Republican presidential candidates met in Baltimore, Maryland on the campus of traditionally black Morgan State University on Thursday night to discuss issues of importance to the minority communities.

 
For our purposes, we’ll remember it as the ‘half debate.’ First off, there were about half the candidates there – not necessarily numerically, but the leading four GOP candidates in the polls were no-shows. Like the earlier ‘Values Voter’ debate, there were empty lecterns on stage for those not present, so their ‘aura’ was still felt.

 
Incidentally, the candidates who did take part were: Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes.

 
Second, the question and answer portion of the program lasted only about half as long as with most major network debates. Maybe it’s because the forum was squeezed into a governmentally sponsored PBS telecast, but it seemed like the organizers delayed the start of the questioning (the candidates weren’t even introduced until twelve minutes into the program, preceded by short addresses from black radio host Tom Joyner, moderator Tavis Smiley and Maryland Republican Michael Steele), and then the ‘show’ was cut off early to run about five minutes of public interest ‘ads’ at the end of the televised portion.

 
Finally, there were only about half the issues addressed that could’ve been discussed. For example, there wasn’t a single mention of so-called ‘hate crimes’ legislation, which is currently a hot topic in Congress. Democratic Senators attached a ‘hate crimes’ amendment to an appropriations bill to fund the Iraq War and other military matters – which passed the Senate earlier in the day… but it didn’t come up on Thursday night.

 
I would also say this debate had only half the importance of the Values Voters debate, but some would interpret that the wrong way. The perception that it doesn’t care about minority issues is already scarring the GOP -- but if it can be said that the Republican Party’s base is made up of conservatives, there simply weren’t that many topics that would be pertinent to a conservative audience.

 
I guess that’s why they didn’t call it the ‘conservative voter’s debate.’

 
The forum was moderated by PBS personality Tavis Smiley, whom some had feared would slant the debate to the left and not allow the candidates to present themselves in a favorable way. That couldn’t be farther from the truth, as Smiley treated the candidates congenially, and fairly. Like in the Values Voter debate, each candidate got a chance to answer every question (except for the final one of the evening, when they ran out of time).

 
Likewise, if there were potential concerns about facing a hostile audience, those were alleviated right away as well. The candidates received polite applause when they warranted it, and silence when there may have been a point of disagreement. But this, like the other debates, was an audience full of Republicans – black, white, Hispanic – all party supporters.

 
The first question of the evening dealt with the no-shows to the debate, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson – but there were no ‘silly’ questions purposely directed at empty lecterns (like at the Values Voter debate).

 
As to how the no-shows could be ‘punished’ for not participating, Senator Sam Brownback made a suggestion on how minority voters could show their displeasure with the top-tier – they could register as Republicans in South Carolina or Michigan and cast their votes only for one of the six candidates on stage. Makes sense to me. Not only could minority voters have an impact in those states, they also could influence the entire race by giving credibility to these more conservative-oriented candidates who came to face a constituency that doesn’t tend to favor them.

 
The real ‘losers’ of the evening were the no-shows. Not only were there many jabs landed at their expense, but also because their elitist reputation with the party’s base is only growing with each forum they choose to skip. PBS may not have the largest national audience, but every major television market has a PBS affiliate, and for some of these campaigns, the negatives certainly outweigh any potential ‘gain’ from blowing off a large voting block.

 

 
I wouldn’t say there was a real ‘winner’ in this debate, simply because the format seemed so informal. Smiley only posed one question, followed by a citizen question, and the balance of the issues were brought up by a panel of journalists (Cynthia Tucker, Ray Suarez and Juan Williams).

 
Topics for discussion included: why did you choose to be here, and what would you say to those who didn’t show up? The citizen asked: No Republican president since Lincoln has left a positive legacy for black Americans – what would you do to leave a positive legacy for minority communities? Race and unemployment – black unemployment rates for high school graduates is still 33% higher than for white high school drop-outs, what would you do to mend the disparity?

 
Other topics included illegal immigration, health care, criminal justice (and the ‘Jena 6’), ending the Iraq War, and the death penalty.

 
Ron Paul and Alan Keyes made the largest impressions. Ron Paul because he’s got a very focused message that would translate well to any audience, and Alan Keyes because he seemed to be right at home with this audience. Being a black conservative, he’s faced criticism and ridicule from the liberal civil rights establishment, so he was able to forcefully present an alternative opinion – not that Keyes would ever back down from a challenge.

 
Paul stressed that individual freedom would bring more opportunity for all, and made several points that demonstrated his libertarian streak, such as the need to end the War on Drugs, because it disproportionately harms minority communities. He also said that the minimum wage harms young minorities looking to get into the work force, because it denies low-wage opportunities to those just starting out.

 
Two of the candidates who you would’ve thought would do better were Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Huckabee didn’t seem real comfortable from the beginning, and he had probably his poorest debate performance to date. Huckabee pointed out that he received a lot of black support in order to be elected Governor of Arkansas, yet also seemed to rely on ‘crutch’ issues to deliver a message – claiming that there’s still rampant racism in America today, and even championing issues such as voting rights for Washington DC.

 
I was kind of disappointed in Huckabee’s performance, from the standpoint that this was the first time that he really seemed like a politician pandering for votes. There’s no need to ‘back down’ from conservatism in a forum such as this, you just need to articulate the vision and let the voters decide. I don’t feel like he did that.

 
The same was true for Sam Brownback, who had probably the single most surprising answer of the evening, when the said (in answer to the citizen’s ‘positive legacy’ question) that the federal government should officially apologize for slavery and segregation.

 
Is he serious? Such symbolic gestures have absolutely no meaning, and touch very few (if any) of those who actually suffered from the original wrongs.

 
Tom Tancredo had a surprisingly strong performance. He had his usual difficulties in articulating his ideas, but he was the one candidate who consistently argued against using race as a crutch, blaming illegal immigration and the welfare state for much of what ails the minority communities. Tancredo’s was probably the best presentation of conservative ideas and solutions to minority issues.

 
Duncan Hunter also seemed at ease with this format, and turned in a generally strong performance. He pointed out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with a higher percentage of Republican support, and generally defended the party’s performance with minorities. Hunter pointed out that Republicans were largely responsible for welfare reform, which increased opportunities in minority communities.

 

 
Thursday night’s debate was probably the least noteworthy to date, not only because of the absence of the big names, but also because it probably didn’t help anyone, conservatives or otherwise, gain any further insight into who they should support for president.

 
I also doubt that the Republicans on stage altered any impressions in the minority communities that they were speaking to. None of them were really able to articulate how a conservative vision would benefit these voters. Perhaps they weren’t given enough time to make an impression, but sometimes it seemed like they were preaching to the wrong choir.

 
Any attempts by Republicans to become the majority party must include overtures to the minority community – but they’ll likely make more headway by advancing conservative solutions rather than presenting warmed over Democratic ideals that have absolutely no chance of influencing anyone in ways that they haven’t already been brainwashed.