Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Friendly Fire

After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet. 

The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.

NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers? 

This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.

I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.

Quipping Ahead

Mike Huckabee's prolific use of charm continues. Today, on Fox News, Huckabee was asked to respond to an under-the-radar critique from Mitt Romney that he cares more about illegal immigrants' right to a college education than he does about U.S. students. Per Politico, here's Huckabee's response: "I guess Mitt Romney would rather keep people out of college so they can keep working on his lawn."

Bam! Pow! Zing! In one sentence, Huckabee managed to do three things:

• Avoid capitulating on a pro-immigrant-education stance he took while governor, one that is sure to be unpopular with the conservative base he's courting.
• Portray his support of immigrants and higher education as tenets of compassionate conservativism. Tacitly, he's also suggesting that Romney is a cruel education-hater.
• Show that Romney isn't as pure on illegal immigration as he would like voters to think he is. The lawn work Huckabee's alluding to comes from a Boston Globe story that alleges Romney employed illegal immigrants to maintain the grounds of his Belmont, Mass., home.

Relative to Huckabee, Romney mustered a bland reply. I'll spare you the full text, but the gist was that Romney isn't afraid to use the veto to make sure illegal immigrants' lives don't get priority over the lives of American citizens.

A bit of background on this sniping: While governor of Arkansas, Huckabee supported equal in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants at public colleges. While governor of Massachusetts, Romney vetoed similar legislation. In my pre-Trailhead days I made a short documentary on the fight over the Massachusetts bill, which by most accounts would have made a positive impact on the state's economy. Romney equated the program with amnesty and refused to sign it into law. Immigration advocates weren't able to find a veto-proof majority, and the legislation never came to pass.

When you zoom out a bit, this little tiff is an illustrative example of the difference between the two candidates' campaigns. Both men are atypical Republicans--Romney is a formerly pro-choice Mormon who worked toward creating a universal health-care plan in his state. Huckabee, meanwhile, is a formerly obese creationist who is willing to tax constituents in order to aid government services.

While Romney is careful not to emphasize pieces of his past that may alienate him from conservatives, Huckabee has found a way to embrace his idiosyncrasies. Sure, that makes him a target of the Republican establishment at times. But those attacks don't seem to be resonating as deeply as his charm. The latest poll puts Huckabee six percentage points behind Romney in Iowa. Romney may soon have to get serious about maintaining his lead.

Hillary Apologists, Unite!

Pundits have been slamming Hillary’s debate performance on two counts—her ambiguous answer about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and her evasiveness over whether she would release her papers stored in the Clinton Presidential Library. (Transcript here.)

On the second question, she was particularly unconvincing. When moderator Tim Russert asked her if she would make available her communications with the president in the 1990s, she said that’s “not my decision to make.” As if she might not have some pull with the former president. Her evasion makes it sound like she—or Bill—has something to hide. (So far, the dodge seems to be working.)

But on the question of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, she’s been getting an unfair rap. Yes, she equivocated: “I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.” Yes, she contradicted herself: When Chris Dodd pointed out that “you thought it made sense to do it,” she replied, “No, I didn't, Chris,” which is simply untrue. But her waffling served a purpose. She was trying to say that the policy “makes sense” without actively supporting it—a distinction that, while Clintonian, is reasonable for a candidate to make. She recognizes the tough circumstances Spitzer faces and, if you read into her language, it’s clear that she supports his decision. But she also doesn’t want to say something that could be used against her in the general election. (“Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants” in scary bold lettering would fit nicely across the TV screen.)

Russert and others were trying to get her to hitch her trailer to Spitzer’s rig. But she shouldn’t have to—it wasn’t her decision. People are right to be concerned about equivocation, especially from someone whose husband redefined the term. But there’s a middle ground between supporting a policy and denouncing it. For a front-runner to try to occupy that space shouldn’t be all that shocking.

The Immigrant Gadfly

The Colorado congressman announced today that he will not seek another term after his expires in 2008. You'd think this would mean Tancredo wants to focus on his efforts to grab the Republican presidential nod. But instead, his spokesman said his decision was partly based on wanting to spend more time with his grandkids.

Last time we checked, somebody doesn't run for president to spend more time with his grandkids. If Tancredo wants out so badly, then why is he still in it?

It may have to do with his other reason for leaving Congress: He thinks he's accomplished all he can on the immigration issue inside of the Capitol. Whereas he feels he can pass the hard-line-immigration baton to other House members, he doesn't see any other presidential candidates who share his anti-immigrant vigor. Tancredo is willing to sully his political legacy to enforce America's borders.

Last week, Tancredo offered Mitt Romney a deal: If the Red Sox lost the World Series, Romney would have to bow out of the race. But if the Rockies lost, Tancredo would drop out. If only Romney had accepted, Tancredo would have said Adios to both of his campaigns today.