Finally: A Serious Debate About What to Do About Maniacs Trying to Kill Us
Last night's debate on CNN was lengthy, substantive, and a good night for just about all of the candidates. Yet it had no clear winner, and yet is unlikely to change much in the course of the race. About six or seven of the nine GOP candidates on stage turned in solid performances and demonstrated real knowledge and critical analysis of serious crises: how to monitor potential terrorist communications, how to handle Syrian refugees, what to do about Syria's bloody civil war, how to decide when the U.S. should stand with dictators, how to handle Putin, and so on. (Ben Carson talked about Ohio-class submarines! He's really trying! He paid attention to Professor Hugh Hewitt's study notes!) One glaring conclusion of the night is that the GOP nominee, whoever he or she is, has a golden opportunity and the country desperately needs a Republican president. The short version of the GOP message for 2016 is simple and direct: We've tried the Obama approach to counter-terrorism and it isn't keeping you safe. The threat of al-Qaeda has been replaced with the greater, more varied, more sophisticated threat of ISIS. The threat grew worse in part because the Obama administration didn't want to see the threat, didn't want to acknowledge the threat was growing, didn't want to admit its policies weren't working, and didn't want to break its politically correct worldview. We don't look at the social media of immigrants and those entering the country -- after learning of all of the snooping on American citizens in the domestic-surveillance programs! If you've visited Iraq and Syria in the past five years, you can still qualify for a program that allows visa-free entry to this country. Why? The San Bernardino shooter passed three background checks from DHS counterterrorism screening, and yet the administration refuses to consider pausing the Syrian-refugee program, even though they cited that screening as why they could handle the threat. Add it all up, and we have a formula for more San Bernardinos and more Bostons and perhaps another 9/11. No Democrat will ever give up the philosophical underpinning that they're the tolerant and accepting ones, and that their foes are driven by hateful xenophobia. The country needs to change direction from the Obama administration's path, and no Democrat can be counted on to do that. Ultimately, Rubio Wants a Path to Legalization, if Not Citizenship Maybe last night will turn out to be a consequentially bad night for Marco Rubio. It was the first night that his rivals -- Ted Cruz and Rand Paul -- really went after him on the Gang of Eight bill. (Paul: "Marco has more of an allegiance to Chuck Schumer and to the liberals than he does to conservative policy.") Rubio turned in his usual smooth, concise, well-versed, well-rehearsed performance. But if you're completely opposed to a path to legal status -- green card, not citizenship -- the Florida senator didn't reassure you tonight. Rubio really needed to give a full-throated renunciation of the Gang of Eight bill, and he didn't. He was walking a tightrope, and you could almost tell from his body language that he could feel the line wobble beneath him. But he's still a gifted communicator, and he may have avoided any lasting damage. Here's the exchange: RUBIO: Here's what we learned in 2013. The American people don't trust the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws, and we will not be able to do anything on immigration until we first prove to the American people that illegal immigration is under control. And we can do that. We know what it takes to do that. It takes at least 20,000 more additional border agents. It takes completing those 700 miles of fencing. It takes a mandatory e-verify system and a mandatory entry/exit tracking system to prevent overstays. After we have done that, the second thing we have to do is reform and modernize the legal immigration system. And after we have done those two things, I think the American people are going to be reasonable with what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 10 or 12 years who hasn't otherwise violated our laws -- because if they're a criminal they can't stay. They'll have to undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes. And ultimately, they'll be given a work permit and that's all they're going to be allowed to have for at least 10 years. But you can't get to that third step until you have done the other two things, and that was the lesson we learned in 2013. There is no trust that the Federal Government will enforce the law. They will not support you until you see it done first. BASH: Senator, you haven't answered the question. You described a very long path but does that path end at citizenship? RUBIO: But I've answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open -- after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card. That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road. You can't even begin that process until you prove to people -- not just pass a law that says you're going to have to bring illegal immigration under control. You're going to have to do it and prove to people that it's working. A green card is permanent residency, i.e., not deportable as long as certain conditions are met. A green card holder may apply for citizenship, but is not guaranteed it. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz's response to Rubio's questions, "I have never supported legalization and I do not intend to support legalization," sounded like it left a little wiggle room. After further review, it's just not accurate. Here's Ted Cruz, back in May 2013, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging the committee to support an amendment that includes "a legal status for those who are here illegally." I would urge everyone on this committee to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem in a humane way, that secures the border, gets serious about fixing that problem, that expands legal immigration and that does not unfairly treat legal immigrants by removing a path to citizenship, but allowing, as this legislation does, a legal status for those who are here illegally, that would be reform that a great many people across this country both Republican and Democrat would embrace and I would urge the committee to consider the amendment. The Cruz team later came back and said the amendment was aimed to demonstrate that Democrats were only interested in a path to citizenship, but Cruz's comments from that time certainly don't sound like they were aimed at symbolism: "In introducing amendments, what I endeavored to do was improve that bill so that it actually fixes the problem," Cruz told me. "I think an overwhelming majority of Americans in both parties wants to see our broken immigration system fixed, wants to see the problem solved, the border secured, and our remaining a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants. Given that bipartisan agreement outside of Washington, my objective was not to kill immigration reform but to amend the Gang of Eight bill so that it actually solves the problem rather than making the problem worse." By claiming he never supported legalization, Cruz just either lied, or offered an enormously misleading statement. If he did that about his past position on a path to legalization . . . would he do the same about his future stance? As for the Rest of the Field . . . For a man who's supposedly the new front-runner – if not in polls, then in media buzz -- Cruz didn't have a Robert-Redford-at-the-end-of-The Natural night. Cruz indisputably knows his stuff, backwards and forwards; if you were facing jail time, you would want him as your lawyer. But his answer on what he said about Donald Trump in private was pretty transparent spin. Trump began with a more serious, somber, direct tone; it served him well. The post-Paris, post–San Bernardino political landscape didn't need the bombastic, look-at-what-I-can-get-away with Trump. But as the night wore on, he stumbled. He seemed to argue that targeting the family members of terrorists would demonstrate our toughness and strength, and shrugged at the argument that it would violate the Geneva Conventions by deliberately targeting civilians. He stuck with his plan to shut down part of the Internet in order to prevent "impressionable" young people from being recruited or seduced by ISIS. It reminded me of Tipper Gore's effort to protect young people in the 1980s by attempting to ban heavy-metal music. Trump appeared to have no idea what the nuclear triad is -- "nuclear, the power, the devastation, it's very important to me." He seemed to lose his cool during an exchange with Bush, and resorted to his usual shtick of boasting about his high poll numbers. (If Bush is so far behind, why are you so bothered by what he's saying?) I don't understand why everyone thinks his pledge to stick in the GOP, win or lose, means much; moments earlier, he said he never meant that Cruz was a "maniac" or had the wrong temperament for the job. He made those remarks Sunday. Ben Carson . . . once the man of the moment, now sliding and perhaps out of the top tier. Nice man, good principles, attempting to catch up and do his homework on defense and national-security policy, but if you went into tonight thinking he was not a wartime Consigliere, little changed. Heading into last night, Jeb Bush looked like toast. He's still way behind, but last night you could finally say he actually turned in a good performance. After half-heartedly targeting Trump, Bush finally came up with some crisp phrases to summarize his critique of the front-runner -- "the chaos candidate" who will be a "chaos president." "You can't insult your way to the presidency." And then, about two-thirds of the way through, Jeb Bush suddenly got under Trump's skin. "Oh, yeah, you're a tough guy, Jeb," Trump scoffed. Chris Christie always does well in these debates, looking directly into the camera and speaking bluntly. He began with a great opening statement, discussing the bomb threat that suddenly closed every school in Los Angeles, and how the kids in those schools will feel tomorrow morning. But he's got an annoying habit that he needs to break. Whenever two other candidates get engaged in a detailed debate on policy, Christie scoffs that nobody cares about those minute details, and that everyone is tired of the yapping in Washington, and that Christie is running because he wants to get stuff done. But the details of policy matter! "Quit your yapping, nerds!" is a dumbed-down argument for short-attention span voters. He lit into Obama -- calling him"feckless" and declaring that the policies of the president and Hillary Clinton had "betrayed the American people." You could almost forget that big hug right before the 2012 election. Almost. Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, John Kasich -- they've slipped out of the top tier if they were ever in it, and unfortunately for them, nothing tonight changed that. Carly was her remarkably prepared self. Rand Paul continues to run a libertarian campaign within a Republican party. John Kasich appeared to have his fingers glued together right before he went onstage, and punctuated all of his points with karate chops at the camera. ADDENDA: Sheesh. Feeling safer yet? "Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action," explained a senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. "But now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the newspapers." "It's all legal," the official added, "the lawyers have approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers -- but will Obama throw us under the bus again?" | 
Comments
Post a Comment