Commentary on the CNN Republican debate

The third Republican debate was undoubtedly the worst of the three so far. This was in no small measure due to the design that CNN created. Many complained about the other two, but in my mind, the imperfections of those were little enough to keep to myself. The CNN debate, on the other hand, shone a bright light on its limitations.

My primary complaint is the way CNN spent virtually all their time interviewing (yes, I said interviewing) the supposed front-runners. There was no room for, and in fact no intention of, bringing debate into the evening's activities. Furthermore, any efforts by the people other than the "big 3" to speak were cut off by CNN.

Isn't this supposed to be about Rudy McRomney, you ask? Aren't they the ones who are likely to become the Republican nominee this year? Frankly, I don't buy into it. I remember when the unknown Jimmy Carter gained his party's nomination. I remember when the crazy, nutjob right-wing wacko Ronald Reagan took the title (that's what the press typically called him). I remember when an unknown kid from Hope, Arkansas named Clinton became the Democrats' choice. None of these were front-runners in the beginning. They weren't even considered viable candidates. The idea that we must now choose from among Giuliani, McCain and Romney is ludicrous. And, the more I hear from them, it becomes more and more amazing that anyone would imagine that we would select from among them.

At this stage of the contest, a full 18 months before the election, no one imagines that the average voter is paying close attention. No one believes that poll numbers today mean much more than awareness of a candidacy. This is when most of us are just beginning to learn about the candidates. So, for CNN to become the final arbiter of who is and who isn't a viable candidate this early is nothing more than arrogance. They believe they know what's best for us, and a candidate who has meaningful ideas is apparently not what is best, if we take the CNN actions as a guide.

Mike Huckabee's campaign put together an interesting analysis of how much time was given to each of the candidates to speak. It turns out that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney each got fully twice as much time to talk as nearly any of the other candidates. Is that reasonable, when a majority of voters are still interested in hearing what the candidates have to say?

The interesting thing is that we saw something last night. Or perhaps I should say we saw nothing. We saw just how meaningless the debate would be if it were among Rudy McRomney. When the other candidates were excluded, McCain and Romney put us to sleep, and Giuliani ranted about his one topic, a topic, it's becoming clearer and clearer, that he just doesn't know that much about.

It's interesting that we continue to rate Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter as second tier, because they came out looking much stronger than the supposed front-runners last night. Sure, each has their limitations, but they seem far more electable than the "big 3". Anyway, isn't this the time we ought to be hearing from the candidates we don't know? How many of us want to hear more of John McCain? Like him or not, we ought to have some idea where he stands by now. I don't mind hearing more from Romney, because he's still an unknown quantity. Still, I must admit that none of his answers have yet clarified any of his positions or thought processes for me. He seems as aimless as he ever did.

And Giuliani? Ah, yes. We definitely ought to hear more from him. The more I hear him talk, the more I learn that he doesn't know a thing about foreign policy. If you think about it, that makes sense, since he's mayor of a city, and has never made a real foreign policy decision in his life. At least Senators and Congressmen grapple with these issues from time to time.

When Ron Paul first began to go after Giuliani on foreign policy, I thought it seemed like a dangerous move. After all, this is Rudy Giuliani here, the expert on terrorism. But the reading list that Dr. Paul offered to Giuliani showed the depth of Paul's understanding of terrorism and the weakness of the mayor's thoughtless positions. Last night, his attempt to sell us on the idea of training our troops for a recurring agenda of "nation-building" made it clear to me just how little Rudy knows about the realities of war and foreign policy.

Nation-building is not something that we avoid simply because we don't want to do it, or simply because we haven't trained our troops well enough. It's something we avoid because history has shown us that any nation who tries to engage in nation-building fails. This is why conservatives have vehemently spoken out against the Wilsonian idea of nation-building for generations. It can't be done. And if it could be done, it wouldn't be done by the brute force of occupation troops, which is all that his design calls for.

Rudy Giuliani is gearing up to turn our military into a world police force. Don't take my word for it. Listen to his own rhetoric. Nation-building, in his mind, is the purpose for our military. I hope the young men and women serving heard and understood what he was saying.

So, CNN, listen to these words. In the next debate, we want to hear from ALL the candidates. We don't need CNN to narrow our choices down for us. We'll handle that ourselves, thank you. If anything, we need to hear from the candidates we don't know more than the ones we do. With CNN in charge, we'd never have had a President Carter, a President Reagan, or a President Clinton. Whatever one thinks about those men and their respective careers in office, it should be clear that the media doesn't always know who might be able to win, and even possibly become a great president.