South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, Iowa congressman Steve King, and Princeton’s Robert P. George questioned Republican presidential candidates Labor Day afternoon in a Saddleback-type Palmetto Freedom Forum, sponsored by the American Principles Project. Submitting to questions were Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney — Rick Perry bowing out on account of wildfires in Texas. Some of those who watched comment.
Timothy Dalrymple Call it a tale of three cities.
In Detroit, warming up the Labor Day crowd for Pres. Barack Obama, Teamsters chieftain Jimmy Hoffa offered the president his “army” of union members for battle against the Tea Party in its “war on workers.” After Hoffa said, “Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out,” the president took the podium and bravely told the crowd how “proud” he was of Hoffa and other union leaders.
Advertisement
In Cincinnati, Vice President Joe Biden referred to the Tea Party movement as “barbarians” — only because he can’t call them “terrorists” when the cameras are running — who have “declared war on labor’s house.” The crowd roared in delight.
At roughly the same time, in Columbia, S.C., five of the candidates for the GOP nomination for president appeared at a forum hosted by the King of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint. It was the most thoughtful conversation amongst the candidates we’ve yet seen in this election season. Freed from the rigidity, verbal skirmishes, and 30-second time limits they faced in other debates, the candidates expounded their views with coherence and depth. Bachmann held forth passionately on the connection between American greatness and the United States Constitution, Cain and Gingrich spoke eloquently of tax and government reform, and Romney showed his mastery of economic matters when he was assessing the damage of the Community Reinvestment Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. While each of the candidates addressed the extraordinary costs of favor-trading between government and public-sector unions (as evidenced now in the near-collapse of the U.S. Postal Service), there was nothing like a “war on workers” in evidence.
Remind me again who the crazies are? And tell me again who’s promoting a “climate of hate”?
Thanks to CNN’s inexcusable interruptions, I missed a little of Representative Bachmann’s appearance at the Palmetto Freedom Forum until I found the TownHall.com feed online. I would rate the candidates’ performances as follows, from most to least impressive:
1. Newt Gingrich reminded us that he is one of the smartest, most historically informed politicians of our times. His answers revealed a man who has thought deeply about both principles and policy. But 20 minutes of brilliance does not a campaign make. Will this performance give new life to a so-far-moribund candidacy?
2. Mitt Romney clearly understands the economy, and the intersection where the economy meets public policy. He’s informed and sophisticated. But he also doesn’t like confrontations, as revealed by his answer to Robert George’s question about enacting federal legislation protecting the right to life.
3. Michele Bachmann hit all the notes that are familiar to her many admirers. She’s clear and principled, and understands the limited constitutional powers of the federal government. She did not, however, give viewers reason to prefer her to the absent Rick Perry.
4. Herman Cain usefully reminded us that virtually any Republican candidate would be preferable to the incumbent in the White House. Barack Obama has set the bar very low, of course.
5. Ron Paul confirmed his status as the blowhard in the bar that you try to find the stool farthest from. His obsession with the Federal Reserve, his isolationism, and his loathsome insinuations about American responsibility for 9/11 vitiate any reasonable voter’s attraction to his purity on limited-government principles. And his answer to Robert George was particularly confused about the Constitution.
Bottom line: Four out of five candidates — all but Paul — helped themselves. And Senator DeMint, Representative King, and Professor George distinguished themselves and took journalists to school.
— Matthew J. Franck is director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.
I suggest Matthew J. Franck buy a dictionary because he doesn't even know what isolationism means.
As for Ron Paul blaming the United States for 9/11 as Franck suggests, I think Michael Scheuer the former head of the CIAs Osama bin Laden unit sums it up quite well.
Yes, NR is as bad as the evil Left when it comes to smearing a Candidate who is pro-America, aka ‘an isolationist’. One term of a Paul presidency would do more good for this country than several terms of any of the other candidates. This was also true of Pat Buchanan, and we saw how badly he was vilified, and sadly, not just by the Left; some of his strongest critics and biggest smears came from the Right.
This leads me to believe there is no hope for America. Any truly good candidate will be crucified. The conservative sheep will believe anything they are told.
Did they all promise to "overturn Roe v. Wade and pass the Human Life Amendment"....as all Republicans hopefuls have promised for 30+ years and never fulfilled?
Just another journalist who doesn't know history or the Constitution to well. By the way, the hilarious thing is that it only takes common sense to see why Americans are hated around the world. I mean, "What if I came to your house, slept on your couch, ate your food, pet your dog and screw your wife? Oh yeah and kill everything in sight because I can. How can you not see similarities between that and what we use our Military for today?
It only takes common sense to see that the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics has everything to do with our downfall. Common sense, "Can you/I write a blank check for something just because we want it?" No, we would be arrested! Please Matthew, "Use that thing on your shoulders that God gave you."
Paul's "obsession with the Federal Reserve" and the writer"s snarky dismissal proves 2 things: That Paul understands where the epicenter of corruption and crony capitalism is, and the writer is either a fool or a knave.
Ever notice how neo cons make up for their love of the State by being hyper "right" on social issues and foreign interventions?
1. Kudos to Prof. George, Sen. DeMint, and Rep. King for organizing a serious forum and asking excellent questions. Clearly, all the candidates except for Newt were somewhat uncomfortable with this kind of format.
2. We should acknowledge, however, that, while nobly intended, this format just doesn't work. As others have mentioned, this event was an attempt to replicate the in-depth, conversational questioning of Rick Warren's candidate interviews from 2008. Having three panelists instead of a single questioner prevented this forum from having the depth and intimacy of Warren's.
3. The panelists rightly tried to be fair to all the candidates by asking them the same questions. However, since the questions tended to be wordy (which, by itself, is fine), and since each had to be asked five times, the panelists ended up sounding unfortunately robotic--which, of course, none of them really is. Rick Warren had also run a fair forum, and asked his guests many of the same questions, but with a full-week interval between the two candidates, the repetition of questions didn't hurt his format.
4. Others have criticized CNN for interrupting the forum with commercial breaks. Surely some of the blame for this must be put on the forum organizers. They should have agreed on a firm break schedule with CNN, and stuck to it at their end. Or, just let C-SPAN cover it (maybe with a simulcast on the internet and satellite radio), and you don't have to worry about commercial breaks at all.
I extended Bachmann the benefit of the doubt when she flubbed the 10th amendment question in the Iowa debate. I cannot do so a second time. Michele - that's strike two. I previously contributed to your campaign on the basis of your being a constitutions conservative. Now, I view you as a conservative (still genuine, unlike some others), not as a constitutional conservative. I now in the "undecided" column. You can win me back, but not without effort. I assume that that there are other that feel the same way.
The conservative/Republican establishment needs to stop bashing Dr. Paul, the one who is really telling the Ugly Truth. Sorry if you don't want to hear it, but it's got to be told. The times we're living in & condition our republic is in DEMAND radical change, not namby-pamby middle-of-the-road "solutions".
So you would ignore your own Uncle,even if he was telling the truth,and risking his entire life to save you,and everyone else,just because he did not fit into the status quo?I guess that says a lot about you.
We are on to the so called conservative media like National Review and Fox News. We can see how you constantly promote the most liberal Republican candidates because deep down you desire to keep Washington running just as it has been. We disagree with you. We have learned to run away as fast as possible from those candidates you promote and give a much closer look at those candidates you either denigrate or completely ignore. We are not stupid. We do our own research. Your influence is fading...
I heard this exact same "..can only be destroyed..." tripe yesterday on Limbaugh's show.
Please do better. At the Palmetto Forum level, a serious discussion occurred regarding applied Constitutional theory and policy implications thereof. This was conducted at a remarkably erudite level.
Be assured that those liberal Constitutional theorists interested enough to watch the proceedings are competent enough to think, reason and debate as freely as anyone on that stage yesterday.
The implied demonization of a sizable portion of the American electorate is troubling, and perhaps shows more cause for concern than any point Talisen is attempting to make.
From the Waiting-for-Godot style staging, to the monochromatic attire of all in attendance, to the dreadful sense of self-seriousness that the questioners and candidates had, there was all the ambience of a 1:00 p.m. Political Theory seminar in some dreary college classroom.
Note that while CNN carried the forum, FOX and the others opted to carry programming that would not inflict instant narcoleptic symptoms in their viewers.
National Review is washed up. Buckley is gone and sadly the magazine he bravely founded has gone to the idiots. Chambers, Schlamm,Dos Passos, Frank Meyer...NR was interesting and artistic. This Darylpimple guy should be writing for The National Enquirer. Buckley often referred to himself as a libertarian, mitigated by the threat posed by Communism. Buckley seemed quite comfortable disavowing the policies of Bush regarding Iraq. I wish these adolescent corporatist lemmings writing for NR today would read up on their founder. NR has become the worst of all things; a platform for the machine.
