether they want us there to give us credibility for our mission in Iraq.”
-“Republicans lost their way. We came to change Washington and Washington changed us.”
-“As governor of Wisconsin I vetoed 1900 things.”

Observations: As you can see from the short list of memorable quotes, I did not find Thompson’s performance compelling or memorable. Thompson was the proverbial deer in the headlights when asked a question about homosexual rights in the workplace. I could have sworn I heard crickets chirping as the camera captured his furrowed brow while no words came out of his mouth. It was an awkward question, but his delay was the unmistakable sign of a politician searching not for the answer he truly believes but rather the one he has to say out of political correctness. He was not much better when asked whether he was for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He argued that he could not answer yes or no because too much research is in progress to make such a determination. Thompson needs to remember that there will always be research going on, in every field, but leaders have to make decisions often without the final piece of a puzzle. If Thompson ever expects to rise above single digits in any polls, he will have to learn to answer debate questions with confidence and in full. After 90 minutes of debate no one had any idea where he stood on stem cells, and it was a yes or no question. Evasiveness is never a good trait in a leader.

Tom Tancredo: grade C
Memorable quotes: Corruption is not unique to the Republican Party. It is a failure of individuals.”
-“No more platitudes! Let’s see clearly who is where on the immigration issue.”
-“We must appeal the 16th amendment and adopt a fair tax”(consumption tax).
-“Stem cell research is morally reprehensible in many ways.”

Observations: Tancredo had perhaps the toughest sell, given the way the media has pigeon-holed him into one issue, illegal immigration. If nothing else, Tancredo is principled, leaving no doubt about his opposition to abortion, the border, or embryonic stem cell research. In fact, he was so firm in his views on embryonic stem cells that he called Nancy Reagan’s cause celebre “morally reprehensible” with her seated in the front row looking directly at him. If he could do that, he would likely succeed in staring down Putin or Ahmadinejad if called upon to do so, but it was a tactless way to phrase it, especially while other candidates made the same point without being ugly in front of the debate host. He came across throughout as the neighborhood crank, complaining about many issues but offering few solutions other than improved border security. He is an important figure insofar as he brings attention to issues, but did not display much in the way of leadership potential or charisma that could rally the party base to victory.

Sam Brownback: grade C-
Memorable quotes: None.

Observations: Brownback appears to be the GOP’s Al Gore, at least where delivery, vocal inflections, and facial expression are concerned. He was wooden most of the time, and when he was more animated he looked like a claymation figure compared to the smoothly animated Romney standing next to him. He offered some nice complements to the other candidates and made one salient point. Any one of the men on stage would be fine presidents compared to having a Democrat in the White House. Yet while Brownback sang “koombaya” his opponents were separating themselves further from him in the polls by answering with more than generalities and clichés.

Ron Paul: grade D
Memorable quotes: None

Observations: Viewers do not like to be scolded, and Ron Paul is a scolder. His whining attacks on the Iraq War drowned out anything of substance he tried to express on other issues. His libertarian philosophies hold some appeal, especially regarding strict interpretation of the constitution’s original intent, but the messenger in this case does not represent the message well. The most telling moment for Paul came when he was asked to provide an example of a time when he had to make a critical crisis decision. He had no answer, and stated as much. Struggling to come up with something, he attempted to portray his 5 year history of votes against the Iraq War as an answer to the question, which it was not. He further attempted to explain that perhaps his decision to run for president might count. Neither was even close to answering the clear intent behind the question. Giuliani could point to the morning of 9/11 for a host of critical decisions he made as mayor of New York. Romney could point to his jumping into the 2002 Olympic scandal and making critical decisions to rapidly solve the corruption and restore the image of Salt Lake City and the U.S. to the international community. He also referred to critical decisions made as governor of Massachusetts. Paul came across as an ideologue who has never actually confronted a crisis and resolved it with his personal leadership, and this permanently cemented his insignificance in the campaign.

Jim Gilmore: Grade D
Memorable quotes: None
Observations: Was Gilmore on stage? I do not recall him saying anything compelling or that distinguished him in any way from his opponents. I do remember laughing when he stated, in response to the question asking him to explain a time when he had to make a critical decision in a crisis, that when 9/11 occurred he was governor of Virginia and participated on a committee to address security issues with federal, state, and local government agencies. Only a politician would equate sitting on a committee with actually handling a crisis. If there is time to form a committee and discuss matters before reaching decisions, where is the crisis?

Moderator Chris Matthews: grade B
Observations: Matthews was tough on Romney and Giuliani, cutting them off in mid-sentence more than the others as well as asking them more follow up questions. He was fairly good at keeping the debate moving. Matthews did little to disguise his disdain for each candidate and if Tony Snow had been there, he would have chastised Matthews for asking questions in a “snarky” manner. Still, considering it was an MSNBC production, it could have been worse.

Matthews and the Politico.com co-moderators did ask some interesting questions:

Q-To Romney from Politico reader- What do you like least about America? This was the dumbest question of the night and it threw Romney for a loop because he is not part of the hate America crowd. I am glad he could not come up with anything but instead praised America for what it has been and will yet be.

Q- Matthews to Gilmore and Tancredo- Is Karl Rove your friend? Would you employ Karl Rove?- This was the second dumbest question and the candidates treated it accordingly.

Q- Politico reader- What’s with all the Republican corruption? The follow up to this was “What have you learned no to do from the GOP corruption scandals?” Right. That question wasn’t intentionally used as a double slam of the GOP.

Q- Would it be bad for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House? Matthews asked this of all, and all said no but Romney and Huckabee stated it best as quoted above.

Final Observations:
I noticed that Giuliani and Romney defended each other on the need for “tamper proof” identification cards when Matthews and other candidates misunderstood the issue and thought the cards were meant as a national ID card for all Americans. Romney had to wave down Matthews to clarify that the cards were only for visiting foreigners as a security and immigration tool, and Giuliani backed Romney by adding that the cards were not meant for all Americans. That ended the issue as no one had any reason to oppose it once they understood it. During that exchange, Romney and Giuliani clearly looked at each other, and it appeared that they had discussed this issue with each other previously and had formed an alliance of sorts. Could this be a harbinger of things to come, such as a Giuliani-Romney ticket? That was the impression I had when listening to their views, and observing their demeanor toward each other.

One thing we definitely learned is that when it comes to courage, the GOP is head and shoulders above the DNC. Whereas the DNC refuses to participate in any debates sponsored by FOX News, the GOP was willing to have its candidates appear on a notoriously biased network with a sneeringly biased moderator in Matthews without backing down or taking their ball and running home like the Democrats did from the Nevada debate sponsored by Fox. That debate was canceled on account of cowardice.

Ten candidates is six too many for any substantive debate to occur, but in this first test of the candidates mettle, they performed admirably, though not spectacularly. I would gladly have exchanged Tommy Thompson for Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback for Newt Gingrich, and then we could have learned a lot more about who the nominee will be. Two critical influences were not present, and while they are smart to avoid the dogfights of the early debates, it makes me resent that they will surely swoop in at the last minute and erase the work of these candidates without spending a dime or stepping in the ring to trade blows.

Who won the first debate? Out of the three serous contenders on stage, Romney came out on top, with Giuliani and McCain neck and neck behind him. Out of those with little hope and thus nothing to lose, Huckabee was stellar. Taking the field as a whole, I would rate Romney first, in part because there were more direct and thorny questions posed of him first than Huckabee, who was served a lot of softballs by “hardball” Chris Matthews but still deserved a close second place.

I’m already looking forward to round two.