New Hampshire Republican Debate Thoughts

I think that debates naturally encourage even multi-dimensional candidates to overly focus on the single issue that is most important to them because the time each speaker has to make a point is quite limited, but even so I was disappointed in the extremely narrow focus of several of the candidates in the June 5th Republican presidential debate. Previously I criticized Giuliani for running on the terrorism issue to the exclusion of other issues, but he's hardly the only one who attempts to divert as many debate questions as he can to his pet issue. Ron Paul has a boatload of interesting ideas and could contribute a lot more to the race besides being the anti-war Republican. Yes, I see that Paul is playing an important role in creating a debate about the Iraq war, but the Iraq war and the American foreign policy that led to the Iraq war is almost all Paul talked about on Tuesday! Tom Tancredo is obviously focused on immigration -- sometimes he almost looks bored when he has to speak about anything else. Duncan Hunter, of course, is the "defense" candidate. There is more substance to the Giuliani, Paul, and Hunter campaigns than debate watchers might realize to this point -- I strongly recommend visiting their campaign web sites and YouTube to learn more. I haven't quite decided about Tancredo yet -- he might just be a genuine one issue candidate.

I have to give Tancredo and Hunter some credit, though...they were more energetic in this debate than they were in the previous one. Tancredo was incredibly gutsy to suggest that a freeze on ALL immigration might be a good thing. That's definitely not something I hear all the time, but historically America, that great nation of immigrants, has a long tradition of an anti-immigration opposition. It is an amusing fact of history that Tancredo is following in the footsteps of the "Know Nothing" movement of the 19th century. Tancredo was also quite open in detailing his unfriendly relationship with the Bush administration. Disaffected Bush voters might just give him a chance...but I think you'd REALLY need to be against immigration to give your vote to Tancredo. There's no room for the undecided in that camp. Hunter has a tougher road because he is similar to the other candidates in his focus on defense, but in my opionion he came across in the debate as a committed conservative who was more level-headed than Giuliani. I'd rather he have the guns than Giuliani at this point, even if their stance on security and war issues aren't necessarily that dissimilar.

On the other hand, Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson seemed to be lacking in energy for this debate. I think Thompson has at least one very good idea: his idea for Iraq includes an oil wealth distribution plan that includes the federal government, state governments, and individual Iraqis. Letting individual Iraqis in on the action could be a brilliant move. Thompson is hindered a bit because he is not the smoothest speaker around; he gets his ideas across but not elegantly. He is good-humored, but his jokes are hit-and-miss. I have respect for Tommy T., though -- at least he is running a multifaceted campaign. Gilmore has also avoided single issue politics, but he comes across sometimes as a passionless candidate. Passionless, solid, trustworthy conservatism is not reeling in the voters en masse at the moment.

Who won the debate? Mike Huckabee continued to impress me; the guy is charismatic, funny, compassionate, and extremely sharp. Bill Clinton had an uncanny ability to seem both intelligent and caring at the same time -- logos and pathos were in perfect harmony. Huckabee has the same ability, but comes across as more genuine than Bill often did. He's a great debater. John McCain continues to uncompromisingly express his plans for Iraq and immigration, and I thought he did rather well in this debate. His defense of immigration was prettier than a rose: I'm sure even Tancredo must have muttered to himself, "My God, how could I set him up like that?" as McCain ascended to the heavens. However I think most people agree on what McCain's Iraq plan will mean in the short run: more deaths. With more troops on the ground, maybe Iraq can be reined in and become less chaotic. Maybe the flow of ammunition and weaponry can be disrupted. But the end of chaos will be accompanied with the end of lives -- we'll see an acceleration of the war before its end. I'm not sure America really wants victory at any cost in Iraq...I know I don't. People who are willing to look past the surge of deaths in the short run though might just see a rosier future for both Iraq and the United States under McCain. McCain still stands for campaign reform and legislative action as well. I think the "no-death" campaign was also victorious simply because Ron Paul does what he has chosen to do extremely well. Paul keeps hitting the other candidates hard on the Iraq issue; at the end of the day, he's the only one seeking the Republican nomination who will bring the troops home regardless of the consequences. If you have someone you love in Iraq right now, there have to be times when that person is all that matters, overshadowing terrorism and national honor and the good of the Iraqi people and every other reason why the war in Iraq continues. It's hard to say if that point of view is a special selfishness born out of longing and love or, ultimately, sensible self-interest which will, as Paul argues, lead America out of a war that was a mistake from the very beginning.