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.

• 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.”

LOS ANGELES – The sprawling coastal megapolis of Southern California continues to battle fires in its arid chaparral-filled hillsides, so for the moment the local focus is not on politics or elections but on disaster relief and providing shelter for a half million displaced residents. But Hurricane Katrina proved that a botched relief effort can have enormous repercussions on national politics and even international relations. As the President visits the disaster area tomorrow, accompanied by Governor Schwarzenegger, comparisons with Katrina will be hard to avoid. Both men are oddly in the background of the 2008 elections landscape – the unpopular Bush shunned by Republican candidates to replace him, Schwarzenegger a victim of his foreign birth. Amidst the natural tragedy, political ironies are inescapable: Schwarzenegger has a “Giuliani moment” but can’t run for higher office while President Bush, learning from Katrina, will be faulted for treating San Diego better than New Orleans.

A visitor to Los Angeles is struck by this region’s Hispanic character and complexion and, along with it, the salience of the Hispanic vote in next year’s election. Bush did well with the Hispanic voters in 2000 and 2004, but this is one part of the electorate whose sympathies next year are hard to predict. The first Hispanic candidate, Bill Richardson, has run an oddly listless race. Non-Hispanic politicians tread carefully while, behind the scenes, many are preoccupied with the immigration issue. The Internet was awash yesterday with warnings about Senator Reid’s maneuvers in the Senate on the so-called “DREAM” legislation to grant citizenship to the younger generation of foreign born (illegal) residents. Lou Dobbs, on CNN last night, was particularly strident, accusing both parties of “pandering” to the Hispanic community.

Immigration, of course, has a foreign policy dimension, as President Bush’s speech on Cuba today in Washington illustrates. A Cuban reaching Florida’s shores gets legal sanctuary, a Mexican fleeing poverty and chaos becomes an illegal immigrant in California. Austrian-born immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger, watching from the election sidelines, probably has more than a few thoughts on the subject, as he ponders the Constitutional provision that keeps him out of the race.

• Rs and Trade Romney proposes opening markets in his “Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom” plan. He suggests opening markets and helping American workers “succeed,” claiming it would be the largest free trade zone “ever.” By raising the trade issue, not only does Romney get policy points (which he may be in even more need of after this rough morning), but he would renew a dialogue about the issue in Republican circles. Democratic candidates have taken stances on NAFTA and Doha before, but broadened debate could propel this issue to the fore.
• Ds and FISA Obama and Clinton offered “conditional support” for filibustering the FISA bill, which has yet to make it through Committee. They join Dodd and Biden in their distaste for the measure, which liberal bloggers are touting as “defending the Constitution against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.”
• Rs and Immigration Mark Krikorian over at The Corner is a fan of Fred Thompson’s recently announced platform on immigration.
• Endorsing Rs Mitt Romney lost an endorsement today from Pastor Don Wilton of South Carolina today, the pretty heavy-handed state Baptist Convention President. If nothing else, the loss of Wilton’s support signals the continued hesitation on the part of social conservatives to back the candidate. Does it all come down to his Mormon faith, or is there something more political going on here?
• Ads Bill Richardson (D) released this ad yesterday, highlighting his role in negotiating the release of hostages out of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1995. He has made his experience the focus of his spots in the past; this new ad drills down onto the finer points of his CV.

On Thursday Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, while campaigning in South Carolina, announced his belief that the United Nations had been “an extraordinary failure of late,” and went on to call for a “coalition of free nations” to take its place (mult). His comments play to a distrust among some conservatives of the U.N. and international institutions in general, but also draws attention to his somewhat wanton—relatively speaking—foreign policy credentials.

These days, Romney is employing many tactics that cater to social and religious conservatives; disputing the need for a United Nations is only the most recent. Romney lags behind in polls among Republicans nationwide, although he stands in first place in South Carolina. Recently he’s won endorsements from key social and religious conservatives, including Bob Jones III, the grandson of the religious leader and former head of Bob Jones University. Romney barely edged out a victory in Saturday’s Family Research Council straw poll, in which he won a plurality among those present (at the Washington Hilton in D.C.), but received a sorry total of 99 votes online to Mike Huckabee’s 488. Romney has yet to become the darling of religious conservatives, but he certainly is trying.

On Thursday, Romney proposed that the U.S. lead a “coalition of the free nations of the world” in lieu of lending support to the United Nations, particularly to her human rights arm, the UN Human Rights Council. After his comments aired, a spokesman for the campaign clarified that the candidate was suggesting that the US pull financial support from the Council, from which the U.S., of course, already abstains (the Human Rights Council has made pointed comments about Israel in the past, and is also responsible for the review of members’ compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, among others). Whether this was an error on the campaign’s part or simply a misspeak, is to be determined.

As one might have guessed, liberal internationalist voices were furious. FP’s Passport blog had these harsh words. Bloggers at UN Dispatch are glad that other candidates, namely Democrat Bill Richardson, have the experience to counter Romney (Richardson is a former ambassador to the U.N.). What these authors do not address, however, are the possible benefits Romney’s pronouncement can have to his campaign.

His opponents, mainly Giuliani and McCain, have prominent backgrounds in foreign affairs. Voters, especially Republican primary voters, know that it was Giuliani who was New York’s mayor in September of 2001 and that McCain was once a guest at the Hanoi Hilton. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy experience does not match up. As a former governor of Massachusetts, much of his international experience comes from his time as CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and from managing the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. It’s likely that Romney’s comments were targeted to boost his appeal among conservatives, though foreign policy this election is a delicate arena. It would serve Romney to tread softly.

The news that Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback is withdrawing today from the race is a reminder that the phalanx of candidates on both sides is about to start thinning out. Like characters in an Agatha Christie murder mystery, both Republicans and Democrats will soon start disappearing from debate stages — slowly at first, then after the first primaries, quite rapidly. We will lose several colorful personalities who, for reasons of conviction or tactics, offered some of the more interesting policy choices and provocative comments. Regardless what you think about Ron Paul’s libertarianism or Dennis Kucinich’s social policy, both have made the campaign more interesting. (On foreign policy, their views even occasionally overlap — on Iraq, for instance, or warrantless wiretapping.) Whatever insights (or entertainment) these “second tier” candidates offer, they will be pressured to drop out early in the primary season if they can’t poll above single digits.

Sam Brownback’s problem was not that he was too colorful, but less so. His views on social policy were not far from Romney’s and his views on terrorism similar to Giuliani’s. If you enter the race without national name recognition or deep pockets, you have to cause a stir with your policies or the way you present them. The Senator from Kansas did neither.

Now the NYT’s David Brooks wants us to help a more engaging candidate, the other “Man from Hope (Ark.),” Mike Huckabee, to step into the limelight. However, he acknowledges that Huckabee’s foreign policy thinking is “thin.” Among other faults, Huckabee promises to make the United States energy independent within eight years. Statements like this will be challenged, and could nix the chances of a candidate until now best known for his weight loss. It’s a tough reality, but it doesn’t take much now for a candidate to get voted off the island and onto Brownback Mountain.

Way back when, campaigns started around the winter before Election Day. Now, still over a year prior to the 2008 contest, I’m wondering where to begin discussion; there’s so much to catch up on. For now, let’s stick to some points of interest from this week.

Ivory Tower American Interest launches a series among top public intellectuals on foreign affairs in the 2008 election. Barry Posen starts off the exchange, with comments from heavyweights like Fukuyama, Ferguson, Joffe, and Ikenberry following. This first debate, at least, seems to commence a worthwhile academic dialogue on post-November ’08 foreign policy. A must-read, indeed.

In the Journals John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the latest contributors to the Foreign Affairs Election ’08 segment. CFR.org puts their pieces in context. Clinton and McCain’s essays, like those of the other candidates’, prove adequate in conveying worldviews and issues of interest.

Rs Kathryn Jean Lopez contemplates John McCain’s call to serve at National Review Online. Kate O’Brien thinks he might be a better option than Giuliani. Is the conservative commentariat coming around on McCain?

Ds Bloggers on the left are happy that Chris Dodd announced he would place a hold on the Senate FISA legislation, though as the Washington Post notes, the bill has yet to come to the Senate floor and is still in mark-up. According to Dodd, the bill would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the president’s terrorist surveillance program. Dodd has fared poorly in recent polls and the move is seen as a means of courting, among others, liberal bloggers.