Although the announced candidates who participated in Wednesday's GOP debate in New Hampshire would disagree, Fred Thompson may have done himself a favor by skipping the debate and announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno instead. After all, the first seven minutes of Wednesday's debate were dedicated to him, with each candidate offering light jabs at his absence while ultimately welcoming him to the race as a formidable and charismatic candidate. Thompson aired his first official thirty second campaign ad on Fox News immediately prior to the debate, but, courtesy of Fox News' choice of questions, received seven minutes of free publicity and praise at the expense of his rivals, who surely bridled at having to talk about the qualities of a candidate who leads all but Giuliani in the polls and intentionally skipped the debate itself. The decision could not have worked out better for Thompson, who was running a strong second in GOP polls even before his official announcement Wednesday night.
After each GOP candidate debate, Capital Cloak has published an analysis of each candidate's performance and assigned a letter grade. The results from Wednesday's debate follow, in grade order:
Rudy Giuliani A-
It was interesting to observe that in Fox News' post-debate interviews of New Hampshire residents, Giuliani was criticized for over emphasizing his accomplishments as mayor of America's largest city. One alleged GOP voter expressed her desire to ask Giuliani, "What else did you do?", in reference to his qualifications to be president. Apparently she had done no research on Giuliani and missed his mention of having been the third highest official in the Justice Department, in which capacity he actively prosecuted the mafia and terrorists prior to becoming mayor, it bears repeating, of America's largest city. To nearly every question asked in the debate, Giuliani had a ready response that included documented achievements he was responsible for as mayor, and not coincidentally, those responses covered the hottest topics of the debate: illegal immigration, gun laws, government spending, high taxes, and private behavior of public officials.
The more one listens to Giuliani's responses, the more satisfying those answers become. He is a political matador who recognizes "bull" in questions or accusations and deftly avoids it by waving his red cape of mayoral experience. This was evident on a number of issues, but perhaps most clearly expressed when asked about whether the public should examine closely a candidate's private life. Giuliani, who of course is on his third marriage, offered an honest, human response by pointing out that some of the most difficult moments in his personal life occurred while he was mayor, yet those struggles did not detract from his ability to lead New York out of fiscal, crime, and image crises. It was an interesting adaptation of the concept of leadership under personal duress. He modestly mentioned that he was not running as "the perfect candidate" for president, but as an imperfect human who is also the best qualified for the job.
Although the Fox News panel attempted to portray Giuliani as weak on foreign policy through its previously mentioned question to McCain, Giuliani actually provided the best answer to the foreign policy scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. Giuliani asserted that the risk is not that Iran will attack Israel or other nations with nuclear weapons; the risk is that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists they are currently supplying with conventional weapons. He added that America must be clear in its policy against Iran nuclear capability. He drew tremendous applause for reminding viewers that Ronald Reagan pointed thousands of nuclear weapons at Soviet cities during the Cold War while negotiating arms reduction.
The Fox News post-debate interviews were critical of Giuliani and New Hampshire voters voiced their disappointment in his performance, but in comparison with his rivals on stage, Giuliani did nothing to lessen his status as the GOP front-runner.
John McCain B+
After his poor showings in prior debates and given his plummeting poll numbers, I did not expect McCain to turn in a strong performance Wednesday. It was not a matter of his specific answers or changing his message, but McCain somehow managed to come across as decisive, forceful, and better prepared than in previous debates. On nearly every issue, from illegal immigration to torture of enemy combatants, McCain's responses were indistinguishable from those he offered in other debates, but his delivery was more polished and confident and he appeared comfortable defending his record in the Senate on controversial issues. The difference in grade between Wednesday's debate and previous debates can be attributed to McCain's conscious effort to add an element of style to the substance of his responses, and as a result he was far less robotic and far more engaged. I credit McCain for delivering the best statement of the debate. When asked to address Rudy Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain praised Giuliani for providing solid management to New York City before and after 9/11, but then described his own leadership credentials in foreign policy, national security, and military issues. McCain commented, "I was once put in charge of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. I didn't manage it, I led it."
In this debate, McCain seized the optimist mantle from Mitt Romney and with nearly every statement expressed confidence in America's eventual victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror. When Romney stated that General Petraeus' surge strategy "is apparently working," McCain countered, "It is not apparently working. It IS working." These small but significant changes in style and delivery transformed McCain's standard answers on various issues into more forceful and confident statements than he had made throughout his campaign to that point. Of the candidates, McCain was one of only three who actually answered the hypothetical scenario question regarding taking military action to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. McCain made it clear that we cannot rely on the UN Security Council, with China and Russia sitting like so much dead weight on this issue, to resolve it safely. His statement that ultimately it will be the U.S. that must take action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands will likely prove prophetic.
It was his strongest performance to date, and although I disagree with his positions on illegal immigration and "torture" of enemy combatants in certain dire national survival situations, he outperformed all but one of his rivals on this occasion.
Mitt Romney B
As Fox News' Carl Cameron confirmed at the conclusion of the debate, Romney was targeted with the toughest questions of the debate as well as the highest overall number of questions asked directly to the former Massachusetts governor, allegedly because he was the New Hampshire front-runner. In these questions, Romney was accused of the following: turning a blind eye to illegal alien "sanctuary cities" in Massachusetts while hypocritically charging Giuliani with doing the same in New York; previously supporting abortion rights in Massachusetts; defending to a father of a son returning soon from two tours in Iraq his already apologized for comparison of his sons' campaign service to military service by other American sons; wanting to wiretap mosques and churches without warrants; claiming to reduce taxes while sneakily raising fees and fines in Massachusetts to make up for lost tax revenue; more eagerly advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq than Hillary Clinton.
No other candidate was forced on the defensive by the moderators than Romney, and as a result he did not manage to portray the image of poise and optimism he had exuded in the previous debates. He offered plausible explanations for each of the above-listed accusations: Governors are not responsible for mayors who do not enforce immigration laws in their own cities; candidates make hundreds of appearances and sometimes say things in ways they don't intend and apologize profusely, acknowledging that those who place their lives on the line for America are "in a league of their own"; wiretapping mosques and churches would be done only with warrants and although such surveillance is distasteful, the most fundamental right Americans have is the right to be kept alive by government diligence; denied increasing fees in Massachusetts and reiterating the numerous tax cuts he implemented in that state; advocated no timetable for troop withdrawal and asserted that such decisions should be made between the president and the generals fighting the war.
Unlike previous debates, Romney was not addressed with any questions about family values, defense of marriage, and other issues perceived as strengths of the picture-perfect family man. He graciously brushed aside post-debate comments from Fox News' Alan Colmes that implied he had been treated harshly by the panel, stating that he felt it had been fun. His body language, facial expressions, and voice inflections throughout the debate itself, however, indicated he found the orchestrated ambush unfair and unexpected. Considering the level of questions aimed at him and his efforts to address them, Romney did well enough to earn a respectable grade in this debate. He has worked long and hard in New Hampshire and likely did not lose his lead in that state's GOP polls based on his debate performance.
Sam Brownback B-
Like Mike Huckabee, Brownback was fed a steady diet of easily digestible questions geared toward his declared strengths: family values, gay marriage,and tax cuts. The only controversial question directed to Brownback was whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Brownback has addressed this issue in previous debates, including the prior debate hosted by Fox News, thus it was strange that it would be repeated once again to the same candidate. Brownback's response was soothing to conservative ears: Yes there should be an amendment because America needs more children born into wedlock with a mom and a dad "bonded together for life." While Democratic opponents would challenge that view, there was naturally nary a note of discord from his GOP debate rivals.
I also was pleased by Brownback's comment that an important result of lower taxes would be that more families could afford to live off of a single income, allowing one of the parents to be home and available to care for children. Yet, in comparison with the thorny questions tackled by Romney, Brownback was too treated to lightly with kid gloves by the moderators to merit a higher grade. It was Brownback's best performance to date, but I stand by my previous assessment that he is the GOP version of Al Gore in his delivery and voice intonations.
Mike Huckabee C+
Huckabee was the grateful beneficiary of Fox News' ambush of Romney, in that there appeared to be no difficult questions left to throw at him. The most pointed question directed specifically to Huckabee merely required him to explain his view on the "fair tax." Other softball questions lobbed to Huckabee included issues the ordained minister surely appreciated, such as abortion. To his credit, Huckabee responded well to the abortion question, citing the Arkansas Human Life Amendment as a potential model for eventual federal legislation, as the Arkansas amendment established that life begins at conception and should be protected until its natural conclusion.
Huckabee engaged in an exchange with Ron Paul over what to do about Iraq, with Paul arguing that we should withdraw because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place and Huckabee responding that regardless of how we got there, we are there and need to leave with honor and victory. Huckabee's "we bought it because we broke it" view on Iraq was anything but complimentary to the Bush administration's conduct of the war. Any exchange with Paul is guaranteed to liven a debate, and this was no exception.
Huckabee was at his worst in responding to the Iranian nuclear weapons scenario. Quite simply, he did not even attempt to answer the question about whether to use force. He sputtered for a minute about how decisions must be guided by the constitution and a leader's conscience and character. He emphasized that such scenarios illustrate why it is critical for a president to surround himself with wise people. He made no effort to explain what he would do in such a situation, leaving viewers with the impression that he does not know whether he would use force against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of its hands. Americans are not looking for indecision from its next president and that is why Huckabee remains quagmired in GOP polls.
Duncan Hunter D
After every Duncan Hunter debate performance, I hopefully expect to see a text on my screen stating, in Monty Python fashion, that "the advisers who prepared Hunter for the debate wish it to be known that they have just been sacked." Unfortunately for Hunter, no sackings have occurred. In every debate thus far, Hunter has made the same lame reference to "not that scraggly fence you see on CNN" when discussing border security and his beloved fence that he claims to have personally built near San Diego. Hunter is the epitome of a political figure who can do much good in Congress but is not destined to hold high executive office. His value appears to be in defending his party and looking out for the interests of the military. Hunter was the only candidate, including self-proclaimed military expert McCain, who could reel off from memory statistics regarding reductions of civilian casualties in the various Iraqi provinces. Hunter would make a fine Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and should limit his aspirations to that noble duty.
Hunter did issue the most effective barb to Democrats, pointing out that the while the GOP acts to remove figures like Larry Craig when they are found to be ethically challenged, Democrats make such figures chairmen of committees. Hunter was also the only candidate other than Giuliani who viewed Iran's capacity to share nuclear material with terrorist groups as the most pressing reason to take action against Iran before it produces sufficient enriched uranium to make such a scenario reality.
Ron Paul D-
Other than entertainment value as the designated foil, it is difficult to find justifiable reasons for the inclusion of Ron Paul in these debates. Still, he earned a higher grade than Tancredo because Paul is nothing if not entertaining, in a lecturing college professor of political philosophy way.
Paul's expressed Libertarian views were no different in substance or style from previous debates: 9/11 happened because the government was too involved with the airlines and should have left airline security for private companies to handle; we should not assume GOV will take care of us; People who say there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave are the same people who said it would be a cakewalk and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues; Threatening Iran is the worst possible strategy and it will make us less safe; we are only staying in Iraq now to save face; when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both; the Department of Homeland Security only worsened the existing intelligence bureaucracy that led to the failures of 9/11 and it should be disbanded; Israel can take care of itself and we should back off from our rhetoric toward Iran and talk to its leaders rather than attack without provocation.
Tom Tancredo F
Tancredo was his normal angry, bitter, pedantic self in this debate, lecturing on his two pet issues, illegal immigration and the war with Radical Islam. Americans have little patience for people who display an attitude of "I told you so," yet Tancredo long ago adopted that attitude regarding illegal immigration as the basis of his entire campaign. In consecutive debates, Tancredo has commented on his "surprise" that it took his rivals so long to realize the pressing nature of the illegal immigration problem that he has been talking about for years. "I told you so" will not win many votes, as Tancredo has discovered in his fruitless campaign.
For all his tough talk on the war against Radical Islam, Tancredo declined to answer the hypothetical scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. He made vague comments about restrictive rules of engagement for our military, and that political correctness will get us all killed, but would not address the question, which was whether he would use force against Iran under the cited circumstances.
Fox News B
More than any other network, Fox allowed the candidates at times to directly engage each other, as in the Paul-Huckabee exchange described above. Likewise, unlike other networks, Fox formulated some very pointed and controversial questions and a thorny hypothetical scenario for the candidates to address. Fox could have earned a higher grade by more equally distributing the tough questions among the candidates.
Wednesday's debate offered a timely illustration of why Fred Thompson, and potentially Al Gore, have been wise to make their cases directly to voters through electronic media rather than rely on traditional media outlets to objectively report their messages. Voter impressions of candidates are too easily manipulated by media outlets through camera angles, lighting, photo captions, article headlines, and choice of debate questions. In a ninety minute period, Fox News successfully altered voter perceptions of Mitt Romney's poise and optimistic spirit from what they were before the debate. In the high stakes game of presidential campaigning, controlling the content and presentation of a candidate's message becomes a priceless commodity. Thompson is working hard to maintain that control, while his rivals are placing their political heads in the media lion's mouth in hopes of earning applause rather than being devoured.
Technorati Tags: GOP Debate Fox News Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Ron Paul Report Cards Fred Thompson
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Thompson and Gore Share Tennessee Waltz
Al Gore and Fred Thompson have more in common than their Tennessee roots and international fame. Despite holding as close to diametrically opposed views as one could expect to find in the political realm, Thompson and Gore share an understanding of the most influential power in American politics in the twenty-first century: the media, liberal and conservative alike. Beyond merely recognizing that media shapes perceptions of politicians and political office seekers, the Tennessee duo dance a graceful waltz around traditional media outlets. Likewise, both count on their media savvy to convey their shared, albeit very different, passions for swaying public opinion.
There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first
campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.
Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.
Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth
, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction. 
Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:
Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:
Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.
This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.
Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.
Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence
There has been much ado in the media about Fred Thompson's decision to eschew this Wednesday's GOP New Hampshire debate hosted by Fox News in favor of airing his first
campaign ad during the debate and appearing on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno later that evening. Critics of Thompson's strategy offer trumped up charges that Thompson is impugning the dignity of presidential politics by announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" rather than the tried and true press conference method. Others, including his competitors, fault him for not taking the candidate debates seriously and joining them in their seemingly bi-weekly grillings from various media personalities "moderating" the debates. Such criticisms merely reveal the petty jealousies of media outlets who desire Thompson's stage presence for its inherent ratings draw, as well as the envy of his GOP rivals who work much harder, spend more money, and shake more hands than Thompson but unlike him cannot afford to skip the circuses the debates have become without suffering in opinion polls of potential voters.Thompson is gambling that choreographed debates with candidates given only enough time for canned answers is no way to get his message across to today's voters. Those who have watched the previous GOP candidate debates would be hard pressed to argue that candidates are afforded any real opportunity to interact with potential voters during such events. The candidates do not debate each other directly, which would give voters entertainment and political substance, and until candidate debates are in fact debates, Thompson's choice to sit out these dances appears increasingly sensible.
Thompson and Gore are revolutionizing presidential campaigning and political issue lobbying, respectively, while media outlets and political opponents cry foul. Whatever one thinks of Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth
, it is difficult to deny that using film as his communication medium for spreading the alarmist view of global warming effectively circumvented the traditional political lobbying strategy of persuading newspaper editors or television network on-air news personalities to take his pet issue seriously. Al Gore ran an end run around the traditional news media and took his message directly to audiences in forums, universities, high school classrooms, and living rooms around the world. He was eager to communicate his global warming opinions without the need for media middlemen to analyze his message and then explain it to their viewers or readers. People could simply watch his film and choose whether to accept it as fact or fiction. 
Of course, media outlets became willing accomplices in spreading Gore's message, touting it so effectively that Academy Awards were all but guaranteed and media adulation flowed, perhaps as small consolation prizes for narrowly missing out on the brass ring in the 2000 presidential election. So thorough was Gore's manipulation of the media to spread a personal message that fellow Tennessean Thompson now appears to be following Gore's lead in bypassing media events such as Wednesday's GOP debate solely to keep his message from passing through the filters of mainstream media before it reaches potential voters. The following quotes illustrate the similarity in thinking and media strategy between Gore and Thompson. First, Al Gore from an interview with Vanity Fair:
Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely. “I tried not to let it [affect my behavior],” Gore tells Peretz. “But if you know that day after day the filter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or involves trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you’re just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you.”
Your first reaction to Gore's comments to Vanity Fair will likely be to chuckle at the accusation that the New York Times and Washington Post were somehow out to sink Gore's chances for winning the White House in 2000. The illogic of such a conspiracy theory is remarkable; is Gore implying that those two bastions of media liberalism would have preferred and worked toward a George W. Bush victory in that election? Having addressed that absurdity we can return to the similarities between Gore's and Thompson's media awareness. Compare Fred Thompson's strategy for the 2008 election with Gore's concerns about the media filter as cited above:
The face time with Leno and the debate ad on Fox News Channel are the coquettish moves of a candidate who has already proven his aptitude using the media, from television to the Internet. While his main rivals—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain—parry debate questions, Thompson will pretty much control his own message.
Thompson aides want as many eyes on the Web video as possible. The debate ad and a follow-up commercial on Thursday will instruct viewers to go online and get their undiluted message straight from the candidate.
"We think one of the strongest weapons this campaign has is Fred Thompson's ability to connect directly with the public," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "We want to drive as much traffic as possible to the Web site."
Gore clearly believes now that media outlets, even ones with a known liberal bent, lampooned him and affected voter perceptions of him as a presidential candidate in 2000. He believes it was "scary" that the media had such power. A politically wiser Gore, now with experience in producing and distributing his own media products and political message, understands the need to avoid the media filter and communicate directly with voters. Likewise, Thompson is effectively using a variety of media tools to share his views with voters without news reporters distorting his intended message.
This concept is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in the intelligence community; analysts read raw intelligence reports, determine what they think the intelligence means, and then distill it into analytical reports for policy makers who depend on analysts to explain what they are reading. If policy makers had the time or inclination to receive raw intelligence directly from field operatives and make up their own minds as to what the intelligence indicated, their policy decisions might be markedly different. Voters, like policy makers, like to have news and issues wrapped neatly in eye-pleasing packages and rely almost exclusively on middle-men, reporters or editors, to explain the significance of the news they are reading or watching. We seem to have lost our individual capacity to think, to reason, and to form our own opinions without a famous media personality telling us how we should think about the issues. It is truly group think run amok.
Gore and Thompson, though doing it for seemingly different motives, are breaking new ground and performing what may become an important service to American politics by taking their messages directly to their intended audiences. Rather than criticize Thompson for not joining his competitors in bowing before the media at CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC hosted debates, voters and pundits should praise him for ignoring the natural inclination to cozy up to news outlets that, as they did to Gore in 2000, will surely turn and bite him on whatever Achilles' Heel they can expose.
Fred Thompson Al Gore Presidential Candidates 2008 Campaign New Hampshire GOP Debate Media Influence
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Anti-Military Obama "Swift-Boats" Own Campaign
A widely read news article this morning quite successfully concealed an insulting and inaccurate 
statement presidential candidate Barack Obama directed at U.S. military personnel fighting al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The AP story, “Obama Gets Warning From Friendly Voter,” reported that “voter” Maggie North of Claremont, New Hampshire, warned Obama that he needed to avoid public disputes and nasty exchanges with his Democratic rivals if he wanted to be considered different or a “fresh” alternative to the usual political nastiness associated with Washington DC. All but one paragraph of the AP story dealt with Obama’s verbal exchanges with opponents, how campaigns “thicken a candidate’s skin,” and the evil influence of Washington lobbyists.
The one paragraph that should have stood out to readers and received the most attention was not analyzed at all in the AP report or challenged in any way as to its accuracy by the news organs that published it. It contained a slap in the face to U.S. troops in Afghanistan but was effectively obscured by the report’s focus only on the naïve and ill-advised confrontations Obama has engaged in with his party rivals.
Obama has frequently criticized the war effort in Iraq, claiming that he would pull troops out of Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan or sending them into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda. His Democratic rivals and conservatives alike rightfully repudiated his stated intent to send troops into Pakistan with or without Pakistani President Musharraf’s approval. Yet during a campaign stop in Nashua, NH yesterday, Obama made a specious claim against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, accusing them in John Kerry-esque manner, of murdering innocents in a foreign land. When asked about pulling troops out of Iraq to fight elsewhere, Obama made the following comment about Afghanistan:
The question that reporters and potential voters who speak to Obama on the campaign trail should be asking is, “Where do you get your information about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan?” The oft-repeated and never proven claim that our troops are bombing and killing civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq are mainstays of anti-American news sources such as Al-Jazeera, but do not match U.S. military reports of daily actions in either of those countries. On this issue perhaps more than any other, Obama demonstrated knowledge starvation while a virtual feast of front line data was available to him from those actually doing the fighting.
It is no small thing for a presidential candidate to accuse the military of killing civilians and fanning the flames of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan, but the AP apparently felt his comments about lobbyists and having “thick skin” during a campaign were more newsworthy than the knife he plunged into the backs of our troops on the front lines in the War on Terror. Perhaps such daggers have become so common from Obama’s party that certain news organizations no longer consider them unusual or significant enough to cover properly. Our troops, on the other hand, have long memories and do not suffer lightly such accusations or blatant disrespect.
John Kerry “swift-boated” his own 2004 presidential campaign by opening his
mouth in 1971 and falsely accusing his fellow Vietnam servicemen of committing atrocities against, and killing, civilians. That well-documented testimony to Congress was replayed throughout 2004 on conservative talk radio and served as a constant reminder to potential voters of Kerry’s true feelings toward the military and those who served in the Vietnam War far longer and with more honor than he did. Obama’s false accusation that our troops are now killing civilians in Afghanistan should likewise hang as a proverbial albatross around his campaign’s neck throughout his presumptuous run for the presidency.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Afghanistan, US Troops, Redeployment, Civilian Deaths, John Kerry, War Crimes, Swift Boat Veterans, US Military, Presidential Candidates, New Hampshire
statement presidential candidate Barack Obama directed at U.S. military personnel fighting al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The AP story, “Obama Gets Warning From Friendly Voter,” reported that “voter” Maggie North of Claremont, New Hampshire, warned Obama that he needed to avoid public disputes and nasty exchanges with his Democratic rivals if he wanted to be considered different or a “fresh” alternative to the usual political nastiness associated with Washington DC. All but one paragraph of the AP story dealt with Obama’s verbal exchanges with opponents, how campaigns “thicken a candidate’s skin,” and the evil influence of Washington lobbyists.The one paragraph that should have stood out to readers and received the most attention was not analyzed at all in the AP report or challenged in any way as to its accuracy by the news organs that published it. It contained a slap in the face to U.S. troops in Afghanistan but was effectively obscured by the report’s focus only on the naïve and ill-advised confrontations Obama has engaged in with his party rivals.
Obama has frequently criticized the war effort in Iraq, claiming that he would pull troops out of Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan or sending them into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda. His Democratic rivals and conservatives alike rightfully repudiated his stated intent to send troops into Pakistan with or without Pakistani President Musharraf’s approval. Yet during a campaign stop in Nashua, NH yesterday, Obama made a specious claim against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, accusing them in John Kerry-esque manner, of murdering innocents in a foreign land. When asked about pulling troops out of Iraq to fight elsewhere, Obama made the following comment about Afghanistan:
We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we'renot just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.
The question that reporters and potential voters who speak to Obama on the campaign trail should be asking is, “Where do you get your information about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan?” The oft-repeated and never proven claim that our troops are bombing and killing civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq are mainstays of anti-American news sources such as Al-Jazeera, but do not match U.S. military reports of daily actions in either of those countries. On this issue perhaps more than any other, Obama demonstrated knowledge starvation while a virtual feast of front line data was available to him from those actually doing the fighting.
It is no small thing for a presidential candidate to accuse the military of killing civilians and fanning the flames of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan, but the AP apparently felt his comments about lobbyists and having “thick skin” during a campaign were more newsworthy than the knife he plunged into the backs of our troops on the front lines in the War on Terror. Perhaps such daggers have become so common from Obama’s party that certain news organizations no longer consider them unusual or significant enough to cover properly. Our troops, on the other hand, have long memories and do not suffer lightly such accusations or blatant disrespect.
John Kerry “swift-boated” his own 2004 presidential campaign by opening his
mouth in 1971 and falsely accusing his fellow Vietnam servicemen of committing atrocities against, and killing, civilians. That well-documented testimony to Congress was replayed throughout 2004 on conservative talk radio and served as a constant reminder to potential voters of Kerry’s true feelings toward the military and those who served in the Vietnam War far longer and with more honor than he did. Obama’s false accusation that our troops are now killing civilians in Afghanistan should likewise hang as a proverbial albatross around his campaign’s neck throughout his presumptuous run for the presidency.Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Afghanistan, US Troops, Redeployment, Civilian Deaths, John Kerry, War Crimes, Swift Boat Veterans, US Military, Presidential Candidates, New Hampshire
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)