It was a raucous Vice Presidential debate Tuesday night, with both candidates repeatedly talking over each other, and each disparaging the positions of the other’s running mate. Unlike last week’s Presidential debate, where the focus was more on domestic issues and character, approximately half of the VP debate surprisingly centered on national security issues.
We asked former CIA and NSA Director Mike Hayden, who assessed last week’s Presidential debate for The Cipher Brief, to give us his thoughts on whether Republican VP nominee Mike Pence and Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine shed any new light on the key national security positions articulated by the top of their tickets, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
The Cipher Brief: What were your overall impressions of the Vice Presidential debate?
Mike Hayden: The debate I really want to see is Mike Pence debating Donald Trump.
TCB: Why is that?
MH: Because Pence said stuff last night which at a minimum was beyond what Trump has said, and quite frankly, in many instances, contradicted what Trump has said.
For example, number one, Pence took a very aggressive posture with regard to Syria. He talked about safe areas, no fly zones, and destroying the Syrian air force. Trump, one, refuses to reveal his plan, and two, talks about going in there tough and quick and then leaving. There is nothing quick about what the Governor was saying.
When it comes to (Russian President) Vladimir Putin, Pence called him a bully, an aggressor, someone against whom we needed to push back, again, things that Trump has never said, and frankly, Trump has worked very hard not to criticize Putin at all.
TCB: Who do you go with in this case?
MH: You’ve got to go with the top of the ticket. It’s quite remarkable. Pence was the master of the moment, but he put positions out there to which his candidate has not yet arrived.
TCB: What about on the other side? Did you hear anything unique, different in what Kaine said?
MH: Number one, Kaine had the challenge of defending incumbency. And so Pence had the advantage of pulling anything about which people are unhappy and simply blaming it on Secretary Clinton and the Clinton/Kaine/Obama team. Therefore, Kaine is pushed into the defensive posture a lot and in defending the record.
It’s a record I’ve criticized a lot as well. Pence’s criticisms were spot on: You left Iraq, Iranians are going crazy on us. I think Kaine was trying to be too maximalist with his defenses, like when he said that we made the Iranians stop their nuclear program, which is a bridge too far. There are ways of defending the deal, that that absolutist statement just doesn’t stand.
TCB: How did you compare the VP’s articulation of national security policy to what we heard in the first presidential debate?
MH: My first comment was, why aren’t these guys running for President. There was a larger mastery of the facts than was evident in the Presidential debate. If you put three of the four in a room, I actually think you would get some pretty broad areas of agreement. I think the odd man out here is Donald Trump. I’m talking about my stuff now, national security issues. I’m not talking about tax policy here or anything like that.
TDB: About half of the debate was on national security. Did that surprise you?
MH: Much more than we expected. They just threw stuff back and forth. They weren’t going deep.
I did a radio interview yesterday, and I was asked, “General, we’re surprised a bit that you are strongly opposed to Mr. Trump. Why do you oppose him?” And my answer was, “because I listen to what he says.” And there was a certain element of that, that Kaine was trying to do yesterday: “Governor (Pence), are you listening to what he (Trump) said?” And Pence was deft enough to deflect it or pretend he never said it or frankly, put Pence’s position down there. That stuff is out there now. There is a lot of stuff Trump said that people truly should be concerned about. My line is, are you listening to what he is saying?
TCB: In the scheme of things, how much does the VP debate really matter?
MH: Historically from what I read, it really doesn’t. I guess it runs the risk of being a powerful negative impact. Certainly that didn’t happen last night. I do think, reflective of other commentary as well, advantage Pence at the moment.
But Pence put things out there. I would simply say, for next Sunday night’s Presidential debate, the moderators should ask, “Mr. Trump, your vice presidential candidate on the ticket with you, Governor Pence, says we can drive out the Syrian air force, create safe havens, and create a no fly zone. You’ve been very reluctant to talk about what it is you would do in Syria and Iraq. Do you agree with Governor Pence?” And, “Mr. Trump, Governor Pence said that Mr. Putin is a corrupt, crony-supporting bully, who has been very aggressive in multiple places in the world. Do you agree with your vice presidential running mate?” I can see this stuff coming back.
TCB: That could make Sunday’s debate a lot more interesting.
MH: If I’m coaching the debate questioners this week. A good technique would be to pull out the apparent daylight between Trump and Pence. And to be fair, ask Hillary Clinton, “Senator Kaine said you stopped the Iranian program. Do you believe that to be true?”
