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 cardClick here for Debate #2 report cardRudy Giuliani Grade AAssessment:
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 BAssessment:
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 CAssessment:
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 CAssessment:
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 BAssessment:
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 DAssessment:
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 BAssessment:
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
article to provide the other side to a seemingly outrageous story: first, the reporter is an extraordinarily poor writer who is betting unwisely that readers will actually read all the way to the seventeenth paragraph; second, the reporter knows that the seventeenth paragraph takes all the controversy and shock value out of the first sixteen paragraphs and thus the other side of the story is intentionally buried in hopes that readers will not read that far into the article and learn the truth. A perfect example of this "journalistic" technique was available in this morning's AP story, "Israel to Send Darfur Refugees Back to Egypt." We'll let readers decide whether the AP reporter put the real explanation for Israel's seemingly outrageous and hypocritical rejection of Darfur refugees in the seventeenth paragraph of the story or whether the intent was to paint Israel in the worst light possible through a shocking headline and the first sixteen paragraphs.
behind the Israeli policy toward Darfur refugees: the refugees are not fleeing directly from Darfur into Israel seeking asylum. Israel does not border Darfur, thus refugees from genocide in that land illegally enter nations like Chad or Egypt seeking asylum, and only after realizing how poor their living conditions and economic opportunities are in Chad or Egypt do they then illegally cross into Israel. Thus from Israel's perspective, it is experiencing a rapidly increasing influx of African economic refugees rather than victims fleeing from genocide. Egypt had already promised Darfur refugees that it would not deport them back to Darfur, thus once in Egypt they were safe from genocide. What Egypt could not offer, however, were employment and good living conditions. Thus the refugees illegally entering Israel were not actually seeking asylum or protection from genocide, but rather hoped for jobs and a better standard of living than what was available in Egypt. That pertinent piece of information cast an entirely different light on the motives and hard line stance of the Israelis toward illegal aliens, including Darfur's genocide survivors.
condemn Israel for not living up to its "moral and legal obligation to accept any refugees or asylum seekers," Israel has attempted to make it clear that it is not deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to that country. Israel has been deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to Egypt, since the refugees entered Israel illegally by crossing Egypt's poorly policed desert border. Thus even in its hard line position toward illegal aliens from Darfur, Israel continues to demonstrate cautious compassion by deporting them back to the safety of Egypt. Yet the AP headline and most of today's article appeared to have been presented in such a way as to generate ill-will and unfavorable impressions of Isreal as enforcing an uncaring and hypocritical policy toward genocide survivors.
