Conservative Defends Hillary from Obama

Conservatives should rise to defend Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.

Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.

Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.

Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?

I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.

In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.

It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.

There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.

For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.

Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.

For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.

Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.


Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals

Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

Hillary Bets On Socialism's Appeal in 2008

Hillary Clinton is often touted as the “most intelligent woman in America.” I have an aunt who is practically salivating (or is that foaming at the mouth?) over the prospect of a Hillary presidency, as Hillary will surely solve all of America’s inequalities with a woman’s touch. Political pundits like Dick Morris insist that the “Clinton Machine” is unstoppable and will make no significant errors while piloting her over any rocky reef en route to the White House in 2008. If one accepts any of these paradigms, Hillary’s speech to the Manchester (NH) School of Technology this week was quite a conundrum; it was either a major and suicidal campaign sinker or it signaled that the Democratic Party believes America is ready to abandon its 231 year experiment with self-determination and capitalism.

Here are a few highlights from the AP/Yahoo story:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

…"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Karl Marx? Lenin? Stalin? No, these are the views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, socialist extraordinaire. The only chance “workers” have for success is when the government steps in to “help.” It isn’t fair that some get rich while others remain poor. “Fairness doesn’t just happen,” the government must make life fair by punishing achievers for having too much success. These are the tenets of socialism, with “fairness” serving as the emotionally charged catchphrase slogan to disguise the intended vehicle for Hillary’s version of “fairness.” Had this Manchester speech been a slip-up or something taken out of context, it would still stand out as particularly socialist. However, Hillary has gone down this road before. This is what she said in June 2004:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Now that’s an inspiring campaign slogan for a potential American president!

I recently wrote that America’s leaders are becoming more French while France’s leaders are becoming more American. Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a platform consisting of the following: Fight the War on Terror as America’s ally; reform France’s immigration system, particularly as it applies to the influx of Muslim immigrants; shrink the government’s role in providing social services (including socialized medicine) to its citizens; eliminate the 35 hour work week and promote more work, greater achievement, and less dependence on government subsidies for the unemployed and business owners.

Contrast that winning French platform with what Hillary is proposing for America in 2008: retreat from Iraq and giving al Qaeda victory in the War on Terror; “reform” America’s immigration policy through amnesty and citizenship for 12-20 million illegal aliens; increase the role of government by providing massive new services such as “universal health care” (socialized medicine) and replacing economic self-determination with “shared prosperity” through government intervention (socialism).

When considered from this perspective, electing Hillary would place America on a sure path to becoming socialist France, while the French electing Sarkozy placed them on a course to emulate capitalist America. Hillary’s GOP opponents should wield these contrasts like a political bludgeon, hitting her hard every time she utters a phrase that espouses socialist tendencies and bluntly referring to her as a socialist. This is why her speech was a conundrum. The “Clinton machine” so ominously reverenced by Dick Morris must surely know that the majority of Americans will reflexively vote against someone who can effectively be branded as a socialist, yet they do nothing to curb her references to “shared prosperity” or government provided fairness. Why is Hillary speaking so openly of her socialist ideas during a primary campaign cycle when it can so easily be used later in the general election cycle by the GOP nominee to paint her (accurately) as a socialist?

Two reasons come to mind. First, Hillary must earn the nomination of her party, which embraces Euro-socialist ideals, and she will not be the nominee without establishing, at least verbally, her socialist credentials. Instead of “street cred”, the DNC demands “Soc cred,” the promise that all people will be given everything they need or want through government services. Second, Hillary’s advisers truly believe America is ripe for a socialist harvest in 2008. Despite record stock market growth and peaks, despite record low unemployment (4%), and despite the highest percentage of Americans owning their own homes in the nation’s history, Hillary’s camp is preaching the gospel of class envy and apparently is betting that they can convince voters by 2008 that the economy is failing, everyone is out of work, no one can afford health insurance, and the rich are grinding the faces of the poor every chance they get.

It is ironic that the same liberals who insist that Darwin was right about evolution and natural selection refuse to accept capitalism as economic Darwinism, with the survival of the fittest as the linchpin of a free market system. Are animals that cannot adapt through evolution allowed to survive out of “fairness?” Should businesses that produce a product no longer wanted in the market be protected from their competitors who are meeting market demands for new and better goods? Should workers who are incompetent or unproductive be protected from termination out of “fairness?” For that matter, what should be done with candidates who lose elections? After all, it isn’t “fair” that one should prosper while another languishes in defeat. Who decides what is “fair,” the government? No thanks.

The government has never been the solution to poverty, unemployment, racism, or any of the other social ills that can infect society. Poverty has proven much more virulent war opponent than terrorism. FDR could not eliminate it, Johnson waged a “war on poverty” but poverty, like the impervious cockroach, seems to survive all threats to its existence. Could it be that poverty survives because economic “fairness” is a socialist utopian dream that runs counter to nature? There have always been, and will always be rich and poor people in every society, but do the poor need rescuing? It is the arrogance of the wealthy (and most liberal socialists are rich, like Clinton) to assume that success in life must be measured by the accumulation of wealth. There can be dignity in poverty, usually far more dignity and humility than is found among the affluent. If success is measured, as it should be, by living an honorable life, then one does not need income redistribution or “fairness” in economic opportunity to be successful in life.

Socialism has failed in every respect in every society that has ever attempted to live by it, yet the DNC, and Hillary in particular, continue to aggressively foist it upon America as the magic medicinal tonic that will cure all of society’s ills. Rather than taking Hillary’s or Obama’s or any other American liberal’s endorsement of socialism at face value, we should consider some dissenting opinions:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'" - Thomas Jefferson

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to ‘help.’” – Thomas Sowell

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’” — Ronald Reagan

The “Clinton machine” would have us believe that a vote for Hillary is a vote for “fairness,” but as Reagan stated, there is only an up or down. Voting for Hillary is voting for Marx, rather than Jefferson. The Founding Fathers defined fairness as the opportunity to succeed or fail based on the inherent capacities of the individual (see Jefferson above). Hillary wants to assure that no one can fail, thus clearly she has abandoned the intent and content of our founding documents. Socialism does not just happen. We do not wake up one morning, fire up the Internet and read on Capital Cloak that America became a socialist nation overnight. However, if we continue to embrace government programs as the solution to poverty or social problems, the addiction to socialism will become unbreakable while we were sleeping.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton Socialism Shared Prosperity Presidential Campaign

GOP Second Debate Report Cards

The second GOP candidates’ debate last night in Columbia, South Carolina was in every respect superior to the sophomoric production by MSNBC in the previous debate. The audience was treated to professionalism, “gotcha” questions, and a brilliant terrorism scenario designed by Fox News to reveal what the candidates would or would not do to protect America; Carl Cameron, who prophetically (or was it conspiratorially?) predicted moments before the debate that he anticipated one of the second tier candidates saying something unusual or controversial that would trip up some of the top tier candidates. See the Giuliani and Paul grade summaries for details of that magically fulfilled prophecy.

For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.

Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:

That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.

In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.

Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.

Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.

Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.

Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.

Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:

You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.

McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.

Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?

The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.

John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.

Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.

McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.

The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:

We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.

Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.

Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.

Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.

Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?

Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.

The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.

Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”

Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.

Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.

James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.

The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.

Photo Credits: Time.com

The Romney Campaign's Baffling Mistake

For a man who has gone to great lengths to downplay the role of personal religious practice in the selection of an American president, 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney may have gotten what he deserved in his recent verbal exchange with Al Sharpton. By that I do not mean that Sharpton was right, or that his comments about Romney’s faith were not bigoted (they were). On the contrary, Sharpton insulted Romney and Romney’s faith in the same manner Sharpton insults nearly all faiths and ethnicities that differ from his narrow world view. Romney deserved the follow-up criticisms of his faith and subsequent media scrutiny because Romney demonstrated poor judgment by acknowledging and commenting on anything spoken by Al Sharpton in the first place. If the decision was made by a campaign advisor, Romney should start seeking new talent in a hurry. Romney and his team should have recognized Sharpton for the race and religious baiter that he is and not given it a second thought.

If Romney’s goal was to run for president on his substantial and impressive record in politics, business, and family life without having to pass a religious “litmus test,” he could not have chosen a worse course of action than publicly complaining about Sharpton's statements. This was a religious debate in New York City between a raving racist self-proclaimed “reverend” (Sharpton), and an avowed Atheist (Christopher Hitchens). If Romney intends to decry every disparaging remark made about his religion by anyone of prominence, he will ultimately spend far more time doing so in his campaign than describing his views and convincing voters he would make a good president.

What did Romney hope to accomplish by entangling himself in a religious tug of war with Sharpton? Why, if he did not want his religion to be a determining factor for voters, did he engage in religious discussions he knew would draw national attention? Some may argue that Romney was shrewd to allow himself to draw fire from a known bigot and an Atheist, as doing so would arouse the sympathy of religious conservatives (and it did, including Ralph Reed, who staunchly defended Romney on Hannity & Colmes last night). While this may seem a plausible explanation in the immediate aftermath of the incident and continuing verbal exchanges between Sharpton and Romney, it is more likely that this questionable decision will harm Romney’s campaign by making religion the defining issue, or at least the issue receiving the most media coverage.

Sharpton will not back down. He will never sincerely apologize. He will only continue to do what he has already done, which is to escalate his rhetoric against Romney’s faith by raising questions about his church’s restriction on blacks receiving the priesthood, which was discontinued in 1978. Simply by acknowledging Sharpton and commenting to the press, Romney opened himself to attacks publicized in the national media questioning whether his faith is truly Christian (which it clearly is) and whether it practiced discrimination (which it did not, if one accepts the LDS Church’s official declaration issued in 1978). Few will remember what Romney’s stances on terrorism and the economy are while the media focuses on his faith and its mysterious or misunderstood past, depending on one’s point of view.

Romney granted extensive media access to his family and addressed his religious views and the role of religion in his life in Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. As I read the book it seemed that Romney was hoping that Hewitt's work, written as it was by a popular radio host, blogger, and Evangelical, would satisfy national curiosity and answer any question as to whether a candidate’s faith should influence his perceived qualifications for the presidency. Instead of letting the book serve that purpose, aided by his low-profile responses to questions about his faith, Romney has now allowed others to frame the debate over his religion and he finds himself responding defensively. If the best defense is a good offense, then Romney made a tactical error by stepping into a defensive role in a national arena.

Romney would have been well served to do what most Americans do: ignore Sharpton’s vitriolic attention seeking. The "reverend" does not represent the beliefs and values of even a tiny fraction of African-Americans, and Romney could have further marginalized Sharpton by refusing to take his bait. Instead, Romney has now become the only GOP candidate who voters will mentally connect with Sharpton. In mudslinging, the innocent party is often splattered but needs not remain in range of further salvos or join his adversary in the mud. Romney can expect more attacks and will deserve them, not because they are fair, but because, like a matador, he could have side-stepped a perpetually charging Sharpton but chose instead to be gored.

Thompson Juggled Abortion Hot Potato

In the 1994 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), then-candidate for Senate Fred Thompson completed a survey detailing the policies or programs he would support if elected. As reported by the New York Sun’s political blog yesterday, NPAT has released Thompson’s survey responses for comparison with those already in the race for the 2008 GOP nomination. It should be remembered that policy positions change over time, such as the evolution of Mitt Romney’s views on abortion. These survey responses from Thompson were offered in 1994, the same year Mitt Romney bravely ran against Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just as Romney’s experiences as Governor of Massachusetts changed his views on the government’s role in abortion and preserving traditional marriage, Thompson’s experiences in the Senate and subsequent private life may have evolved since both were GOP candidates for the Senate in 1994.

Having allowed for the possibility that Thompson has changed his views on some issues since 1994, I call attention to his NPAT survey results on certain issues, particularly abortion. The NPAT web site listed the survey question on abortion and Thompson’s responses. According to the web site, candidates were asked only to identify which items they would support, not what they would oppose. Thompson’s responses on abortion were as follows:

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

0 A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

0 Other

The most glaring omission in the NPAT survey was the failure to ask the candidates whether they support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most noticeable item Thompson indicated support for was “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” These is a sweeping statement, that will not be easy for him to explain away, particularly when critics examine the items he did not express support for above.

Thompson clearly supported every item that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose abortion rather than carry a baby to term. A closer look at the items Thompson did not express support for reveals a rather radical pro-abortion position for someone who is being touted as a potential heir to Ronald Reagan conservatism:

1. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer indicated that Thompson felt women should have the choice to abort for convenience rather than as an emergency procedure used as a last resort.

2. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer was a further affirmation of a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason, whether for mere birth control convenience or for coping with the results of horrible crimes. By not supporting this item, Thompson revealed that in his mind abortion was no last resort measure but rather a fundamental female right.

3. He did not support the item “A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.” This response was truly remarkable for someone who is now hyped as a staunch conservative. The idea that two people join in a procreative act that results in the conception of a child, but that only one, the woman, has the right to determine whether that life will be terminated because she will bear the brunt of inconvenience is the epitome of selfish liberalism. The woman chose to participate in the act and the baby’s DNA is an equal contribution of man and woman. Wherein lays the supremacy of the female right to that of her husband or partner except in the liberal feminist mind? Thompson came down solely for the inviolable rights of the woman, but ignored the man and most importantly, ignored the baby’s right to life. Thompson approved of terminating a baby without telling the baby’s father. Marginalizing men is a curious position for a candidate revered for his “tough talk” and manly demeanor.

Now we move to the political hot potato juggling act performed by nearly all candidates for national office in all campaigns, the survey item: “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.” Thompson supported this item, and in doing so joined the ranks of thousands of other candidates over the years who claim that this position restores such social policy decisions to the states where they allegedly belong under the constitution. The pro-life movement will be pleased with Thompson's desire to end all federal funding of abortion and leave abortion for states to tackle. This is a very popular response, but it is the ultimate pass the buck cop out position when candidates simply do not want to deal with the topic of abortion or offend any potential voters.

What does it really mean when a candidate states that this issue of abortion should be left up to the states? Do they mean that states, with their differing ethnic and cultural traditions, should have the right to determine, on a local level, whether abortion is consistent with their values and thus legal or illegal? The chaos resulting from that situation would be inevitable. Yet it also skirts the real issue: The federal government, not state governments, is empowered to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with life listed as the first sacred, inviolable right the national government should protect. States are not encumbered by this requirement, and are thus wholly inadequate for the task of uniformly preserving life for all Americans, whether they live in liberal California or conservative Utah.

This nation witnessed the result of leaving slavery in the hands of individual states. It took a civil war and a victory by the federal government’s position to free the slaves. The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s were further evidence that leaving civil rights legislation to individual states would never achieve equality, but would rather allow permanent discrimination according to local traditions. Only when the federal government intervened by enacting civil rights legislation to overrule state governments were civil rights established and protected. Abortions will not disappear if left to individual states any more than segregated lunch counters or drinking fountains did. If the right to life is to be championed, the federal government must lead that fight. The disingenuous “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states” answer to questions of life and civil liberties is used by candidates and incumbents alike merely to dodge a controversial topic while sounding statesmanlike.

For the GOP and conservative Independents who oppose abortion, Thompson’s stated position on abortion in 1994 presents a significant obstacle to embracing him with open arms as so many appear wont to do. Romney had the opportunity to demonstrate his convictions through his veto pen as governor, leaving a clear record of pro-life activism that gives credibility to the evolution of his stance on government intervention on behalf of life. Thompson will have no such executive veto record to prove the credibility of whatever position he eventually attempts to claim once he announces his candidacy. All we know for sure is what his views were as a Senate candidate in 1994. As an effective politician, however, he will surely continue to juggle the abortion hot potato until it begins to burn and then attempt to toss it to the states.

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.