Nation – 1; National Review - 0

I had the pleasure of attending a debate between Katrina vanden Heuvel vs. Rich Lowry last night in Grand Rapids. The event was actually titled “President Obama's First 100 Days: A Debate”; but it was really about watching the editor of the Nation magazine debate the editor of the National Review magazine.

There was a really good turnout and the church that the debate was held in was an amazing building. The debate lasted about 2 hours and it was formatted similar to a real debate.

The details:

There were two debate topics that each of the speakers was allowed to speak for 10 minutes and then a 5 minute rebuttal. The first question was regarding the economic plan of the Obama administration and the second question was regarding the foreign policy of the Obama administration. For the most part the answers were along the lines of what you would expect. Lowry thinks that the Obama economic plan is going to fail and Vanden Heuvel thinks that it will succeed. Lowry thinks that diplomacy is not very effective and Vanden Heuvel thinks that engaging foreign leaders is a worthwhile process. The surprises came in the minutiae of their answers.

Lowry called the Obama administration economic plan cynical and opportunistic. I looked around to see if I was the only one shocked by this. Coming from a war profiteer apologist I was very surprised that Lowry was accusing the current administration of using this crisis to further their agenda. I must have missed his editorials taking the Bush/Cheney administration to task for no bid contracts and rampant overcharging from KBR/Halliburton. I am sure the eloquence of Lowry was mind boggling as he railed against the Bush/Cheney cabal as they tossed aside prevailing wage laws in the after math of hurricane Katrina. Lowry’s response was disingenuous to be polite.

I also couldn’t help but hearing many in the crowd actually giggling and sighing as Lowry called for LESS regulation to help spur the economy. The crowd was actually audibly laughing at him and looking at one another. I heard the two, late 60-ish ladies in front of me say “you’ve got to be kidding!”

There were several points where Lowry acknowledged the Bush legacy as a burden on the current administration, to many in the audiences’ relief. But he also brought out a lot of the old conservative standbys.

- We need tax cuts to spur growth.
- The Obama administration wont acknowledge the surge worked.
- FDR didn’t get us out of the great depression.
- We have built a friendly democracy in Iraq, it was worth it.
- Military spending good, social spending bad.
- Reagan good, Clinton evil.

It was mind numbing. To hear a member of the party that has had their ass whipped in the last two election cycles rehash the talking points that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney drew up was surprising to me. The only thing I was more surprised by was the reception he was getting; chilly at best. The crowd noticeably clapped louder for Vanden Heuvel during and at the end of her commentary. Lowry also looked as if he needed to go to the restroom in the worst way; he was squirming in his seat like a 8 year old boy during a church service while Vanden Heuvel spoke.

I must give Lowry credit for this; after the two debate topics were covered there was a question and answer period from the audience. During this time period Lowry seemed to speak much more honestly and rationally. He gave clear pragmatic answers and agreed with portions of his opponents viewpoints. During this question and answer a guy got up and accused Vanden Heuvel of many things one of which was, hating America. Vanden Heuvel responded well and received a healthy round of applause from the entire audience. Lowry promptly stood up and said that the idea that Katrina hates America is ridiculous and wrong. It was a classy thing to do and the right thing to do. We can have legitimate differences of opinion regarding the policies of this nation and shouldn’t be accused of hating our country because of them.

In my opinion the debate wasn’t even close. I am of course biased, but I think Vanden Heuvel came across with the more well thought out and clearer points.