Report Cards For First GOP Debate

It’s difficult to imagine that any Capital Cloak reader did not watch last night’s first GOP presidential candidates debate on MSNBC with rapt attention, but in case you missed it or only caught some of the mocking pre- and post- debate commentary from MSNBC, I offer my observations on and grades for each candidate and the moderators. Before I delve into those items, I have to express my absolute shock that a 90 minute debate featuring ten Republicans included not one mention of the 2nd Amendment gun control issue, particularly in light of the Virginia Tech massacre last month. Nor was there a question about gay marriage or a marriage amendment. This was truly baffling. If the debate was intended to help conservative voters determine which candidate shared their values, it fell far short by omitting two critical issues for most conservatives. A word on the grades I have assigned; the grades represent how the candidate performed in this debate and are not an indication of my endorsement of any candidacy. If this post seems rather long, well, remember there were 10 participants, all of them politicians who spoke for 90 minutes. Enough said on that! Now, on with the show:

Rudy Giuliani: grade B+
Memorable quotes:
-“We should never back down from terrorists.”
-“Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational. When our enemies look at the U.S. President, they have to see Reagan. They looked in Reagan’s eyes and in 2 minutes released the hostages.”
-“I hate abortion. I encourage adoption, but it’s an issue of conscience. A Woman should have choice.”
-“President Bush made the right decision on 9/20/01 by putting us on offense. The Clinton administration had left us on defense.”
-“I ran a city that was 5-1 Democrat.”

Observations: Giuliani was strong, as expected, on 9/11, national security, and tamper proof identification cards and databases to control immigration and provide monitoring of visiting foreigners. He pointed out that in the recent Democratic candidates debate none of the candidates even spoke the phrase “Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.” Giuliani was candid on abortion, clearly stating he wanted women to have the choice even if he is morally opposed to it. When asked whether he would welcome the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Giuliani stated, “it would be ok,” while the other candidates (except Gilmore) welcomed an overturn with great fervor. He also seemed ok if it were not overturned. This was hardly a reassuring answer for those concerned with his future Supreme Court nominees if elected. Giuliani also spoke in favor of amending constitution to allow naturalized citizens like Governor Schwarzenegger to run for president. He was not the only candidate to agree with that position, but appeared to be the one most blatantly pandering for “The Governator’s” endorsement. Voters seeking a candidate who will be tough on terrorism, crime, and national security likely heard what they wanted to hear, while social and judicial conservatives heard little to ease their concerns on abortion, gay marriage, and original intent constitutional advocates.

John McCain: grade B
Memorable quotes: In describing the applause on the House floor after passing the Iraq War emergency funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal, McCain asked, “What were they cheering on the House floor? Surrender?”
-“I will follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell.”
-“I would not have mismanaged this war.”
-On embryonic stem cell research, McCain stated, “I would fund it. It is a tough issue, but these embryos will be discarded or indefinitely frozen. We must do all we can to alleviate human suffering.”
-When asked if there were any names he was considering for cabinet positions other than Joe Lieberman, McCain stated, “Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman.”
-On the same question, McCain added, “I don’t care if people with expertise are Democrats, I would ask them to come and serve their country and share their talents.”

Observations: McCain was clearly nervous and had difficulty with stammering and dry throat as he began each of his responses. However, he warmed to each topic and while delivering his answers he became more confident in his delivery. He made a mistake by pointing out to viewers that he was not the youngest candidate even though no one had raised the issue of his age. He also appeared irate when he felt he had been cut off by Chris Matthews before his time had expired, testily stating, “I thought I had a yellow light.” He was right, but he came across as easily angered and less than gracious. McCain (and later Romney) were the only candidates who directly named names in their critiques of Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, with McCain taking Harry Reid to task for his “this war is lost” remark. McCain stood firm on his support for embryonic stem cell research, but curiously he provided a weak response when asked what he would do to contain Iran’s nuclear program. On that issue, he advocated every conceivable form of political, economic, and diplomatic pressure, but did not agree with the assertion that Iran had crossed the line requiring military intervention. A follow up question from Matthews asked what McCain’s “trip wire” would be with Iran that would prompt a military response, and McCain listed Iran building a nuclear bomb as that trip wire. Duncan Hunter would later hammer McCain effectively on this “trip wire.” MSNBC’s post-debate analysts recognized McCain’s emotional, flustered initial responses, but appeared sweet on him while taking shots at Romney and Giuliani. This kid gloves treatment from the liberal media is precisely what fuels talk about McCain’s embrace of too many liberal ideas and his hero status among the MSM.

Mitt Romney: grade A-
Memorable quotes:
-“Don’t buy into the Demo pitch that the War on Terror is all about one person, Osama Bin Laden. This is a global jihad effort to topple all moderate Islamic governments and destroy freedom.”
-“Americans unite over faith. Our enemies divide by religion and faith.”
-“I vetoed tax increases hundreds of times as governor. I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington’s budget.”
-“We need to get more marriages before babies. The most important work we do is within the 4 walls of our homes.”
-When asked whether it would really be bad for America to have Bill Clinton living in the White House again, Romney replied, “You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing that would be worse than that would be to have the gang of three running the War on Terror: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton.”

Observations: Romney was well prepared, smooth in his responses, and clearly is comfortable with the media. He spoke passionately on strengthening national security, winning the Iraq War, and dealing aggressively to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. His response on what to do in Iraq was less than stellar because he did not talk about winning the war. Talk of preventing chaos upon our eventual withdrawal is not the same as stating that winning is what we should do before we pull out. Romney was firm on his stance against embryonic stem cell research, making a good case for adult stem cell use instead, even citing the research of a specific doctor who has had success without the need for embryonic cells. His responses on abortion helped viewers follow the progression of his position on government involvement while clarifying that personally he has always opposed abortion on moral grounds. Romney ducked the question of whether he would pardon Scooter Libby if he were were president, but he forcefully and with a full command of the facts of the case castigated the federal prosecutor for questioning Libby about the Valerie Plame CIA leak incident even though it had already been established that Libby was not the leak (Richard Armitage was). Romney’s defense of Libby could be viewed as a display of loyalty to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as both will campaign hard for the GOP nominee next year. That cynical interpretation is unlikely, as it is widely rumored (for good reason, I might add) that President Bush and Former First Lady Barbara Bush already favor Romney in this race. MSNBC’s Scarborough stated after the debate that Romney is a skilled public performer and “pops” on stage, like Reagan used to. In short, in MSNBC’s estimation, if anyone came out of the debate bearing Reagan’s mantle, it was Romney.

Mike Huckabee: grade A-
Memorable quotes: “We gave our troops limited funds and many restrictions and told them ‘you have to do it with this.’ That was wrong.”
-When asked whether he would favor amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens (Schwarzenegger in particular) to run for president, Huckabee looked at “The Governator” and stated, “After 8 years as president I would be happy to amend the Constitution for the Governator.”
-“We celebrate life. This separates us from the terrorists who strap bombs to their children and blow them up. When hikers get lost on Mt. Hood, we move heaven and earth to rescue them. When coal miners in West Virginia are trapped we go after them. Ours is a culture of life.”
-“My faith explains me, no apology for that. My faith affects my decision making process. One’s faith shouldn’t qualify or disqualify anyone from office. But we should be honest about the impact of our faith on who we are.”
-“It’s too early to give the Bush admin a final grade before the test is over.”
-“I know the Clintons better than anyone here and it would be bad for either of them to be in the WH.”

Observations: I was not as familiar with Huckabee as some of the other candidates, and his performance in this first debate was impressive and a pleasant surprise. He was not flustered by any questions, did not try to be all things to all people, and seemed most comfortable expressing his personal views without apology. That may be because he is polling so low he feels he has nothing to lose by his candor, but even so, he came across as personable, genuine, and well prepared on the issues and how to perform on stage. As someone who opposes amending the constitution for The Governator, Huckabee’s response on that issue was disappointing. On social issues, Huckabee pleased the conservative base by opposing embryonic stem cell research and abortion. When discussing national security, his responses were not as specific as Giuliani, Romney, or Hunter. Huckabee drifted more into the McCain ambiguity, citing platitudes but offering no clear indication of what he would do in Iraq or to contain Iran.

Duncan Hunter: grade B+
Memorable quotes: “Let’s not get to the edge of the cliff with Iran’s uranium enrichment. Iran has crossed the line already by moving weapons into Iraq that are killing our troops. America already has license to use any force necessary to halt Iran’s efforts in Iraq.”
-Responding to a question about illegal immigration, Hunter described the border fence erected in his Congressional district in San Diego, “It’s a double fence. it’s not that scraggly little fence you see on CNN. I built that fence. And we have made an enforceable border.”
-“The dumb trade deal we signed with the rest of the world is killing our manufacturers. We need to give tax breaks to businesses that stay in US and hire American workers.”
-“China is cheating on trade and we are losing our industrial base. China is an emerging threat.”

Observations: Hunter was another somewhat pleasant surprise, and as expected, he was the most forceful on winning the Iraq War and keeping America on a strong defense footing, reminiscent of Reagan’s peace through strength philosophy. His response on what should be done about Iran came as a direct slap at McCain, who declined to state he would commit to military action against Iran until they were building bombs. Hunter seized on that and offered his terrific rebuttal quoted above. The edge of the cliff analogy was very effective and made McCain seem like an appeaser by comparison. Hunter was emotional when answering questions about Iraq, but given his son’s military service there it would be more troubling if Hunter spoke dispassionately about the topic. I felt he made a good point about our trade policies and how they are hurting American businesses while strengthening China, an emerging potential threat. Unfortunately he continued making that point in more than one answer, and came across on trade like Ahab fixating on his white whale. Hunter needs to do a lot more research and work on issues dear to the hearts of social conservatives, as his responses on Abortion and stem cells were canned platitudes that seemed far less genuine than Huckabee’s, Romney’s, McCain’s or even Giuliani’s.

Tommy Thompson: grade B
Memorable quotes: “We should require the Maliki government to vote on whether they want us there to give us credibility for our mission in Iraq.”
-“Republicans lost their way. We came to change Washington and Washington changed us.”
-“As governor of Wisconsin I vetoed 1900 things.”

Observations: As you can see from the short list of memorable quotes, I did not find Thompson’s performance compelling or memorable. Thompson was the proverbial deer in the headlights when asked a question about homosexual rights in the workplace. I could have sworn I heard crickets chirping as the camera captured his furrowed brow while no words came out of his mouth. It was an awkward question, but his delay was the unmistakable sign of a politician searching not for the answer he truly believes but rather the one he has to say out of political correctness. He was not much better when asked whether he was for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He argued that he could not answer yes or no because too much research is in progress to make such a determination. Thompson needs to remember that there will always be research going on, in every field, but leaders have to make decisions often without the final piece of a puzzle. If Thompson ever expects to rise above single digits in any polls, he will have to learn to answer debate questions with confidence and in full. After 90 minutes of debate no one had any idea where he stood on stem cells, and it was a yes or no question. Evasiveness is never a good trait in a leader.

Tom Tancredo: grade C
Memorable quotes: Corruption is not unique to the Republican Party. It is a failure of individuals.”
-“No more platitudes! Let’s see clearly who is where on the immigration issue.”
-“We must appeal the 16th amendment and adopt a fair tax”(consumption tax).
-“Stem cell research is morally reprehensible in many ways.”

Observations: Tancredo had perhaps the toughest sell, given the way the media has pigeon-holed him into one issue, illegal immigration. If nothing else, Tancredo is principled, leaving no doubt about his opposition to abortion, the border, or embryonic stem cell research. In fact, he was so firm in his views on embryonic stem cells that he called Nancy Reagan’s cause celebre “morally reprehensible” with her seated in the front row looking directly at him. If he could do that, he would likely succeed in staring down Putin or Ahmadinejad if called upon to do so, but it was a tactless way to phrase it, especially while other candidates made the same point without being ugly in front of the debate host. He came across throughout as the neighborhood crank, complaining about many issues but offering few solutions other than improved border security. He is an important figure insofar as he brings attention to issues, but did not display much in the way of leadership potential or charisma that could rally the party base to victory.

Sam Brownback: grade C-
Memorable quotes: None.

Observations: Brownback appears to be the GOP’s Al Gore, at least where delivery, vocal inflections, and facial expression are concerned. He was wooden most of the time, and when he was more animated he looked like a claymation figure compared to the smoothly animated Romney standing next to him. He offered some nice complements to the other candidates and made one salient point. Any one of the men on stage would be fine presidents compared to having a Democrat in the White House. Yet while Brownback sang “koombaya” his opponents were separating themselves further from him in the polls by answering with more than generalities and clichés.

Ron Paul: grade D
Memorable quotes: None

Observations: Viewers do not like to be scolded, and Ron Paul is a scolder. His whining attacks on the Iraq War drowned out anything of substance he tried to express on other issues. His libertarian philosophies hold some appeal, especially regarding strict interpretation of the constitution’s original intent, but the messenger in this case does not represent the message well. The most telling moment for Paul came when he was asked to provide an example of a time when he had to make a critical crisis decision. He had no answer, and stated as much. Struggling to come up with something, he attempted to portray his 5 year history of votes against the Iraq War as an answer to the question, which it was not. He further attempted to explain that perhaps his decision to run for president might count. Neither was even close to answering the clear intent behind the question. Giuliani could point to the morning of 9/11 for a host of critical decisions he made as mayor of New York. Romney could point to his jumping into the 2002 Olympic scandal and making critical decisions to rapidly solve the corruption and restore the image of Salt Lake City and the U.S. to the international community. He also referred to critical decisions made as governor of Massachusetts. Paul came across as an ideologue who has never actually confronted a crisis and resolved it with his personal leadership, and this permanently cemented his insignificance in the campaign.

Jim Gilmore: Grade D
Memorable quotes: None
Observations: Was Gilmore on stage? I do not recall him saying anything compelling or that distinguished him in any way from his opponents. I do remember laughing when he stated, in response to the question asking him to explain a time when he had to make a critical decision in a crisis, that when 9/11 occurred he was governor of Virginia and participated on a committee to address security issues with federal, state, and local government agencies. Only a politician would equate sitting on a committee with actually handling a crisis. If there is time to form a committee and discuss matters before reaching decisions, where is the crisis?

Moderator Chris Matthews: grade B
Observations: Matthews was tough on Romney and Giuliani, cutting them off in mid-sentence more than the others as well as asking them more follow up questions. He was fairly good at keeping the debate moving. Matthews did little to disguise his disdain for each candidate and if Tony Snow had been there, he would have chastised Matthews for asking questions in a “snarky” manner. Still, considering it was an MSNBC production, it could have been worse.

Matthews and the Politico.com co-moderators did ask some interesting questions:

Q-To Romney from Politico reader- What do you like least about America? This was the dumbest question of the night and it threw Romney for a loop because he is not part of the hate America crowd. I am glad he could not come up with anything but instead praised America for what it has been and will yet be.

Q- Matthews to Gilmore and Tancredo- Is Karl Rove your friend? Would you employ Karl Rove?- This was the second dumbest question and the candidates treated it accordingly.

Q- Politico reader- What’s with all the Republican corruption? The follow up to this was “What have you learned no to do from the GOP corruption scandals?” Right. That question wasn’t intentionally used as a double slam of the GOP.

Q- Would it be bad for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House? Matthews asked this of all, and all said no but Romney and Huckabee stated it best as quoted above.

Final Observations:
I noticed that Giuliani and Romney defended each other on the need for “tamper proof” identification cards when Matthews and other candidates misunderstood the issue and thought the cards were meant as a national ID card for all Americans. Romney had to wave down Matthews to clarify that the cards were only for visiting foreigners as a security and immigration tool, and Giuliani backed Romney by adding that the cards were not meant for all Americans. That ended the issue as no one had any reason to oppose it once they understood it. During that exchange, Romney and Giuliani clearly looked at each other, and it appeared that they had discussed this issue with each other previously and had formed an alliance of sorts. Could this be a harbinger of things to come, such as a Giuliani-Romney ticket? That was the impression I had when listening to their views, and observing their demeanor toward each other.

One thing we definitely learned is that when it comes to courage, the GOP is head and shoulders above the DNC. Whereas the DNC refuses to participate in any debates sponsored by FOX News, the GOP was willing to have its candidates appear on a notoriously biased network with a sneeringly biased moderator in Matthews without backing down or taking their ball and running home like the Democrats did from the Nevada debate sponsored by Fox. That debate was canceled on account of cowardice.

Ten candidates is six too many for any substantive debate to occur, but in this first test of the candidates mettle, they performed admirably, though not spectacularly. I would gladly have exchanged Tommy Thompson for Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback for Newt Gingrich, and then we could have learned a lot more about who the nominee will be. Two critical influences were not present, and while they are smart to avoid the dogfights of the early debates, it makes me resent that they will surely swoop in at the last minute and erase the work of these candidates without spending a dime or stepping in the ring to trade blows.

Who won the first debate? Out of the three serous contenders on stage, Romney came out on top, with Giuliani and McCain neck and neck behind him. Out of those with little hope and thus nothing to lose, Huckabee was stellar. Taking the field as a whole, I would rate Romney first, in part because there were more direct and thorny questions posed of him first than Huckabee, who was served a lot of softballs by “hardball” Chris Matthews but still deserved a close second place.

I’m already looking forward to round two.

CNN Insane To Jab At Reagan

As a conservative, I often question my sanity for spending time each day scouring the headlines and blog titles from liberal sources such as CNN, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, the Washington Post, etc. I know what I will usually find; melancholy accounts of the Iraq War, new revelations in the so-called scandals of the Bush administration, and unconcealed glee that the Democrats control the House and Senate. Each visit to these sites is a contributing factor to my gradually rising blood pressure, but it is important to monitor what is written and how it is presented to the public. While it is perfectly normal to question one’s own sanity for self-inflicting such political torment, it is not normal for a news channel to question the sanity of a revered former American president. That is, unless that channel happens to be CNN.

Thanks to an alert World Net Daily (WND) reader who, like me, wades through the media quagmire that is CNN.com, CNN was caught in the act of linking Ronald Reagan with “insanity” through a news headline on the CNN.com main web site page. The reader alerted WND and screen shots were captured from CNN.com last night that clearly demonstrate CNN’s original headline and the one editors replaced it with after WND blew the whistle on them.

Headlines on respectable news sites are expected to refer in some way to the topic of an article, but CNN apparently went out of its way to link the terms “Reagan” and “insanity” with the clear knowledge that the AP article had nothing to do with insanity or any mental illness. Where did CNN get the idea to link Reagan with insanity? The AP article, titled “Reagan’s wit, humor comes through In detailed diaries,” included one vignette of Reagan’s struggle with then teenage daughter Patti, who despised the limitations a Secret Service detail placed on her activities. Reagan wrote of Patti’s tantrums and literal screams at him and the agents to get rid of her protective detail, “Insanity is hereditary. You catch it from your kids.”

That humorous (and true, as any parent of a teenager knows) remark by Reagan is the only reference to “insanity” in the AP article, but in referring readers to the story, CNN chose to replace the AP headline with a disingenuous and completely out of context headline of its own: “Reagan diary gives new take on insanity.”

This despicable act by CNN is an object lesson in why conservatives must and do track the news from a wide variety of sources, even liberal outlets that our natural instincts tell us are not worth viewing. While some CNN.com readers were misled by the deplorable headline in the time it was on the site, WND’s rapid reaction in confronting CNN was a victory for truth. Small victories often turn the tide of war. WND deserves credit for confirming the reader’s report and confronting CNN immediately about its misleading Reagan headline. It is no coincidence that all of the GOP candidates for the 2008 nomination are attempting to embrace Reagan’s brand of conservatism and to emulate him as much as possible in their campaigning. CNN cleverly (so it thought) understood that linking Reagan with “insanity” would also link anyone trying to imitate him to “insanity” as well, thus the headline was an affront to all Reagan conservatives.

This headline story had a happy ending, as reported by WND:

In the wake of WND's exposure, CNN.com changed the Reagan headline on its homepage, removing any reference to "insanity." The updated headline read: "Reagan's wit comes through in diaries."

From wit to insanity, and back to wit again. The truth took a major detour under the direction of CNN’s editorial department, but the truth, as it always does, overcame. CNN’s executives have been pulling their hair out wondering how Fox News rose to #1 and remains firmly entrenched in that spot. They also puzzle ‘till their puzzlers are sore over how to regain credibility and viewers. The solution to CNN’s woes is simple and scriptural, which explains why they have missed it for so long: “the truth shall set you free.”

McCain's League Proposal is "Super"

Is it just me, or do some of you also think of the Justice League of America comics whenever you hear or read references to the League of Nations or any other phrase using the word “league?” Even with a graduate degree in history the word “league” conjures more images of Superman and his trusted allied superheroes than Woodrow Wilson. How fitting then, that John McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution yesterday filled my mind with images of a League of Democracies, with America standing as Superman surrounded by legions of valuable allies each with a unique contribution to offer to the joint effort against tyranny and evil. McCain, of course, was not speaking on the virtues of comic book superheroes to the august members of the Hoover Institution. Yet the comparison between the Justice League and McCain’s proposed League of Democracies seems just as valid and exciting now after absorbing the entire speech and appreciating its greatness.

John McCain’s poll numbers are steadily improving and the gap between current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani and McCain is shrinking. Over the past two weeks, McCain has been more aggressive in his campaigning and has impressed potential voters. After reading McCain’s address to the Hoover Institution, it is easy to see why his appeal appears to be growing. Whether the Senator writes his own speeches (which is entirely possible given his love of history and writing) or has employed a speechwriter remains to be seen, but in either case, his Hoover speech was pleasantly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a Hill” tribute to America’s past and future greatness. That speech, Reagan’s last as President, was an eloquent clarion call for Americans to live up to America’s potential and set a standard that will encourage other peoples to embrace freedom and democracy. McCain’s Hoover Institution speech went a step further, challenging the free world to form a League of Democracies to which all nations who value democracy and self-determination can turn for protection and support of common interests.

Initial reports of McCain’s speech gave some the impression that his proposal for a League of Democracies was merely an idealistic 21st century rehash of Woodrow Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations, but when one examines carefully McCain’s reasoning and the global role he foresees for a League of Democracies, the differences between his proposal and Wilson’s become clear. Whereas Wilson’s League of Nations was a fractured collection of nations desperate to avoid any future wars, McCain’s proposal offers substantial advantages to members based on their commitment to democracy and freedom, and subsequently produces incentives for non-members to make changes necessary for inclusion. The entire speech can be found at National Review Online , but the following excerpt paints a striking portrait of the world envisioned by McCain:

If we strike this new bargain and renew our transatlantic solidarity, I believe we must then take the next step and expand the circle of our democratic community. As we speak, American soldiers are serving in Afghanistan alongside British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea —all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But they are not all part of a common structure. They don't work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet their common problems. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront.

The NATO alliance has begun to deal with this gap by promoting global partnerships between current members of the alliance and the other great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.

While McCain may publicly insist that a League of Democracies would not supplant the UN, it is not difficult to imagine the effect such a League would have on the viability of the already declining UN. Yesterday, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who is a campaign consultant for Duncan Hunter, published a preview of McCain’s speech and made the astute observation that the League of Democracies would grow in importance and power to the point that all relevant issues would naturally be addressed by it, rather than the UN. Hawkins, no fan of the UN, pointed out to his readers that McCain’s League is a good idea precisely because it would ultimately create an avenue for the U.S. to “get out of the United Nations.”

I agree with Hawkins that McCain’s League would reduce the UN to utter irrelevance, and if that were the only reason to support it, that would still be sufficient for me. However, considering McCain’s speech as a whole, I see something worthy of serious consideration and implementation, particularly as it applies to combating the radical ideologies that breed terrorism. McCain distills the battle we face down to two sides, with no middle ground, invoking James Madison to make his case:

Almost two centuries ago James Madison declared that the great struggle of the Epoch' was between liberty and despotism.' Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it didn't. It took on new guises, such as the modern terrorist network, an enemy of progress that has turned our technological advances to its own use, and in rulers trying to rebuild 19th-century autocracies in a 21st century world. Today the talk is of the war on terror, a war in which we must succeed. But the war on terror cannot be the only organizing principle of American foreign policy. International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outcome of that struggle depend our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.

Uniting the world’s democracies into a global entity seeking to preserve and promote democracy invokes another Reagan comparison, a worldwide call to “tear down this wall” that exists in too many nations between oppressive governments and their freedom seeking peoples. Whether or not one supports McCain the candidate, his League of Democracies is worthy of support from conservatives, who despise the UN and repressive systems of government, as well as liberals who embrace international collaboration and promote human rights. I recommend that readers visit NRO and read McCain’s masterful speech in its entirety.

Miss America Refutes D.A. Smear

A lot of media outlets are busy retracting harsh stories written yesterday criticizing Miss America Lauren Nelson for allegedly refusing to testify against Internet child sex predators she helped police to capture in a recent sting operation. I am happy to report that Capital Cloak was not among the media mob that attacked Miss America yesterday, having offered perhaps the only viewpoint that correctly identified Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota as having lashed out at Nelson because his ego was wounded by being left out of the sting operation. Now, official statements from the Miss America Organization and "America's Most Wanted" have vindicated my assertion that Spota was disingenuously condemning the operation and Nelson's motives for participation. From Fox News today:

"Miss America 2007 is dedicated to her personal platform and to the integrity of the events she participated in while working with 'America's Most Wanted' and the Suffolk County Police Department to capture online predators," the statement reads. "Lauren plans to — and has always planned to — fully cooperate with the Suffolk County Police Department and will continue to champion her cause."

"America's Most Wanted" also refuted the Newsday story.

"Despite the information to the contrary that appears in an article in Newsday, according to the Miss America Organization neither Lauren Nelson nor her representatives have told the Suffolk County District Attorney — or anyone else — that she would refuse to testify in any of the cases in which she participated," reads the statement on the television show's Web site. "We don't know why the D.A. would make the comments attributed to him without knowing all of the facts."

If you read yesterday's post on this topic, you know precisely why the D.A. acted as he did.

Jilted D.A. Swipes at Miss America

“Feel good” stories are rare in the media these days, and even when one seems to fit the category, something arises to potentially taint the tale. Last week I wrote about Miss America Lauren Nelson’s participation in a police sting targeting Internet child sex predators. At that time, her role as bait in the operation appeared sincere and courageous, but now, because of the stepped-on toes of a district attorney and a Newsday story linked by the Drudge Report with the headline “Sex Sting Imperiled By Miss America,” Nelson’s confrontation with evil has been ridiculed as a mere publicity stunt.

A deconstruction of the Newsday story and Drudge’s misleading headline is needed. To recap, since the sting occurred and was subsequently aired on “America’s Most Wanted” Saturday evening, a dispute arose between the Suffolk County Police Department, Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, and Nelson. Spota complained that the Suffolk PD did not tell him of the operation until the day it occurred and that he never would have approved of using Miss America to lure predators. Nelson, when told she might need to return to Suffolk County to testify against the Internet pedophiles, stated the Suffolk PD never warned her she would have any further involvement in the prosecutions, and did not want to appear in court. According to Newsday, The Suffolk PD claimed Nelson was advised that because she was involved in an undercover operation, “there may be more expected of her down the road.”

My experience with district and U.S. attorneys over the years leads me to offer the following observations about this situation:

1. Although local and federal law enforcement are empowered to conduct investigations and make arrests when laws are violated, district and U.S. attorneys wield enormous control over when and how those arrests will occur, and even whether they will occur at all. It would disturb the American people to know how many crimes known to law enforcement are ignored simply because District and U.S. attorneys have made it clear they are not interested in prosecuting certain offenses, usually because they are too complicated for juries to understand or are not glamorous enough. District and U.S. attorneys are extremely selective about the cases they will prosecute; usually requiring law enforcement to provide them with what George Tenet would call “a slam dunk” case. Even then, the “slam dunk” must involve a large dollar loss amount or media attention. If the case had not previously attracted media coverage, a press conference is planned even before the arrest operation has been finalized. I have worked with colleagues who, while on surveillance and having observed the suspect engaged in illegal activity, were required to call the on-duty assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) for permission to arrest the suspect. If it is a Friday afternoon, don’t bother calling an AUSA or district attorney for permission to arrest someone, because that would interrupt their weekend plans.

1a. Do not be fooled by D.A. Spota’s feigned indignation that Miss America was used in the operation without his approval. Spota (photo right) was actually bitter about two things: first, he has to do his job, only with a case not of his choosing; second, his not being notified of the operation until the last moment prevented him, an elected official, from actively participating and playing an important role in the sting and the “America’s Most Wanted” broadcast. District and U.S. attorneys love to toot their own horns to the media and rarely miss an opportunity to do so. Spota not only missed a chance to be interviewed for “America’s Most Wanted,” he also was left out of an operation involving Miss America, a media magnet. The career enhancement that could have followed television news clips and newspaper photos of Spota standing next to Miss America after a successful child predator sting was lost, and his bitterness was apparent in his petty sniping at the Suffolk PD.

1b. Yet, what did Spota expect? According to his own account, he had previously opposed a previous televised sex sting by the Suffolk PD last year. Law enforcement is not required to obtain prosecutor permission in advance. That permission is usually sought as a matter of professional courtesy, and the Suffolk PD had little reason to think Spota would cooperate. This is attorney arrogance at its worst, as Spota was clearly more irate that he was not consulted than he was pleased that eleven Internet predators who believed they were going to meet and eventually have sex with children were arrested. In a disgusting display of priorities, he was miffed because the Suffolk PD officers were in the video footage and he was not. Spota reportedly stated that the sting was merely “a publicity stunt.”

1c. Arrests and court decisions are public record, thus when a criminal is arrested anyone can go to the local courthouse and review the charges brought against a suspect. Why then do district attorneys hold press conferences to announce arrests? Technically, all press conferences are publicity stunts, drawing attention to the attorneys, tainting potential juror pools, but also warning potential criminals that their behavior will be punished. I found it interesting that a Google search of the terms “Thomas Spota,” “district attorney,” and “press conference” produced 287 hits. Clearly Spota is no stranger to publicizing his cases before the press, but in this case “America’s Most Wanted,” the arresting officers, and Miss America were in the limelight, and Spota was left offstage. This sheds an entirely different light on what appears to be his attempt to decline prosecuting these cases to embarrass the Suffolk PD while blaming them and Miss America for allegedly jeopardizing the cases.

2. Spota’s comments that cases are in jeopardy because of Nelson’s refusal to return to testify are exaggerated. Many, many criminal cases have been successfully prosecuted without testimony from undercover officers or agents. Computer forensic evidence seized from the suspect’s home can demonstrate graphically the Internet chats he engaged in with persons he believed to be underage, including his solicitations to meet with Nelson. The entire Internet chat conversation thread was captured electronically and can be printed out and handed to a jury, who will be sickened by what they read. Such predators nearly always have extensive collections of child pornography on their computers, which would also be introduced as evidence for the jury to view. This will further disgust the jury to the point that prosecution will be inevitable. The suspects netted in the sting were all captured on film arriving at an address they obtained through predatory online behavior, and they were also filmed entering the home willingly and being arrested. Intent, the key ingredient to a prosecution, is established through the Internet chats and subsequent actions to meet with the alleged youth.

2a. Spota and the defense attorneys are correct that Nelson can be subpoenaed to testify, but the complaint that an undercover officer rather than a civilian should have been used is disingenuous. Because of the risk to undercover law enforcement officers and the difficulty of successfully infiltrating criminal groups, most sting operations involve “civilians,” i.e. cooperating defendants. Cooperating defendants are no more qualified than Miss America for their duties. Who is better qualified to pose as a fourteen year-old girl than someone who was once a fourteen year-old girl? The Suffolk PD coached her regarding what she could and could not write, as the solicitation must be made by the suspect rather than the lure. She was obviously skilled enough to convince four (the number later grew to eleven) child predators that she was in fact fourteen and they were eager, after viewing her teenage photos, to meet her.

2b. Defense attorney Michael Brown, representing one of the eleven arrested offenders, reportedly explained why he felt the departure from normal police procedure was unfair to his client: "They use undercover detectives," Brown said. "They don't use a pretty blonde." So, if the lure is pretty, pedophilia is justified? I am confident that a jury will not be duped by that defense, and thus these prosecutions are not in jeopardy because of Miss America, despite Drudge’s attention grabbing headlines. It won’t matter that Miss America “sounded hot” on the phone or her teenage photos were more attractive than average. What mattered was intent, and the suspects all believed and perversely were excited by the idea that they were chatting and meeting with a child. Juries remember that, and reach appropriate verdicts.

3. There may be many reasons why Nelson does not want to testify in court, and I will not speculate about what those may be. I do understand why Spota is so eager to secure Nelson’s testimony. Her presence will attract national publicity to hearings or trials that would otherwise go unnoticed in the daily court dockets. What prosecutor would not want Miss America, symbol of beauty and youthful achievement, testifying for the state? Nelson previously stated that she wanted to raise awareness of the growing problem of Internet child exploitation, and her involvement in the operation did so. Spota was foolish to publicly criticize her participation and reluctance to testify, as she may well be subpoenaed by the defense and he will be working closely with her. He will love the publicity, but his jealousy-induced tantrum will make it awkward for everyone involved. So much for a "feel good" story.

Separation of Cinema and State Needed

Americans worship celebrity. That three word sentence might be common knowledge, but it should also be a warning sign, particularly when it comes to politics and whom we choose to lead us. The ACLU and many other groups have worked tirelessly to erect a formidable wall separating church and state, but perhaps a more useful effort might be to create more separation between cinema and state.

I am concerned about the nearly unanimous clamor for actor Fred Thompson to officially declare his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The poll numbers indicate Thompson possesses a movie star’s presence, a sound bite worthy tongue, and a country singer’s knack for stirring up patriotic fervor. All these characteristics should make me welcome his inevitable jump into the race, but I am restrained from embracing his entry by celebrity political phobia.

As a conservative who had a modest degree of professional interaction with and observation of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as a host of current and past celebrity figures, there is no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan and George Washington were exceptions rather than rules when it came to celebrity being good for politics. It was just as important that Reagan was a former actor as it was that George Washington was a former general. Had either been actively employed in their chosen professions when running for the presidency, it could have been said of them that it was merely their celebrity status that captivated the attention of voters.

Washington was the most popular American when the framers of the constitution sought an appropriate man to serve as the first president. His popularity as the victorious general of the Revolutionary War was enormous, but what endeared him to most to the general population and especially the Framers was his willingness to relinquish control of the Army and desire to retire quietly to private life after the Revolutionary War concluded. These actions cemented his reputation as a man of unquestionable integrity who sought the good of his nation more than he sought to be popular. This made him the ideal choice for a first president, and he demonstrated more integrity and humility when, after serving as president and commander in chief, he stepped aside, refusing to entertain popular pleadings that the laws be changed to allow him another term.

By the time Reagan ran for president, his movie career was decades in the past, and his own personal charisma and dedication to conservative principles ultimately won the hearts of voters. Reagan was prepared by long life experience to be the right man at the right time in the Cold War drama, and despite his landslide victories remained affable, sincere, and unaffected by adulation. In short, Reagan was not elected BECAUSE he was a former actor, he was chosen DESPITE being a former actor. The political accomplishments that ultimately led to his GOP nomination in 1980 were separate from his cinematic achievements. He truly had two careers, although clearly one certainly prepared him for the public performance aspect of the other.

However, the trend toward merging our celebrity worship culture with the selection of our leaders is becoming more commonplace and, well, popular. Instead of reluctantly turning to celebrities, it is now fashionable to nominate them simply because they are famous. The list is long and continues to grow: Sonny Bono; Clint Eastwood; Fred Grandy; Bill Bradley; Steve Largent; Tom Osborne; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Jesse Ventura; Fred Thompson, and more. While some of these men have proven capable in their elected offices, the parlaying of popularity into politics is, in the long term, a dangerous and damaging societal trend.

The desire to boost Schwarzenegger into the presidency nearly convinced members of the House and Senate to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to allow those born outside of the United States to serve as president, all because in a justified fit of pique, California voters chose to throw then Governor Gray Davis out and Schwarzenegger, adopting the slogan “The Governator” in a sickening display of celebrity, overshadowed more qualified GOP candidates like Tom McClintock who had dedicated years and decades to lowering taxes and other cherished conservative ideals.

The groundswell of support for Fred Thompson’s potential run for president in 2008 is disturbing because it is based on his celebrity more than his political convictions. Who wouldn’t want the tough-talking DA from “Law & Order” warning the Iranians to stop seeking nuclear bombs, or the hard nosed admiral from “The Hunt for Red October” staring down Putin in what appears to be a coming Cold War II? The problem is that Thompson is a former politician and current actor, the reverse of Reagan, and thus his name recognition is truly based solely on his acting career. Thompson dabbled in politics, using his movie star status to secure a Senate seat, but when he tired of the ideological battle, he retreated back to acting. Reagan never tired of the ideological battle, fighting it convincingly and publicly until only disease could silence him.

While Reagan’s former aides, such as Michael Deaver, may see in Thompson some similarities with their former boss, the comparison appears shallow at best. Conservatives should not further fuel the fire of celebrity-driven politics by choosing Thompson just because one former actor turned out to be a great choice. I never thought it possible to agree with anything spoken by “West Wing” star Martin Sheen, but, when approached by DNC officials about running for the Senate in his home state of Ohio, Sheen reportedly stated, “I’m just not qualified. You’re confusing celebrity for credibility.” Thompson is clearly more popular than any of the current GOP candidates, but in selecting our future leaders we must curb the trend to allow media popularity to become a virtue in itself. For practical purposes, liberal celebrities far outnumber conservative stars, thus embracing popularity in candidates is potentially suicidal for conservatives in the long term.

In coming months, Thompson may prove himself a worthy candidate, but the high poll numbers in advance of his candidacy may signal that conservatives value him more for his name and face recognition than substantive qualifications. Most voting in these polls have never watched him debate, or deliver a political speech, or write a piece of legislation, or argue on the Senate floor, but they have seen and heard him on TV and in movies, and that is apparently enough to convince them he will be a convincing president. Opening the floodgates of celebrities turned politicians will have a profoundly negative effect on how we govern ourselves. How many times have genuinely well qualified candidates with impeccable integrity been pushed aside because they lacked big name status and were perceived as unelectable nationally? Conservatives must make sure that Thompson is the right man for the job, not merely the best available celebrity.

Highway Collapse Disproves Sheen's 9/11 Theories

Remarkably, conspiracy theorists (Charlie Sheen being one of the more infamous) continue to assert despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the World Trade Center towers were brought down on 9/11 by demolition explosives cunningly pre-placed by the Bush administration to provide justification for future warmongering. These conspiracy buffs claim that flying jets into the towers could not possibly have caused the collapses and that the conclusions investigating engineers reached were wrong about superheated jet fuel melting steel beams, leading to the collapses. So insinstent are these conspiracy theorists, that Sheen is narrating an upcoming documentary exploring "what really happened" on 9/11.

On Sunday, a traffic accident at the interchange of three highways near the Bay Bridge in Oakland, California, served as a vivid illustration that 9/11 conspiracy buffs should have paid closer attention in their science classes. A tanker truck carrying 8600 gallons of gasoline crashed into a pylon and burst into flames, spewing gasoline onto the highway interchange. As that gasoline ignited and spread the fire across the pavement, the following occurred (sorry Charlie Sheen, et al), even without “evil Bush administration demolition charges”:

Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.

The charred section of collapsed freeway was draped at a sharp angle onto the highway beneath, exposing a web of twisted metal beneath the concrete. Officials said that altogether a 250-yard portion of the upper roadway was damaged.

Extreme temperatures created by burning fuel, steel beams buckling, metal bolts melting, structures collapsing. Sounds a lot like what happened with all that jet fuel from the nearly full tanks of the planes used on 9/11, doesn’t it? As damaging as this tanker accident is to commuting and trucking in the Bay area, it will hopefully stand as a witness to nutty conspiracy advocates (many of whom ironically happen to reside in the Bay area) that catastrophes can and do happen regularly without the prior knowledge or participation of anyone from the Bush administration. My stopwatch is ticking, recording how long it will take for Spike Lee to produce a “documentary” asserting that the Army Corps of Engineers, complicit with the Bush Administration, blew up this interchange like the levees of New Orleans.

--Photos by AP, Fox News.