The good news from last night’s Republican debate in New Hampshire is that no one endorsed torture. The event lasted two hours, and the subject never came up. The bad news is these guys aren’t necessarily opposed to using nuclear weapons against Iran.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked, “If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?” The obvious answer is, “No.” The preferable answer is, “Are you crazy?”
But these guys seemed completely open to the idea. Hunter said, “I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.” Giuliani responded, “I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.” Gilmore added, “All options are on the table.” Romney said the same thing.
Later, Ron Paul described all of this as lunacy. “Tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security! I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption.”
That would be nice.
After every debate, the obvious questions are about who won, who lost, who gained most, etc. Last night, in this respect, was rather uneventful. Michael Crowley wrote, “And the winner is…no one! I don’t think anyone really changed their standing.” Jonathan Martin added, “The big story out of this third debate seems to be that there is no big story.”
I’m very much inclined to agree (but keep reading anyway). It’s unlikely that this is the kind of debate that people will still be mulling over, say, tomorrow.
That said, we nevertheless learned a few things.
Rudy’s partisan strategy. In the very first GOP debate, the candidates hardly mentioned Democrats at all. In the second, there was a joke about John Edwards’ haircut, but not much else. Last night, Giuliani went after Dems relentlessly. Practically every question was a chance for the former mayor to bash the majority party.
“The problem the Democrats make is they’re in denial”; “During the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s”; “What the Democrats suggested on this stage two nights ago was socialized medicine.” On and on it went. It looks like Giuliani has decided to prove his conservative bona fides by being as hyper-partisan as he can be.
Bush gets some time in the sun. In previous debates, none of these guys wanted to talk about the president. Blitzer realized this, so he asked several pointed questions about Bush last night, leaving the candidates little choice. The president didn’t fare well — at one point, Tancredo said he has “been so disappointed in the president in so many ways,” and that he would tell Bush to “never darken the doorstep” of his White House. Much to my surprise, the audience applauded.
Law and order party? All of the candidates expressed some sympathy for convicted felon Scooter Libby, the same day he was sentenced for lying and obstructing justice after exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Giuliani was particularly inane, calling the charges “incomprehensible,” and insisting that “there was no underlying crime.”
Get that man a dictionary. Asked about whether the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Romney, more than once, called the question a “null set.” He apparently has no idea what that means.
Rudy gets a sign. Blitzer asked Giuliani about a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island who said his position on abortion is “similar to Pontius Pilate’s personal opposition to Jesus Christ’s crucifixion but allowing it to happen anyway.” When Giuliani started to answer, lightning struck and disrupted his microphone. He looked up jokingly — and lightning struck again, prompting McCain and Romney to start moving away from Giuliani.
Getting social. Several candidates, especially Giuliani, relentlessly bashed “socialized medicine.” They have no idea what the policy means, but that didn’t stop them. The entire healthcare discussion was painful to watch; these guys are clueless.
Best of the second tier. Huckabee got the least amount of airtime, but continues to impress with thoughtful and articulate answers. I dare say “eloquent.” I frequently wonder why the GOP won’t even consider this guy, and frankly, I’m kind of glad they don’t.
McCain alone on immigration. McCain was forced to defend his immigration plan on his own last night — everyone else took shots at it — but he did an admirable job holding his own. He also was the only candidate to question the utility of making English the official language, and gave a compelling answer about how immigrants “enrich” American culture.
First Amendment hugger. Ron Paul gave a reasonable defense for the separation of church and state, thus ensuring that he’s going to lose.
Se habla, Romney and Rudy? Romney wants English to be the official language, and was the first candidate to run a campaign in Spanish. He couldn’t really explain why. On a related note, Giuliani endorsed English as the official language after saying the opposite as NYC mayor.
Family Values. Late in the debate, Tancredo seriously suggested that immigrants, once they arrive here legally, should “cut your ties with the past, familial.” In other words, blow off those foreign relatives, they don’t matter anymore. None of his GOP colleagues agreed.
I have a couple of other observations that I’ll save for separate posts, but on the whole, these 10 candidates are surprisingly unimpressive. No real substance, no real expertise, nothing beyond soundbites. It was kind of depressing.