Report Cards For GOP Third Debate

After watching CNN’s GOP presidential candidates’ debate last night, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities in style between CNN’s debate questions and Scooter Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s Ahab-like quest to harpoon the Bush administration. CNN’s debate panel conducted a two hour indictment of the Bush administration, with most of the questions framed in negative terms designed to convince the viewing audience that the Republican Party is a war-mongering, policy bungling, corrupt group in bed with big oil. Questions such as “what was the biggest mistake made by President Bush” or “In what capacity would you utilize a former president George W. Bush if you were president” were clearly intended to force the candidates to focus and speak openly only of the president’s shortcomings and portray his terms as president as unmitigated failures they wanted to distance themselves from at all costs.

There was a question about whether the GOP is too closely allied with “big oil” as well as a question asking whether the candidates would pardon Scooter Libby, thus further injecting politics into what should have been a legal question in the first place. There was no crime committed, no leak of a covert operatives name (Plame was not covert under the legal definition), hence Libby’s “perjury” was not on a substantive issue before the court. Liberals want to force President Bush not to pardon Libby, and making it an issue in this debate was merely a ploy to increase the pressure on the GOP to let Libby rot in jail for 30 months while his children try to understand why their father is in prison while another perjurer, Bill Clinton, was never even charged and Sandy Berger was never indicted for stealing national security documents from the National Archives that contained pertinent information the 9/11 Commission requested in its investigation of intelligence failures.

CNN made every effort to indict the Bush administration and paint the candidates themselves as lunatic nuclear weapon-wielding religious zealots. After asking the candidate whether they would use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, there were religious questions aplenty, including Wolf Blitzer asking Mike Huckabee, also an ordained minister, whether he really believed that God literally created the world in 6 days. In every respect, CNN demonstrated why Fox News is #1 in cable news ratings, as the Fox debate questions were tough but professional and the Brit Hume’s hypothetical scenario involving multiple bombings of US cities and interrogation of a suspect at Guantanamo offered much better glimpses at the decision-making skills of the candidates than anything CNN put forth last night. CNN deserved a D grade for its production. I did not think it possible for any channel to stage a worse debate than MSNBC’s first GOP candidate’s debate, but CNN managed it quite handily.

Here are Capital Cloak’s grades for each candidate in debate #3:
Click here for Debate #1 report card
Click here for Debate #2 report card

Rudy Giuliani Grade A
Assessment:
Rudy hammered CNN’s doom and gloom coverage of the Iraq War. Wolf Blitzer had earlier asked the question, “What if General Petraeus comes back in September and says the surge has failed, what would you suggest as the next step for the US?” Giuliani, looking directly at Blitzer, asked, “what if Petraeus comes back in September and reports that the surge has been successful? Will you report that positive with as much attention as you would a negative failure?” Wolf was motionless and stunned by the obvious swipe at CNN’s body count coverage of the war and by the rousing applause for Rudy’s strong statement. Rudy showed in that moment the attack dog organized crime prosecutor side of his personality and qualifications and it was impressive.

On illegal immigration, Giuliani stated that the McCain-Kennedy bill has no unifying purpose. He called it a typical Washington compromise that only makes things worse for the sake of being able to say something was done. He added that our laws should allow us to identify everyone who comes here from somewhere else and know why they are here. He called out McCain on his claims as to what is in the bill, stating that “they say things, but they are not in the legislation. Where is the uniform database? Where is the exit information? How can we know who is here if we don’t know who has left?” Giuliani provided a marvelous definition when responding to the question “what makes someone an American, in reference to immigration?” Giuliani quoted Abraham Lincoln, who stated that it does not matter whether one came over on the Mayflower, but rather how much do you believe in democracy? How much do you believe in the Bill of Rights? Those beliefs are what make someone an American. He concluded his immigration remarks by commenting, “we will lose the genius of America if we curb legal immigration.”

On healthcare, Giuliani did not mince words. He made sure the audience knew that the plans described by the Democrats in their debate on the same stage Sunday night were socialized medicine, nothing more and nothing less. He warned that socialism would ruin medicine in America, quoting a friend who told him, “If you make health insurance free, wait and see how expensive it will become.” He was a strong advocate of free market principles bringing down the cost of health care through competition rather than government control.

Rudy provided best defense yet of his abortion position, making it clear he was morally opposed to abortion, but feels government should not play the role of telling people what they should do. That is also why Roe was a poor decision, because it interjected the government into a personal moral decision. Whether one agrees with Giulani’s position, he is getting more effective at explaining it to conservatives, emphasizing his personal moral opposition.

On Iraq, he stated that we haven’t done enough to take on the nation building process. “People can only embrace democracy when they have an orderly existence.” Rudy sounded the most Reagan-like of the candidates, particularly in his response to the question, “what is America’s most pressing moral issue?” Rudy answered that the issue for America is “are we able to share our gifts of liberty with the rest of the world? We must have the moral strength to explain our gifts and freedoms to others like Reagan did to defeat communism. Our ideals are from God and should be shared among all people.”
When asked what would be the best way to unite independents and moderate Democrats and bring them back to the GOP, Rudy answered, “the best way to do that is to vote for me. The issues we face are bigger than all of us. We must stay on offense in the War on Terror.”

Unlike the previous two debates, where there were arguments that Romney performed well and the votes among pundits were split over who won, last night I saw Giuliani as the most presidential, the most eloquent, the best prepared, and the most fearless of the candidates.

Mitt Romney Grade B
Assessment:
Romney was asked the first question of the debate and handled it well, because it was a typical liberal trap and he refused to take the bait. Wolf asked “given what you know now, was it the right thing to invade Iraq?” Romney deftly explained why the question was a “null set” because the decision of whether it was right or not could only be made at the time based on the available intelligence. Romney did a good job of shifting the blame for the war to where it should lay, with Saddam Hussein for not opening his facilities, for not accepting inspections, and for failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War. Romney pointed out that had Saddam allowed inspections, we would have known precisely what was or was not there and then the decision for invasion would have been made appropriately. He unequivocally supported the invasion based on the intelligence available at the time, and so did most Democrats.

Romney was strong on the war, terrorism, and immigration, reminding the audience that terrorists are constantly testing the US to see how far we will go in our responses, and that is why no option should be taken off the table, including tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if Iran will not halt its nuclear weapons development. On immigration, Romney stated that we should embrace our existing immigration laws and enforce them. He expressed opposition to the proposed Z visas that allow illegal aliens currently in America to remain here while they apply for citizenship and throughout the 13 year period of naturalization. Romney made it clear this was unfair to immigrants from other nations who are on the same path but are forced to wait in their home countries, thus missing out on the opportunity to live in America with their families or other relatives. He earned rousing applause for stating we should enforce the existing 1986 law which called for employment verification and a secure border. He called for the new immigration bill to be revised to make Z visas temporary rather than a form of amnesty.

Wolf Blitzer demonstrated his disdain for Romney’s religion by asking “as many as 25% of Americans have said they would not vote for you because you are a, well, a Mormon. What would you say to those people to change their minds?” First, Wolf’s hesitation to even speak the word “Mormon” gave the impression that Romney perhaps should be embarrassed to be one. Fortunately Romney answered strongly, emphasizing that his values are found in many churches. He reaffirmed his belief that all men were created in God’s image and that Jesus Christ is his Savior and Redeemer. Romney stated, “There are pundits out there who think I should distance myself from my church and that doing so will help me politically. That is not going to happen.”

Both Romney and Giuliani agreed to ignore the loaded question of GOP alliances with big oil, choosing instead to focus on Rudy’s Apollo project idea for an energy independence program on the scale of our drive to land on the moon. Romney called that a “great idea.” He added that oil companies should be putting more money into new refineries and more production, but warned that “big oil” money is not just being made by the companies; it is being made by the nations that sell the crude oil. Russia and Iran are getting rich through our oil purchases and dependence. That is why oil is a national security issue.

Romney’s weakness in this debate was a grating tendency to stray from the question, which in fairness may have been because the questions were so leading and poorly contrived. Regardless, Romney had opportunities to explain exactly what he did for health care in Massachusetts but instead used generalized statements like “we added personal responsibility” or “the markets work.” He needed to be more specific and answer the question, which was “what is the difference between your plan for Massachusetts and the plans the Democrats have put forward?” Rudy answered Mitt’s question better, calling the Democrats socialists. Romney danced around but never really explained any of the specifics of his successful health care system as governor. This failure to answer questions was most evident when he was asked by an audience member “you recently stated English should be our official language but you are running campaign ads in Spanish, including one with your son speaking Spanish. How do you explain that?” Romney COULD have simply stated that legal immigrants do not become fluent in English overnight, and that political topics are complex enough that we must reach out to them in their languages because we do not know how far along they are in the process of learning English. It is important that they understand the issues that affect them, and until they are fluent in English, there is nothing wrong with Spanish ads to help them be actively involved in democracy. Instead, he merely stated, “Let me make it clear, I am pro-immigration, legal immigration. I love immigrants. I hope they will vote for me, and I will reach out to them.” Then he launched on another tirade against the Z visas, and other provisions of the immigration bill that had nothing to do with the question.

Romney also failed to answer Blitzer’s terrible question, “what was President Bush’s biggest mistake?” Romney invoked Ronald Reagan and talked about leading for the future and seizing on America as the land of opportunity. Again, this had nothing to do with the question. He recovered when asked how he would bring Independents and moderate Democrats into the GOP, responding that Reagan spoke of sitting on a three-legged stool: a strong military; a strong economy; and family values. Romney stated he would follow that formula to reunite independents and moderates in the GOP. The question itself of course was misleading, giving the impression that the GOP is a radical party that has lost all moderates and independents. Another CNN jab at the GOP, but handled well by Romney. Romney’s performance in this debate was the worst of the three debates thus far. He started out strongly, but whether because of poor questions, inadequate time to respond, or other factors, he regressed steadily as the debate continued. By the end he seemed almost desperate to get a word in and speak of Reagan and optimism and America’s greatness, even when those had nothing to do with the question at hand. He was still stronger than most of the other candidates, but Giuliani, as one commentator accurately observed, “out-Romneyed Romney.” It was telling that Mitt and Rudy did not disagree on anything or challenge each other. Romney nodded approvingly throughout Rudy’s answers, and Rudy did likewise. I got the impression once again that these two are likely to end up on the ticket together, with Mitt providing Rudy with a VP candidate holding strong family values credentials, the major chink in Rudy’s armor.


John McCain Grade B+
Assessment:
I did not think it possible for McCain to outperform Romney in a debate, given McCain’s famous temperament, but it happened last night. McCain was measured in his responses to most topics, not answering any differently on Iraq, terrorism, or government spending than in previous debates, but his delivery was much improved and he came across as an experienced warrior. I was gratified by his direct critique of Hillary Clinton for referring to the war in Iraq as “President Bush’s war.” I previously castigated Nancy Pelosi on Capital Cloak for calling the war “Bush’s war,” and McCain made similar points that presidents don’t lose wars, nations lose wars and the entire nation will face consequences if we lose this war. There was brief but loud applause for McCain, and deservedly so in that moment.

McCain, no matter how well he performed, was still dogged by the fact that he was the only major candidate who favors the current immigration bill and was on the defensive throughout. He touted his ability to compromise with Democrats as a leadership trait, but in a battle for the GOP nomination that is likely to be a mistake. McCain was passionate about the immigration issue, in essence subtly implying that those who oppose the bill oppose Mexicans and are potentially bigoted. This was also a mistake, because Giuliani, Tancredo, and Romney all offered very specific aspects of the immigration that they oppose and none had anything to do with Mexicans or bigotry. McCain staunchly advocated the attitude that illegal immigrants are here to stay but the bill satisfies national security needs. This drew snickers from his opponents. Unfortunately, it is apparent that McCain does not draw any distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, as he employed history and emotion to demonstrate that there should be no bigotry toward Mexicans. McCain reminded that Spanish was spoken in America before English, and that Hispanic names are found on the Vietnam Memorial wall, Hispanic US soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq and many are green card holders, not yet citizens. These were all great points if the argument had been about whether Hispanics contribute to America. However, that was not the issue. In all of McCain’s examples, the Hispanics were here legally (Green Card). Someone should have asked McCain how many ILLEGAL aliens have served or are serving in the military. No one was questioning Hispanic contributions, but McCain tried to make opposition to illegal immigration into a bigotry issue, and conservatives never appreciate someone who tries to play the race card to get what he wants.

This issue will follow McCain throughout his campaign, and his opponents will beat him mercilessly for supporting this very flawed bill. Yet despite being on defense, McCain acquitted himself much better in this third debate, particularly on support for the troop surge in Iraq.


Tom Tancredo Grade C
Assessment:
Tancredo became the bitter, angry, dark spirited candidate in this debate, by making the fatal flaw of answering the question about what role he would ask George Bush to play as a former president if Tancredo were the sitting president. Tancredo aired his personal grievances with Bush and Karl Rove, stating that Rove recently told him he had darkened the doorstep of the White House through his criticism of the president, and Tancredo added that he would tell Bush not to come around to darken Tancredo’s White House doorstep. It was not presidential to discuss that incident in a public forum, and it demonstrated that Tancredo is too emotionally affected by personal attacks to hold high office. Presidents are verbally abused on a 24 a day basis. Tancredo could never handle that if he couldn’t deal with a biting remark from Rove.

Tancredo of course made many forceful points about his pet issue, illegal immigration. He was asked what the consequences would be if the immigration bill becomes law. He replied that “we are not talking about jobs, schools, hospitals, welfare. We’re talking about national survival. We are testing our willingness to pull together as a nation or split into balkanized pieces. The English language is our glue, and bilingualism is not good for America. I will do anything necessary to stop this legislation.” He was later asked what demonstrates that an immigrant is becoming an American, and he answered that political and cultural ties must be cut when an immigrant comes here from another country. The value of Tancredo as a “candidate” is that he keeps illegal immigration front and center as an issue second only to Iraq in importance.

Tommy Thompson Grade C
Assessment:
No candidate tries harder to make jokes in these debates, and no candidate fails more miserably at it than Thompson. He demonstrated insecurity about having Fred Thompson join the race by differentiating himself several times from Fred, even in his initial personal introduction. Tommy also thought he was being funny when, in response to the question about how to utilize George Bush as a former president, Thompson replied dryly that he would not send Bush to the UN. There was quite a lengthy silence from the audience before a smattering of light chuckles appeared and died quickly. Thompson then tried to pull the foot out of his mouth by stating he would ask Bush to speak to America’s youth about character, perseverance, the need for public service, and other non-threatening duties of a former president. In substance Thompson has made exactly the same points in all three debates. He did call the current immigration bill an amnesty bill, and he passionately criticized the sentencing of Scooter Libby, but if you’ve read my reviews of the previous two debates, you can now move on to the next candidate.

Sam Brownback Grade B-
Assessment:
Brownback was much better in this debate than the previous two, though he still speaks with the cadence and intonations of Al Gore. He was strong on illegal immigration insofar as he criticized any new pathways to citizenship that do not force illegals to wait their turn for citizenship, yet he contradicted this by responding to another question that he would support the current immigration bill with a few minor fixes. He called for more aggressive interior and exterior enforcement, noting that “people will get upset, but it needs to be done.”

Brownback was strongest when talking about issues of faith (teaching creationism in schools along with evolution) and life (abortion), but he also assured himself of never being on any ticket with Rudy by declaring that the GOP must never nominate anyone who is not clearly pro-life out of principle.

Duncan Hunter Grade B
Assessment:
Hunter was the only candidate who could answer “yes” to the question of whether he had read the National Intelligence Estimate before the vote to invade Iraq. He agrees with the decision to invade and still believes it is a worthy cause, like preserving a free Germany or a free Japan after WWII. As always, Hunter was most forceful on defense and military issues, including his reminder that America already has sufficient cause to attack Iran based on Iran’s efforts to train, arm, and fund terrorists in Iraq that are killing our troops.
Hunter aggressively challenged the premise of the illegal immigration debate. He was the only candidate to challenge the ridiculous notion that Americans will not do the jobs illegals are doing, citing an example of a meat packing plant in Iowa that was raided by immigration officials. The following day, Americans lined up to get those jobs back after having been priced out of them by illegals who accepted substandard wages. For those like me who bristle every time a politician utters that phrase, “doing jobs Americans won’t do,” it was refreshing to hear a candidate challenge it boldly. Hunter also deserved praise for completely ignoring the question of whether he would pardon Libby, choosing instead to state he would pardon Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos who are serving sentences for shooting at a drug smuggling illegal alien they believed to be armed.

Huckabee Grade C+
Assessment:
Huckabee made a stronger showing than the last debate, but still made serious tactical errors that may score with the evangelicals in the GOP but also cut himself off at the knees as a candidate or potential running mate. In fairness, Huckabee was asked the worst question of the night as previously mentioned, about the creation of the earth in a literal 6 days. Huckabee did not back down from any religious question and affirmed his Christian faith with passion and eloquence. Where he went wrong was in response to questions about why the GOP lost in the 2006 elections. It was a negative setup question from the beginning, but instead of turning the question around by reminding the audience of the many accomplishments of the party along with a weakness or two, Huckabee offered a laundry list of GOP mistakes a mile long that helped CNN cast the party in the worst possible light. Huckabee stated that the GOP lost credibility for not its doing job. It did not cut spending or stick to promises. “We deserved to get beat.” Katrina, corruption in Washington, improper handling of Iraqi war, people pouring over borders. American citizens go to the airport in America and have to go through security to board a plane, but immigrants don’t go through anything similar when they come here, and so on and thus forth. Who needs a Democrat opponent or a liberal press when Mike Huckabee can explain so well why America should never vote for another Republican?


James Gilmore Grade D
Assessment:
Of all the candidates, Gilmore consistently impresses me least of all. With each debate his answers become vaguer and his credentials only go so far. He continued to mention that his great claim on national security credentials is that he was once a member of a national committee on terrorism. In this debate, Gilmore offered broad, ambiguous answers that used many words to say so little. He offered nothing new, nothing to boost his standing among the candidates, and nothing of any substance on any issue. His grade could have been F, except he did state that he supported the invasion of Iraq because Saddam was unstable and an unstable element in the Middle East is a great danger. He did not mention that the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are clearly more unstable than Saddam at this point and will soon be unstable and armed with nuclear weapons if no action is taken. That would have required some thought and specificity, which appear beyond his capability.

Ron Paul Grade B
Assessment:
Paul redeemed himself somewhat from his ridiculous comment in the last debate about America bringing 9/11 upon itself. Of course, he continued his plea to cut and run from Iraq, but at least his reasoning is on constitutional grounds rather than because the going is tough (Democrats). Paul was strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens, warning the audience that “if you subsidize something, you get more of it. If we legitimize amnesty, more will come and bring their families.”

Paul made one excellent point when he lectured about individual rights. In his answer to a question about the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy toward gays in the military, Paul stated, “We don’t derive rights from being in a group.” That was a great statement that applies to all groups who insist on special legal rights because of their chosen lifestyle. According to Paul, the biggest moral issue facing America is our acceptance of the idea of preemptive war. He added, “we have rejected the just war theory of Christianity.” He erred greatly by trying to warn against preemptive war against Iran, claiming that Iran has never done anything directly to America and is not a threat to us, yet some on the stage have talked about using tactical nuclear bombs on Iran. One gets the impression when listening to Paul that had he been president instead of FDR, he would have been flipping pages furiously in his copy of the constitution looking in vain for justification for preemptive war against Adolf Hitler while Hitler had taken over Europe, Africa, South America, Mexico, and was massing troops on the US/Canadian border for an invasion. Paul is as provocative as Tancredo and perhaps serves some purpose, but the presence of the second tier candidates only hampers what could be substantive, useful debates among the top tier. When Thompson and Gingrich join in, the GOP should pull the plug on Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, and perhaps Paul.

Technorati: Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Presidential Candidates Debate New Hampshire Tom Tancredo GOP CNN Illegal Immigration Iraq War War on Terror Debate Report Cards

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.

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.

Debate Sponsored by Fox News too Intimidating for 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are scrambling to intentionally schedule alternative debates and public appearances in Nevada in order to avoid the upcoming August primary debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Yesterday I wrote about the thin skin of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but even his skin appears to be much thicker than that of Democrats who apparently cannot tolerate the existence of a major media outlet that presents news without liberal spin and are afraid of being mocked by conservative pundits.

The Daily Kos is actively contacting the campaign staffs of major Democratic presidential candidates to encourage them not to participate in the Fox sponsored debate. Kos happily reported yesterday that “the first to definitely say ‘no’ is John Edwards.” Kos then quotes from an email he received from Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince and declares it to be “great news”:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

Kos goes on to laud the Edwards campaign, remarking that they were “showing real leadership on this issue. Hopefully others will soon follow.” Kos further set forth the reasoning behind the push for his party to shun a Fox sponsored debate:

It's not a position they want to be in, and I'm sure they're cursing whoever it was that negotiated the deal with Fox News. (That Democratic Party decision maker, by the way, is still secret. Everyone claims they don't know who signed the deal.)

The campaigns could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate, but that they'll be happy to debate in Nevada with another media partner.

The issue here isn't to screw over Nevada or its Dems (it's a state where we should be far more competitive, and will be in the next few cycles), and to deprive them of a close look at the field.

The issue is to deprive the right wing's premier propaganda outlet an easy opportunity to take cheap shots at our guys.

If Republicans ran in fear from appearances on news networks that mock and misrepresent them, there would have been no televised presidential debates or White House press conferences held in the past 50 years. Forgotten by Fox News critics is the important distinction that the network’s claim is not to be completely objective or impartial, but rather it is to be “fair and balanced,” which it accomplishes simply through its existence as a balancing alternative to the blatantly liberal traditional networks and newspapers. If there is a traditional major network news channel that has not mocked, belittled, or impugned the integrity of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Spy The News! invites Kos to bring it to our attention. Republicans have been good sports in the past about attending debates orchestrated by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, with full knowledge that the Republican message would be twisted and distorted by the news anchors within seconds of the event’s conclusion. Yet they participated anyway. Democrats should do likewise, even if makes them squirm a bit.

Small people avoid big challenges, and Edwards has demonstrated by his choice to duck the Fox debate in Nevada that there really are two Americas as he frequently argues, only it is not a rich versus poor divide but rather a clear distinction between courageous America and cowardly America. Considering that it took him longer to decide to pull out of the Fox debate than it did for him to advocate pulling out of Iraq should give voters little confidence in his courage to make tough decisions. In both cases he has chosen the easy path.

Democrats should consider that Fox News is the most watched cable news channel in America, with an audience nearly triple CNN’s and quadruple MSNBC’s. It has more viewers than both of its chief competitors combined. Fox News hosts also sweep the top 3 spots for their individual programs, with the O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes consistently holding the top two spots. Democrats should also keep in mind that many Fox News viewers also watch CNN and other networks in order to witness examples of media bias. In essence, although conservatives tend to agree with Fox News’ presentation of the news, they are keenly aware of how those same stories are being described in the liberal media. Fox News is clearly not the Democrats’ preferred news network, but for Democrats to advocate avoiding political debate simply because Fox has paid to co-sponsor the event suggests that what is actually feared may be the exposure to scrutiny their political views would receive.

Edwards insists there are 2 Americas, one rich and one poor, but the media outlets he deigns worthy to interview him never ask him pointed questions like “Isn’t the involuntary taxation of the rich to give to the poor also called socialism?” Another question he likely would not want asked is “How many doctors did you drive out of practice or out of state in North Carolina with your frivolous malpractice lawsuits? And Senator, if I may, did your persecution of doctors in North Carolina result in lower or higher healthcare costs for both rich and poor citizens of your state?” I wonder if Fox News has recorded chirping cricket sounds or perhaps the Final Jeopardy theme to play while Edwards crafts a reply.

All joking aside, Edwards should have no fear of a debate on an opposing network, since, as he claimed in many of his malpractice trials, he possesses clairvoyant abilities to channel spirits that reveal important facts of his cases to him. As reported by the New York Times, while “channeling” the spirit of a baby girl who allegedly died of doctor error resulting in delivery-induced cerebral palsy, Edwards told the jury:

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third.

He should have no difficulty calling on sympathetic liberal spirits to warn him in advance what questions he will be asked and how he should answer. The only tough question he should face from them is how much he will charge by the hour for his channeling services.

Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and others advocating a boycott of the Fox News sponsored Nevada primary debate should heed the surprisingly astute advice of the Nevada Democratic Party as quoted in the Las Vegas Sun: “The debate in August is not an endorsement of Fox News. Instead, it is an effort to reach out to Fox News viewers. We will not win elections if we don't win over new people."

If speaking or debating only in front of comfortable network accomplices is so desperately sought by the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, one can only assume that as president they would not be comfortable debating serious issues with a foreign head of state sitting across the table from them. If they cannot face potential mockery from Fox News, how will they be trusted to stand up to Ahmadinejad? If “fair and balanced” strikes fear in their hearts, how will they react to being called “the Great Satan” that should be annihilated?

It is not surprising that John Edwards was the first to personify Monty Python’s cowardly character Sir Robin, whose adventures were captured so well in song: “When danger reared its ugly head, he [Edwards] bravely turned his tail and fled.” We will surely soon hear Edwards’ response, echoing Sir Robin’s denials: “I did not. . . I never did.”

"Cut and run" as a policy may be the Democrats’ wish for Iraq, but in the case of debate avoidance it demonstrates a decidedly thin-skinned and cowardly approach to political discourse. The days of political immunity in the media for liberals are over, and hopefully a new “fair and balanced” ratio of liberal and conservative media will one day result in televised political debates hosted by a variety of networks of all political stripes. Democrats should show confidence in their political views and willingly debate each other regardless of the sponsoring network. The only message Democrats will send by boycotting a Fox News sponsored debate is that the liberal version of "freedom of the press" is extended only to traditional liberal sycophant networks.