UDems/CR Debate Recap - Asses were kicked...

Tonight's presidential debate between the University Democrats and College Republicans gave students exposure to the general positions of both parties on a wide range of issues likely to play prominent roles in the 2008 election. The CRs attempted to portray the positions of presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain while the UDems offered positions held by the two Democrats still vying for their party's nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

While both sides gave passable answers to most questions, the CR debaters, third year Gary Lawkowski and fourth year Brian Kemmerer, were clearly better prepared. They gave sharper answers and delivered stinging rebuttals that often left the UDems debaters, second year (& Hoo's for Obama president) Sam Shirazi and third year (& UDems president) Sarah Buckley, looking flustered.

Here's an overview of the issues covered, as well as a few highlights:

Iraq: Shirazi made the case for a Democratic-backed troop withdrawal, lamenting an ongoing "civil war" and saying that the Iraqi government wouldn't take the difficult actions necessary to achieve control while they think they can lean on the American troop presence. As an example, he cited last week's offensive by the Iraqi Army against Shiite militias in Basra, which he characterized as a "complete failure." Lawkowski disputed that portrayal and argued that Al Qaeda in Iraq (a group to some degree distinct from Al Qaeda) posed a continuing threat to American security meriting further U.S. action. He also tried to turn Shirazi's example back on him, saying that if Basra proved how poor Iraqi troops are then it makes no sense to entrust the country's security into their hands.

Education: Buckley said both Democratic candidates support either scrapping or seriously reforming No Child Left Behind, as well as creating incentives (read: $) to draw better teachers to failing schools and tax cuts and credits and credits to make higher education more affordable. She tried to hit McCain for his support of private school vouchers, but Lawkowski shot back by accusing Dems of simply throwing money at failing public school systems, citing the District of Columbia as an example. He framed vouchers in the language of giving parents choice and also argued the resulting competition would make education more effective and efficient.

Health care: Asked whether mandated universal health care coverage as prescribed in various forms by Clinton and Obama might penalize citizens for coverage they don't want, Buckley said mandates don't create problems when they're backed by federal subsidies, as Medicare and Medicaid are. Referencing the oft-cited figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance, she lambasted the "bogus free-market strategy" of the Republicans and appealed to the country's "moral responsibility" to ensure coverage. Lawkowski disputed Buckley's figure and other statistics she cited, in essence arguing the system isn't all that bad.

Immigration: Kemmerer defended McCain's shift to the right on immigration from support of "amnesty" (which, I should note, in politics now means anything short of rounding up illegal aliens and shipping them off) to a "secure the borders first" policy that focuses on punishing those who employ illegal immigrants in addition to boosting border security. Shirazi agreed on the importance of border security but said any plan that leaves the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants without a "gradual path towards citizenship," which both Clinton and Obama plan to provide, would inevitably fail. He also criticized McCain for "flip-flopping" on the issue, a charge Kemmerer called "a little silly."

While they at times had trouble matching the CRs' poise and confident tone in the first half of the debate, the UDems still usually managed to get their point across. They fared less well in the debate's second half, which featured questions from the audience submitted to the moderators. Facing a confusing question on Obama's Illinois state senate record on abortion, Shirazi fumbled about for several minutes about trying to "move forward" on the issue, finally settling back into the standard Democratic position of making abortion less common.

Another question asked the UDems to name one legislative achievement from Clinton and Obama each. Shirazi claimed that Obama had helped clean up corruption in Washington [I believe he was referring to an ethics reform bill Obama co-wrote with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) but he didn't specify], while both he and Buckley blanked on Clinton's accomplishments. (This is of course ironic considering that Hardball host Chris Matthews made a fool out of a Texas state senator supporting Obama on national television by asking him this same question.)

By providing the student audience with a clear look at the issues looming in the 2008 election, the debaters from both sides offered a valuable public service. But in terms of just the debate itself, the day clearly went to the CRs.

Correction: It's "Lawkowski," not "Lakowski." My apologies.