The candidates were speaking in English, but I couldn’t understand them.

 
No, it wasn’t because they were engaged in politician-speak, and it wasn’t because they were using Alan Greenspan-like technical language that was above my layman level of comprehension. Seven of the Republican candidates (sans Tom Tancredo) met in Miami to communicate in Spanish – or at least to be translated into a language that a fairly significant percentage of the US population (legal or otherwise) speaks fluently.

 
The largest Spanish-language network in the United States, Univision, sponsored the debate and two of its personalities ‘moderated’ and posed questions to the candidates. And unlike some of the recent English speaking network-televised Republican forums, there were very few sparks amongst the candidates, who appeared to just want to ‘get through this’ without alienating the GOP’s conservative constituency.

 
Polls show that Hispanics are increasingly moving away from the Republican Party, and because of it, you would think there would be a high level of ‘pandering’ to this community.

 
Mercifully, that wasn’t the case, at least overtly.

 
Much like the earlier ‘Tavis Smiley’ Republican debate televised on Public television, where some (none of the top-tier at that time, though Mike Huckabee was there) of the GOP candidates met in Baltimore to address a mostly-black audience, the competitors accepted the ‘opportunity’ to address a potentially hostile audience and for the most part, stuck to their positions that they’ve been advancing for months.

 
The rhetoric was softer and the gestures more welcoming, but I didn’t hear (or should I say, read off of the closed captioning) anything from the candidates that would mark a radical departure from what they’ve already been saying, simply for the off-chance that the legal Hispanic community might get behind them.

 
The audience applauded politely after each candidate’s response, which was somewhat surprising, even when the candidates unanimously argued that the US/Mexico border must be sealed. One must remember that this forum took place in Miami with a large Cuban population – which not only tends to be somewhat conservative, but also Republican leaning.

 
If this Spanish-language audience had consisted of Latinos from El Paso, it might’ve been different, and much more antagonistic to being told that the national language should be English.

 
One note – at the very end of the program, the moderators urged ‘those amongst you who are American citizens should register to vote and let your voice be heard.’ I don’t recall seeing that kind of prodding from Fox News or CNN. Were they implying that part of their viewing audience wasn’t here legally?

 
Should they have even been there?

 
As noted above, Tom Tancredo decided to forego this debate, making good on a promise to never take part in any debate that would ‘pander’ to the Hispanic population. Tancredo did show up at the Tavis Smiley PBS debate and seems proud of the fact that he was the only Republican candidate to speak to the NAACP, but these Spanish speakers rubbed him the wrong way, apparently, being far too close to his signature issue, a fierce opposition to illegal immigration.

 
When the Republicans ignored their first scheduled Univision appearance many months ago, I initially thought it was a good idea, for many of the reasons Tom Tancredo cited for skipping this one. 

 
But having considered the question since then, I don’t think it was ‘wrong’ for the Republicans to go before a Spanish-language audience on ‘national’ TV to present their views before the Hispanic population – as long as they didn’t change their positions simply to beg for votes.

 
And while their rhetoric was certainly less heated than it has been in the past, none of them radically broke with their carefully crafted policy papers on the issue of illegal immigration, English as the national language, ‘anchor babies,’ health care, education and the War in Iraq.

 
Mitt Romney was even asked about the firing of his landscaper because of the presence of illegal aliens, and he tactfully handled it without tweaking a hair on his finely coifed head.

 
I personally believe that there’s nothing wrong with addressing any voting audience as long as you’ve got the guts to present your positions that will likely be unpopular, so the fact that the Republicans showed up to a debate where their answers were translated into Spanish for a TV audience didn’t bother me.

 
It was annoying to have to read their English-spoken answers on the closed captioning, however, and there was a few second delay for the real-time ‘translation’ -- but overall, it wasn’t much more difficult to follow than any other debate would be.

 
Winners and losers?

 
Judging by the reaction of the audience, none of the candidates ‘won’ this debate. They all received polite applause at all the right times, though it seems that John McCain was getting a bit more than the others, especially when he spoke of loving newcomers and how they’d ‘tried’ to find a comprehensive solution to the immigration question.

 
This is one audience where McCain’s support for the Bush Amnesty Bill wouldn’t hurt him – for one evening, he felt safe and loved!

 
Ron Paul certainly got the most intense reactions – positive, when he talked about his disdain for any kind of national ID card, and boos when he expressed his foreign policy views. Paul said he favored trade and travel to Cuba, and this audience clearly was in no mood to listen to changing that long-standing US policy.

 
Paul has a unique ability to cause controversy across cultural lines, but you have to admire his steadfast defense of the Constitution and his utter unwillingness to tailor his message to the constituency he’s speaking to at any one time. Paul also spoke of ‘trading’ with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, again engendering a negative response from the attendees – and his fellow candidates as well.

 
Mike Huckabee’s signature eloquence also appeared to translate well, with a few jokes and ‘real life’ examples of policy proposals that everyone can understand. Huckabee said there needs to be some kind of employment verification system, and surmised that if credit card companies can issue you a credit card in two weeks’ time, that we should be able to process immigration applications more efficiently.

 
True, if illegal aliens are getting bank accounts, credit cards and cell phones, they should be able to be able to go back to their home countries and get in the immigration line and fill out an application.  Point well made.

 
What was most surprising was the deference given to Huckabee, whose ascension into the top-tier is complete, and he was given about as much time as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani to answer to the issues.

 
Fred Thompson didn’t really make an impression, but once again seemed to be the most specific in terms of policy proposals. Except for his great height, he doesn’t stand out in any way.

 
Duncan Hunter was practically invisible, as he is when speaking ‘English’ on the American network stage. There was a large image of the Statue of Liberty behind him which you could see when the camera would catch a long-range shot of the stage, but Hunter kept referring to ‘that lady behind me,’ which was confusing at best and annoying at worst. What lady was back there… his mother?

 
Rudy Giuliani’s staff must have done some research and discovered that Hispanics are in favor of school-choice and vouchers, since much of his education message centered on his Catholic school upbringing – and how people should be able to send their kids to private schools if they so choose. 

 
Or maybe it was because he wanted to identify with a mostly Catholic audience.

 
When Giuliani’s not trying to get around his unacceptable abortion stance, his three marriages or his questionable security billing practices meant to disguise his extra-marital 'activities,' he actually looks authoritative and decisive, and I can see where he might have gained some favor with this particular audience.

 

 
Tom Tancredo. It’s very late in the game and Tancredo’s campaign is going nowhere – and if there is ONE forum where he might stand out, it’s in front of a Hispanic audience, taking on his ‘enemy’ for all to see. Tancredo might have gotten panned by the Hispanics, but he also would’ve earned great coverage for the conservative border-enforcement constituency that he’s actively seeking.

 
As argued above, principle is one thing, but there’s nothing wrong with going before a group and proudly stating those positions – and he definitely would’ve received a great body of news coverage from doing so.

 
Instead, he sat home and a few reporters wrote stories about his boycott. Voters won’t vote for a boycott. Tancredo missed his chance to really make an impression.

 

 
The Iowa caucuses are only a few weeks away, and Iowa is a state where the issue of illegal immigration matters a lot to the Republican voters in that state. Therefore, it was important for the candidates to hold the line and remain consistent to their proposals they’d fought over in the past few months.

 
In this respect, they were successful. It’s doubtful that many Hispanics were swayed by their answers in a language they understand, but maybe they received some credit from this ethnic group for showing up.

 
No matter what the news media reports, conservative positions aren’t ‘mean-spirited’ and conservatives aren’t anti-Hispanic or anti-immigration. And for one night, at least, the message was delivered, and politely received.