Regular readers are wondering why posts to Capital Cloak have been somewhat sporadic and fewer in number over the past two weeks. We wish to clear up any confusion or concerns this temporary phenomenon may have caused among our loyal reading audience.
First, we have not been abducted by aliens. That one is always raised as a possibility by wise guys out there and despite the fact that some people believe in alien abductions, we visited Roswell, New Mexico a few years ago and could not get ourselves abducted even in that self-declared capital of all things alien even when we offered ourselves freely if they would merely promise to give back the real Ron Paul.
Second, we are not merging with any large and well-respected media conglomerate . . . yet. However, if you have connections with one, we might be persuaded to give the possibility further consideration.
Third, we have not been approached by any 2008 presidential candidates about blogging on their behalf. To do so at this point, especially on behalf of any of the Democratic candidates or lower tier Republicans would be too eerily similar to the alien abductions disavowed in a previous paragraph.
Fourth, we were not busted in a sting operation by O.J. Simpson desperately searching for his precious stolen sports memorabilia.
Fifth, we have definitely not been playing footsie in restroom stalls at the Minneapolis Airport, or agonizing over whether we should return campaign contributions from a fugitive felon, or slandering a four-star decorated war hero general who reported his evaluation of the surge strategy to Congress. We left those behaviors in more qualified but less respectable hands. Thank you Larry, Hillary, and MoveOn.org for being so good at what you do.
That leaves us with only one possible explanation for the temporary decline in post frequency at Capital Cloak: O-Be-Wise very recently made a career change, and is slowly acclimating to new duties and surroundings with another government agency dedicated to keeping America safe (this would be an opportune spot to insert a disclaimer that the views expressed at Capital Cloak are those of the author and should not be construed as representing any government agency. If you enjoy reading disclaimers, and admit it, some of you out there do, visit "The Author" section of Capital Cloak or for a more sarcastic one that mocks government-mandated disclaimers, see the one crafted by FormerSpook86 at In From the Cold).
The job switch affected work and life schedules and consequently blog production schedules, but now that things are settling into a challenging but no longer grueling routine, the pages of Capital Cloak will once again be filled with more frequent posts containing the insights and analysis of current events readers are accustomed to. Look for a return to normal starting next week, and thank you for your concern.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Assessing Rudy's 12 Commitments
During a speech Monday in New Hampshire, GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “12 Commitments to the American People,” reminiscent of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 GOP Contract with America. Anytime a candidate provides a firm outline of his policy positions and promises to voters, it should be welcomed and then scrutinized carefully. Unfortunately, candidates for high office rarely offer specifics about how they intend to achieve their stated goals. Capital Cloak offers the following assessment of Giuliani’s 12 Commitments to the American People:
Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for
himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.
Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.
The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.
Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.
Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.
How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.
I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.
If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.
Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.
A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of
pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.
I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.
School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.
I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.
On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.
Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation
1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.
Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for
himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.
Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.
The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.
3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.
Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.
4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.
Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.
5) I will impose accountability on Washington.We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.
How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.
6) I will lead America towards energy independence. We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.
I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.
7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.
If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.
8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.
Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.
9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.
A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of
pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.
11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.
School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.
12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.
I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.
On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.
Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation
Monday, June 11, 2007
Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul
Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.
When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.
In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:
Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:
Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.
Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.
Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.
Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:
Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.
Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:
This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.
Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.
Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates
When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.
In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:
They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We'vebeen in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting…
…They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.
Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:
The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc
June 6, 1984, Normandy
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.
Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.
Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.
Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.
Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:
Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.
Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.
Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.
Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.
Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
GOP Second Debate Report Cards
The second GOP candidates’ debate last night in Columbia, South Carolina was in every respect superior to the sophomoric production by MSNBC in the previous debate. The audience was treated to professionalism, “gotcha” questions, and a brilliant terrorism scenario designed by Fox News to reveal what the candidates would or would not do to protect America; Carl Cameron, who prophetically (or was it conspiratorially?) predicted moments before the debate that he anticipated one of the second tier candidates saying something unusual or controversial that would trip up some of the top tier candidates. See the Giuliani and Paul grade summaries for details of that magically fulfilled prophecy.
For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.
Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:
Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.
In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.
Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.
Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.
Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.
Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.
Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:
McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.
Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?
The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.
John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.
Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.
McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.
The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:
Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.
Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.
Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.
Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?
Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.
The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.
Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”
Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.
Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.
James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.
The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.
Photo Credits: Time.com
For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.
Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:
That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.
Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.
In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.
Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.
Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.
Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.
Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.
Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:
You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.
McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.
Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?
The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.
John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.
Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.
McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.
The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:
We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.
Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.
Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.
Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.
Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?
Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.
The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.
Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”
Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.
Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.
James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.
The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.
Photo Credits: Time.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)