Election 2008

The media are awash with commentary after tonight’s Republican CNN/You Tube debate, most of it tactical parsing of what was said and who looked best saying it. To this observer, however, the real interest in this debate was the focus on illegal immigration. The first half-hour of the debate was devoted entirely to this one subject. Was New York a “sanctuary city?” Was Massachusetts home to six “sanctuary cities” — and a Governor’s mansion where illegals sometimes worked? Did Arkansas give “subsidies” to children of illegal aliens so they could go to college? Each of the top three Republican contenders had some explaining to do before a skeptical Republican audience. And the more each one — Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee — tried to depict his actions as vigorously against favoring illegals, the more chinks could be seen in his armor.

McCain, by contrast, defended his unpopular stand rather more convincingly. He said that he now realized that the borders had to be secured before the U.S. could offer illegal immigrants a deal. As an ally of the White House’s failed plan to offer illegals an accomodation, McCain was the only Republican tonight to mention President Bush favorably. At one point he said he was “saddened” by the tone of the other Republicans’ remarks. The illegals were also “God’s children,” he said.

What this should really tell us is that illegal immigration may be the trickiest issue of this campaign. Hillary got into trouble over her answer in Philadelphia on whether illegals should get drivers’ licenses; now it’s the Republicans’ turn to try to fashion a response that seems forthright without being jingoistic.

There is also the not small matter of how it plays in the Hispanic community — those whose documents now include voter registration cards. As Dan Schnur put it (quoted in last Sunday’s NYT), “a Republican who only talks border control or a Democrat who only talks about benefits and services for illegal immigrants are going to find themselves in a lot of trouble next fall.”

Duncan Hunter may vow to build 800 miles of border fence within six months of taking office, but no nominee will be able to base his immigration policy on simply keeping everyone out. Those 12 million immigrants who are here already, illegally, must either be integrated into society or sent home. How we handle this will tell us and the rest of the world what we are really like. A nation of immigrants — legal and equal — is the way it should be.

We’re back on-line (after some server trouble) at just the point when the candidates have to pause briefly to allow the voting public a chance to celebrate Thanksgiving. The candidates may not be thankful, but the public surely is. For a day we will be without new polls, candidate debates or spin. It’s a good time for taking stock, which is, after all, a big part of Thanksgiving.

We’re in a strange place right now in terms of the campaign and foreign affairs. None of the candidates – in either party – thinks the Iraq war has been conducted well, none thinks that the decision to go to war (based on what we now know) was wise. But no one (except Joe Biden) has articulated a strategy for what should happen in this critical country after American troops begin leaving, probably sometime before next November. The military “surge” seems to be working, for which we should all be thankful, but where is the political “surge?” The only public action in Washington last week on Iraq was inaction, as both the Senate and House left town without passing funding for the troop deployment.

In a post after last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, I compared it to professional wrestling – a kind of political “smackdown.” For a couple of news cycles afterward, the talk was about Hillary having picked herself up, then came polls that showed Obama for the first time with a five point lead in Iowa and closing the gap in New Hampshire. The tighter the race gets, the less it will be about issues and the more it will be about perception. This is the province of the campaign ad, and a slew of them have just been introduced into the airwaves of Iowa and the early primary states. I recommend you watch Giuliani’s muscular pitch or Hillary’s tough talk on energy. But resurgent Mike Huckabee’s hard-hitting promo takes this all to its logical (ridiculous) conclusion. Watch it before sitting down to your turkey dinner, but after you’ve had a drink.

After dinner, you might listen to a discussion by two prominent pundits, Mark Halperin (ABC) and John Harris (Politico), who spoke last week before the San Francisco World Affairs Council. You can listen to it here. To whet your appetite, I will list their shorthand descriptions of the three top Democratic candidates, as they viewed by the “filter” – political professionals and media pundits: Clinton – “warrior”; Obama – “interesting, frivolous”; Edwards – “phoney.”

Enjoy your turkey!

Our political contests borrow heavily from military vocabulary: “campaigns” are waged in “battleground” states, “attack” ads “target” key opponents, and so on. Since 2004, we even have an opprobrious tactic — “swiftboating” — drawn from a synonymous naval vessel.

But on this Veterans’ Day, we are reminded that there is very little military experience — except for John McCain’s — among the current Presidential candidates and their lieutenants. Our most notable military hero in public life, McCain is the only candidate who can speak of deploying American forces with a credibility borne of his own personal experience. However, due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War and his strong support of it, this turns out not to be much of an asset. Without a very strong showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina, this survivor of the Hanoi Hilton will be an early primary casualty.

On Veterans’ Day, the candidates automatically focus on helping veterans. Hillary has a campaign video featuring endorsements from veterans, Romney a campaign speech pledging benefits for vets, and Edwards a talk promising new support for treating Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Obama has a pro-vets activity scheduled as well.  But don’t look for this focus to last beyond today’s news cycle.

Hillary’s approach to foreign affairs and security as campaign themes seeks to position her between — as she would have it — Bush’s rush to use military force and Obama’s rush to talk to dictators. She will continue repeating, as she puts it in her Foreign Affairs piece, that the military is “but one element in a comprehensive strategy.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ skirmish at last weekend’s big Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines showed that the five speakers (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd) are sharpening their rhetoric on other topics in preparation for the next campaign battle — the debate on Thursday in Los Vegas. The long, positive, cover stories on Obama that have appeared in the last week (NYT Magazine, The Atlantic) are another indicator that Obama’s forces are winning over the media — at least for now.

There are a number of wounded candidates on the presidential battlefield: Giuliani from the Bernie Kerik indictment, Thompson from lackluster campaigning. On the Democratic side, Richardson’s emphasis on his years of experience in elected and high-level positions has not gained him any points in the polls. In both parties, it is the real survivors, the candidates with the most years of experience — McCain, Biden, Dodd and Richardson — whose future now seems most in doubt.

• Rudy Giuliani received an unexpected endorsement on Wednesday from Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. It shocked many watchers of the Republican campaigns, but Hugh Hewitt at Townhall isn’t convinced that it matters. Many of the leading Christian conservatives have elected to support different candidates in the party, signaling a general discontent among the Republican base.
• Giuliani and McCain have been sparring over the issues of torture and immigration (via Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report and others).
• Ron Paul was able to raise over 4 million dollars in one day through an online ad campaign referencing Guy Fawkes day.
• HRC has had a week of bad press (Hotline, subscriber-only). Rs ask: is this the beginning of her downfall?

• Who would’ve thought The Clinton campaign fought back today with an ad on social security, directly challenging the Obama camp.  Watch for the careful mention of “other candidates” towards the end.
• Process over policy Based upon a new study by the Center for Excellence in Journalism, most of the coverage of the campaign thus far has been of just five candidates; nearly two-thirds of the articles published were “process” stories, covering the campaigns.  E&P has the analysis here.
  • Sidebar: There’s an interesting fact in here about Democrats receiving more negative coverage on talk radio (where conservative pundits dominate).  Note the new radio ad Giuliani released in New Hampshire today.
• Grasping at straws  John Edwards is looking for whatever wedge issue he can find to run away from the pack of second-tier candidates.  An Edwards candidacy could be all-but over if Iowa and South Carolina do not go well for him.  What issue plays particularly well in midwestern and southern caucuses these days: trade.  FP outlines the issue.

• Barack Obama has come out strong, announcing that he believes Senator Clinton has been dishonest with Democratic voters on many positions, namely her stances on social security and Iran.  The offensive marks Obama’s first major foray into attacking Clinton, answering calls of many of his supporters to engage with her.  Obama remains points behind Clinton in national and New Hampshire polls, though he is competitive in Iowa.  His campaign is trying to balance his message of “a politics of hope” with the requisite debate with his clear competitor.  Democrats may not be thrilled that he has raised the social security issue, but his supporters, financial supporters in particular, will view this new approach as long overdue.
• Meanwhile, Clinton has announced she will be hiring upwards of one hundred paid staff in Iowa.
• Candidates from right to left are stating their policies on Iran.  The NYTimes.com today has a bit of context.
• In case you missed it, Giuliani is a Sox fan.  Coincidence that most of New Hampshire is too?

• Ds The latest rendition of what TPM calls the “dueling memos” phenomenon between the Obama and Clinton camps has to do with the newsy case of Iran, upon which the Bush Administration designated serious sanctions today. They are some of the harshest imposed on the country since 1979. If the Administration continues to move in this direction, not only will there be a 2003 Iraq-like discussion in the international community, but the campaign front-runners will be forced to take stances they may not be prepared to take.
• Rs The New York Times, Alex Massie and The New Republic call out Rudy Giuliani’s response to a question raised at a town hall meeting in Iowa regarding torture. Christopher Orr calls it “what may be the mot honest defense of torture I’ve seen from an American politician.”
• Rs Iowa papers are abuzz with John McCain’s statements on the Middle East, which include hints at long-term American involvement in Iraq and the construction of military “lily pads” in the region, similar to those currently in Eastern Europe, in case of “crisis.”

Yesterday’s Republican debate was another installment in their “Who’s the Best Conservative?” televised mini-series. This episode, brought to you by Fox News and the Florida Republican Party, played before an appreciative live audience in Orlando that warmly greeted the on-stage performers and loudly booed the absent villain – Hillary Clinton. She was, as Fred Thompson put it at one point, “always a good applause line (for us).”

This was the kind of audience Republicans yearn for. At one point, the boisterous group beat Mitt Romney to the punch. “Is Hillary Clinton fit to be commander in chief?” the moderator asked Romney. The transcript records:

“AUDIENCE: No!
ROMNEY: The audience — the audience is telling you the answer….”

The ex-governor of Massachusetts then digresses, his thespian’s timing a bit off, until the questioner lobs the softball once again across the plate:

“QUESTIONER: I asked you specifically is she fit to be commander in chief?”
ROMNEY:…I think you heard what they said. The answer is, absolute — anyone here want to vote for Hillary?
AUDIENCE: No!
ROMNEY: I agree with them.

This segue into foreign affairs topics came toward the end of the debate, and perhaps it was just as well. Iraq is a divisive issue among Republicans, immigration equally so. So in this red-belt section of Florida, the eight-man ensemble sparred with each other mainly on domestic policy – who cut taxes more, opposed abortion more, promoted family values better than others, who managed a business, state or city the best, who could best “fix” the health care system. When asked about his views on gay marriage, Rudy Giuliani had a chance to show off his own skillful timing. Marriage is not just a religious commitment, he said. After all, he had married 210 couples when he was Mayor of New York. Then, almost rolling his eyes, a theatrical pause:

“…They were all men and women.
(LAUGHTER)
I hope.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know…”

If Hillary was the number one villain for this Republican gathering, then Vladimir Putin was – among foreign leaders – a kind of understudy for the role. John McCain pronounced him “a dangerous person” and, taking a jab at President Bush, said that “…when I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B….The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don’t care what his objections are to it.”

(Disregard, for a moment, the fact that Czechoslovakia became two separate states – the Czech Republic and Slovakia – 15 years ago. The image of McCain — experienced, skeptical and patriotic – was probably what stuck with the audience.)

As you can see, the characters and their interaction are by now well established, and most are becoming well practiced at delivering a feisty quip, a barbed comment or a comic aside. It’s understandable that, after ten televised debates, each lasting 90 to 120 minutes, there’s no longer much news (or drama) made, but it’s excellent preparation for whomever finally becomes the Republican candidate. After all, less than a year from now, one of the players in this off-Broadway pilot will co-star in prime time TV debates with the nominee of the Democratic Party – and the results will be scrutinized like TV networks’ “sweeps week” ratings. The best sound bites will be broadcast again and again in the final days of the campaign, as millions of Americans may still be deciding who they’ll vote for. Timing – and sound bites – are everything.