The Republican YouTube Debate

To an extent, I feel like some of the impressions I get out of any particular presidential debate are pretty random. Sometimes a great performance or an eloquent phrase does get imprinted in my memory by virtue of its quality, but I often can't really explain why it is I pay more or less attention to a particular candidate or a particular topic in a particular debate. It's like trying to explain why the characters in James Joyce's Ulysses suddenly start thinking in Italian or start reciting enormous lists of random things. I felt my impressions of tonight's Republican YouTube debate were particularly scattered and random, so I will forgo any attempt to declare any candidate a debate winner or loser. I'm happy to share a slightly stream-of-consciousness report on tonight's debate, though.

For some reason, the candidate I found myself thinking about the most tonight was Mitt Romney, a person I've barely mentioned in this blog to this point. In particular, it struck me that though Romney is the candidate most attacked for flipflopping he is essentially running as an uncompromising conservative, someone who is a hardliner with a rigid ideology. The attacks on Romney continued tonight; as usual, his changing stances on abortion and gay marriage were challenged, and John McCain chastised the former Massachusetts governor's tentative handling of the issue of waterboarding. While Romney can look uncomfortable at times when answering certain questions, it takes a lot to actually phase the man for more than 10 or 15 seconds; I certainly didn't think any attacks tonight really put a visible cramp in Romney's style though they certainly may have an impact on how voters perceive him. As experienced as Dodd and Biden and McCain and Paul are, it is Romney who out of all the candidates seems to be the most polished, consummate politician to me. He honestly sounds as convincing expressing a pro-life point of view now as he did expressing a pro-choice point of view in a video clip shown during the debate from years ago. He doesn't really sound like a guy who would change his mind on the issue now, but he didn't sound like he was about to change his mind then either! During the course of the debate, Romney adopted rigid, legalistic positions on several issues that admitted the existence of no gray areas. While Mike Huckabee thought a distinction needed to be made between the children of illegal immigrants who had no choice but to follow their parents into this country and those illegal immigrants who consciously crossed the border of their own volition, Romney refused to acknowledge that a child was any less an illegal immigrant than his or her parents. Similarly, Romney seemed to not even consider the morality of detaining terrorists in Guantanamo when he discussed that issue -- he saw no need to justify a practice that was part of the War on Terror even though it is very much a moral issue to some people. Romney often expresses rather than explains and seems to prefer to be perceived as confident rather than as thoughtful. That really has nothing to do with Romney's particular take on the issues and everything to do with how Romney has chosen to conduct the campaign. Tom Tancredo, for instance, is surely the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration that is running for president, but he has thousands of reasons he feels the way he does and he is eager to make his case wherever and whenever he can.

Fred Thompson, meanwhile, is about as rough a politician as Mitt Romney is smooth. He really didn't come as advertised -- in spite of the acting experience, Thompson doesn't deliver smooth, well-rehearsed lines and a steady supply of sound bites. Instead, he rambles and says "uh" a lot. And he has a good sense of humor. He's pretty...human. Is he Reaganesque? Well, he is an actor and is surprisingly pretty down-to-Earth, but that's about it for the Reagan connection. He just hasn't been the dynamo that some people were expecting him to be; if he does end up winning the Republican nomination, I predict he'll win it slowly and steadily without many fireworks. He seems comfortable with attacking politics, so I think Giuliani and Romney will definitely feel Senator Thompson nipping at their heels at least through the early primary season.

It was John McCain's turn to attack Ron Paul tonight. Paul has received a lot of attention because his policies are so unlike the policies of the other candidates, so it seems only natural that the other candidates should challenge him when he expresses views so unlike their own, and at least one candidate invariably does in each debate. Each time these challenges actually happen, though, it seems to always sound like a mean bully is picking on the idealistic underdog; McCain didn't exactly escape this image by essentially accusing Paul of adhering to the same policies that led to World War II. Sometimes I think politicians should always consider what the reaction to their words would be like if they expressed their thoughts directly. McCain's direct argument would probably have gone like this: "You know that fringe anti-war candidate, Ron Paul? His crazy anti-war rhetoric is going to lead us into a world war like what happened when we ignored Hitler! Only a hawk like me can be trusted to keep us out of big wars by making us fight lots of little ones! A vote for Paul is a vote for WORLD WAR!" McCain's argument may have some merit, but he was definitely picking on the little, albeit growing, guy here and the Arizona senator ended up sounding very speculative. Mean and speculative isn't an election-winning combo, I don't think.

That's all I've got for tonight.

Snipers and Thinkers

The Democratic presidential candidates gathered tonight in Las Vegas for another debate with memories of the year's most contentious debate last month in Philadelphia still fresh in many minds. Although Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have been the media and poll darlings for most of the year, open warfare between the three has erupted only relatively recently. Personally, I've found this trio's squabbles rather grating and tiresome in large part because there seems to be so little that is genuine about any of it. Obama and Edwards are attacking Clinton because she is ahead in the polls; Clinton is counterattacking Obama and Edwards because they threaten to eat into her lead. The genuinely angry man in this race, Mike Gravel, hasn't even been invited to the last couple of Democratic debate; the pale flames of Obama and Edwards' indignation would easily be engulfed by the roaring fire of Gravel's frustrated populism. Much of what we see from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is strategic sniping. The issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good example of this. Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give a value judgment on this issue garnered public criticism from Obama, yet Obama also seemed rather uncomfortable addressing the very same issue in tonight's debate! True, Obama gave a direct answer -- he supports the idea -- but he seemed as frightened to be seen as taking a strong stand on this issue as Hillary Clinton was. To me, this trivialized the whole controversy over Hillary's previous vacillating; the whole thing was an excuse to attack Hillary, not so much about the issue itself which is clearly a difficult one for both candidates. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was able to answer the question unequivocally and thoroughly. In fact, the early Hillary/Barack/John sniping in this debate probably did more to make Bill Richardson and Joe Biden look good than it did to help any of the disputants. By staying out of the fray and sounding disapproving of the political games taking part on the stage, Biden and Richardson played the roles of wise statesmen. Unluckily for them, the debate grew less negative as it continued on, and each member of the main trio had a few good moments. Hillary Clinton, in particular, seemed much more confident and comfortable even when under fire in this debate, a much-needed performance following her weak showing in Philadelphia.

I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!