Redstate

By kowalski Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Hi everyone. This morning I was planning to liveblog the DeWine/Brown debate on Meet the Press, but RS was still reporting DNS errors as the show went on the air. So rather than liveblog the debate, I sat and took notes while Brown and DeWine slugged it out. The debate lasted about 35 minutes and was uninterrupted by commercials.

Over the next two hours I'll clean up all the notes that I took during the debate and present my summary here. Here's a little preview: Sherrod Brown was "on message" from one end of this debate to the other, repeating and hammering home Democratic talking points on everything from Iraq to the GWOT to the economy. He was also pretty evasive and seemed ashamed and defensive about his voting record in Congress, which DeWine took pains to demonstrate was consistently to the left of his own party. The exchanges got heated on a couple of occasions and degenerated into a minor melee about things such as the choice of photographs in campaign ads.

Oh, and Brown was taking maximum advantage of the Foley scandal. He tugged at the heartstrings of America, accused the House leadership of not protecting the children, and said that the leaders of the House should resign -- his exact reply to Russert's question about that were: "Of course, and of course."

I think DeWine should have done a better job responding to Russert's questions about Bob Woodward's new book, which Russert brought out as though it had been written by God and was the authoritative picture of the disarray and incompetence of the Bush Administration.

Overall, this was a tough debate for DeWine, but he handled it very well. He did talk quite forcefully and effectively about his principles, his experience, and he undoubtedly made Brown look pretty green and opportunistic. But the alignment of the political planets right now made this one a tough fight.

My first approximation is that DeWine won, albeit narrowly. He did a much better job in a tough environment than anyone had the right to expect. I especially liked how he just stopped on several occasions in utter disbelief at how Brown was trying to avoid and obfuscate his own voting record while wrapping himself in populist platitudes.

More soon...

[Update 1: DeWine's most adroit reply in this debate came when Russert attempted to tie him to the political problems with Taft and Ney in Ohio. He was unruffled and very credible when he responded that the voters in Ohio are very discerning and "know him very well" and trust him. Brown tried to tar DeWine with that "culture of corruption" brush and it just didn't fly.]

[Update 2: The biggest liability for Sherrod Brown in this debate (and it's almost a tossup, more on that later) was that he emerged in this debate as a staunchly protectionist, economically backward "yes man" for the House Protectionist Caucus. On everything from NAFTA to MFN trade status with China, everything that came out of Brown's mouth was the same old protectionist rhetoric. He said that he would "renegotiate NAFTA" and actually flatly stated that he was in favor of "fair trade" as opposed to that obvious evil, "free trade". All that was missing was a plug for an organic grocery worker collective.]

[Update 3: Interesting Argumentative Twist department: Mike DeWine disavowed the term "cut and run." His explanation was that he "doesn't think it means anything" but he went on to describe that he believes that Iraq would become a chaotic nightmare if the Americans set a date certain. Very importantly, he made a distinction between American interests and Iraqi interests, insofar as part of our mission in Iraq is most definitely in our own national self-interest. I thought this was a pretty classy and nuanced interpretation. He was obviously saying to the good people of Ohio who are doubting the wisdom of the war that he doesn't think they're cowards or traitors for having those doubts. I think that was a really honest and genuine thing to say to the potential voters in Ohio. On the other hand, he made a forceful argument that leaving Iraq before the job is done would be a dreadful mistake, not just for Iraqi interests, but for American interests. Brown really had nothing to counter this with except some nebulous talk about "putting pressure" on the Iraqis to solve their own problem. He used the word "pressure" perhaps a half dozen times. Evidently he doesn't believe the Iraqis consider themselves to be under enough pressure at the current time, and thinks that now we should be actively threatening them with the wholesale obliteration of their country.]

[Update 4: Sherrod Brown's duplicity on his voting record for the military, and especially his attempt to explain away his "no" vote on the initial $87bbn. Iraq war supplemental, was nothing short of shameful. He tried to spin that vote as a protest that the appropriation didn't provide enough funds for "body armor" but it was a transparently awful flub. To his supporters on the left side of the fence, they know that he means that he's been against this war from the beginning, in every way he possibly could. DeWine did a good job of casting doubt on Brown's committment to a strong national defense. On Iraq, Brown's idea comes down to setting a date certain, perhaps 1-1/2 to 2 years from now, at which point the Americans will decamp for parts elsewhere. DeWine concentrated on the facts on the ground: until the Iraqi army is equipped, trained, housed, led, and organized so that it can take the responsibility of defending the country over, all talk of a "date certain" is a political fantasy that politicians might play if they're being particularly dishonest.]

[Update 5: As I noted above, Brown's attempt to explain why he didn't vote for the first $87B supplemental was incredibly weak. It was so weak that he had to contradict himself in the next breath, telling Russert that he "wouldn't do it again. [He] wouldn't vote against troops in the field." Then he claimed that he did vote against those troops in the field back in 2003 because he "didn't want the money to go to Halliburton." And then it was back to the 2004 Body Armor debate, as Brown claimed that DeWine had been irresponsible in sending troops to Iraq without body armor. As I noted above, Sherrod Brown is very good at repeating Democrat talking points. He has proven his ability to read a list of talking points and repeat them in a debate hosted by Tim Russert.]

[Update 6: The NIE Report. The candidates here split sharply along interpretative ideological lines. Most people reading this blog know how the two candidates, respectively, would spin the leak by the New York Times. In the end, you can believe the partial explanation offered by Sherrod Brown, or the fuller picture presented by DeWine of the conclusions of that report. I couldn't believe that Sherrod Brown actually believes himself when he claims that sanctions and inspections might have eventually overthrown Saddam. But he said it, and apparently he believes it.]

[Update 7: (or, "Nobody Likes Donald Rumsfeld") Surprisingly, DeWine flatly stated that he thinks Rumsfeld should be replaced but was not willing to speculate who should replace him, adding repeatedly that it was "the President's decision" but that he had "no confidence" in Donald Rumsfeld. Take that, Donald Rumsfeld!]

Final update: I think that the voters in Ohio are presented in this election with a very clear choice. The difference in these two men's views on the issues that matter most to Americans right now is stark and profound. Ohioans really need to look very carefully at the words these two candidates used in this debate, look at their voting records, and judge especially how they conducted themselves. I think there's ample material there to make a defensible decision. To me, the choice couldn't be clearer.