Live-Blogging The Second Brit Debate: A Clegg Triumph

BROWNChristopherFurlong:Getty

4.28 pm. Brown's final message is one of fear. Cameron offers a "clean break" from the past thirteen years "of failure." Clegg insists "something really exciting is beginning to happen." "We don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past… Don't let people persuade you that things cannot be different. They can."

In this, Clegg grasps the change mantle, the Obama message, in a restive and anti-political country. In that sense, I think he won this. And I would not be surprised to see his party emerge – historically – as the leader in this race.

4.23 pm A quote for the night: "You can't deport 900,000 people when you don't know where they live." yes, Clegg again, and he pushes Cameron for a specific number for a cap on immigrants. Cameron has no answer. A bad moment for him. I have to say that Clegg is winning this debate, with all the possible consequences that might bring.

4.13 pm Clegg pounces on the banks, arguing for smaller banks and breaking up the big ones. Again, Clegg seems able to grasp hot-button issues and present himself as a fresh approach.

4.08 pm. They are now debating a hung parliament. Cameron says that he'd handle either a clear victory CLEGGLeonNeal:Getty or a coalition. I cannot imagine any American politician ever conceding in advance that he might not win. Clegg reduces the debate to the following: "I don't think it's a bad thing for politicians to talk to each other." Hands down Clegg victory – against "short-term party political point-scoring." It's obviously largely bullshit, but it helps define Clegg as a fresher and more radical choice. I think he has done well in this debate, which means his momentum may well continue.

Brown calls Cameron a "risk to our economy." And calls Clegg "a risk to our national security." Brown is running on fear of change, in an electorate desperate for radical change. I think the result of the current debate is Clegg winning, Cameron coming a close second but overwhelmed by the anti-political mood, and Brown a dismal third.

4.01 pm The first real clash between Brown and Cameron – and Cameron wins. Clegg, however, deftly describes all this as a "political ping-pong." He opposes "cheap political point-scoring." Again, when Cameron or Brown wins a testy exchange, Clegg jumps in and plays the above-it-all card. That may well be effective.

3.59 pm. Now they are pandering to the elderly. Cameron does well: "It's disgusting to be frightening people in a general election… You should not be frightening people in an election campaign. It's just not right." He looks angry and resolute. He calls Labour leaflets warning the elderly about cuts under the Tories "lies." The only person offering any fiscal responsibility is Cameron, who proposes raising the male retirement age.

3.49 pm Cameron finally sounds like a Tory. "If you really want to change things, we all have our responsibilities too." Real solutions come when we all say "I have responsibilities too." He says that's the most honest answer for getting change. Clegg immediately pivots to say that "we have jobs for life for politicians." He wants an end to safe seats. Again, the anti-incumbent mood really seems to have been captured by Clegg.

I'm sorry to say that Cameron seems reasonable, positive, decent, smart … and yet somehow has no  ability to go for the jugular or to distinguish himself from established politics. Maybe part of his problem is that he's been party leader for five years. He seems part of the establishment. Clegg doesn't – fair or not.

3.44 pm We're in the "general section" of the debate now. Clegg addresses the anti-incumbent mood after the expenses scandals. He immediately sides with the questioner. He talks about the fact that Gordon Brown was never directly elected as prime minister. He pleads for proportional representation. Bown's response is boilerplate. Cameron acknowledges the anger and calls for total transparency in government. Clegg pounces on the apparent sudden surge in young voters registering to vote. "They're beginning to hope we can do something different this time. Assert your right to shape your own future." I'd say Clegg is doing very well in this debate in seeming the most refreshing and radical of the candidates.

3.42 pm. Brown touts civil partnerships as a "great liberation" for gay people. All three leaders disagree with the Pope on embryonic stem cell research.

3.41 pm Clegg: "I don't believe in the Church's position on homosexuality. I don't."

3.38 pm Clegg comes out as a Catholic spouse whose kids are being brought up as Catholics. But he pulls his punches, calling for more transparency rather than criminal prosecution. Brown says the Catholic church is a "great part of our society."Cameron says he disagrees with the Pope on abortion. Yes: the Conservative leader is pro-choice.

3.37 pm A question calling for a future prime minister to distance himself from the Pope on his coming visit. CAMERONWPAPool:Getty Cameron says he will support the visit, but that he doesn't agree with the Catholic church on contraception and homosexuality. He also puts a plug in in defense of faith-based charities. A deft but uninspiring response.

3.34 pm Brown goes for it with Clegg: "Your anti-Americanism is going to hurt us" on environmental policy. Clegg pushes back: the American alliance is immensely valuable, but shouldn't be a one-way street.

3.30 pm They're all out-greening each other. Cameron seems to have the better answers here – and a more human side. He has shown a little sense of humor. Brown attacks Clegg on his opposition to nuclear power and inland wind farms. Clegg's response is that it's cheaper to have a massive plan for insulation for homes. Cameron says he has insulated his home. Again, Clegg seems the odd man out. Which may hurt him – or help.

3.24 pm. Clegg invokes Obama in securing nuclear materials; Brown blasts back: "Get real. Get real." Clegg seems completely unfazed. Cameron says: "I've never said this before: 'I agree with Gordon'". Clegg's position is that there should be a greater variety of options than simply renewing the Trident nuclear system. Brown and Cameron seemed to gang up on Clegg. But, to my mind, Clegg held his own. And the way in which both Labour and Conservative are defending traditional nuclear policy plays into Clegg's message of real change.

3.23 pm. Cameron insists on a nuclear deterrent "in an unsafe world". "You can't take risks with this."

3.22 pm. Clegg and Cameron keep bashing Brown for failing to equip British soldiers sufficiently.

3. 18 pm. Missed the first few minutes. But it took Clegg only four minutes to note that he opposed the Iraq war, that Cameron voted for it, and that Brown was part of the government that took Britain in.

Jim Manzi Is A “Global Warming Zealot”?!

Yes, Jim Manzi, one of the most effective, data-driven critics of cap and trade is described thus on Mark Levin's Facebook page and all Levin's fans congratulate him for smacking down a "liberal" and an "eco-Marxist"!

So there you have it. When someone like Manzi is a left-wing zealot, then the right has simply ceased to be in any way rational. The circle has closed.

Why Not Statehood For DC?

The DC voting rights bill died again earlier this week. Bernstein asks:

I still don't understand why the Democrats didn't just push through DC statehood while they had the chance, during the brief period in which they had 60 votes in the Senate.

Yes, there are a host of practical problems. The tax base is pretty slim: federal offices and non-profits, which DC has an abundance of, aren't going to bring in enough (or any) revenue. Here's a decent, if somewhat old, summary of the economic problems DC would face as a full fledged state. Joyner's solution:

As I’ve noted several times in the past, my personal preference would be retrocession, whether real or virtual. Essentially, giving DC — minus the Bernstein carveout — back to Maryland. That solves the problem of giving the District’s residents representation in Congress — which I absolutely believe they deserve — and yet not giving them the ridiculously outsized power that would come from statehood.

Just why, pray, is giving the 600,000 people who live in DC proper representation in the Congress granting us a "ridiculously outsized power." You mean: unlike North Dakota (pop. 650,000) or Alaska (pop. 700,000)? There is simply no way to justify spending trillions to bring "democracy" to Baghdad, while refusing to grant it to America's capital city. In fact, the US – because of this anachronism – is the only advanced democracy to bar the citizens of its own capital from having the franchise. I think this simple fact outweighs any practical argument whatever.

Debate Prep

Martin Kettle's advice for Clegg:

Choose the right moment to remind the viewers that the Liberal Democrats were the only party that spoke for the British people over the Iraq war, that Brown still defends it and that Cameron voted for it. Make it an emblem of having good judgment, standing up for what is right, and speaking for the people not the old consensus.

John Kampfner makes the same point. But the war in Afghanistan may play a larger role today. Daniel Korski wonders how Europe will factor into the debate and into a possible Tory-Lib Dem government. I'll be live-blogging at 3.30 pm. It will be a critical moment in this election – and a debate that most directly affects the US.

#nickcleggsfault

Twitter rushes to defend the Lib-Dem leader from attacks by the tabloid MSM. Broadstuff surveys the satire:

Third World Debt #nickcleggsfault

Schrodinger's cat is dead!! apparently it's #nickcleggsfault

Nick Clegg ate my hamster #nickcleggsfault

Increased interest in otherwise boring election between two hopeless parties is definitely #nickcleggsfault

Can no longer keep track of everything that is #nickcleggsfault … definitely #nickcleggsfault

Countless more here.

Why Are Republicans Mum On Financial Regulation?

Chait has a theory:

It's difficult to work out a free market response. If you let Wall Street invest however it likes, it will eventually precipitate a financial crisis, with massive government intervention being the only option to save the economy. Or else you can break up the big banks, or limit their ability to take on systemic risk. Either way, government has to get involved at some step in the process. It almost seems like conservatives can't choose which form of government intervention to accept, so many of them just aren't choosing.

My view is that conservatism has become so reflexively anti-government that it has nothing to say on the pressing questions of the hour, most of which require some – smart and narrowly tailored – government action. Adam Smith would have no trouble re=regulating Wall Street. Why is the GOP so gun-shy?

Dissent Of The Day

4182352598_e9fc9d6b59_b

A reader writes:

You wrote: "Since when has Texas ever felt "ashamed" about anything? Not since the Kennedy assassination, and even then …"

Dangit, please don’t overgeneralize.  I can guarantee you that there are plenty of “Texans” who are ashamed…and work everyday single day, in as many was as possible, to change Texas.  We’re here, we were born here, and we love it because of its diversity, its geography, and its people.  There are plenty of rednecks and plenty of ultra-rich bubbas, but tucked deep down inside, working our way out, are beautiful, open-minded folks who stand up, vote, and participate in ways which will push the fringe, with the ultimate goal to behave in a responsible, kind and caring way.  It just takes us longer – it’s a big place!

(Photo of Annise Parker – the first openly gay mayor of a US city with over a million residents, Houston – by Flickr user David Ortez.)