But over the past several years, "debates" have not been so much a clash of political perspectives but a kind of carnival where politicians seem to evade answering direct questions and try to force fit their rehearsed politically spun soundbites into their time. This time I was interested more on the process--including how the pundits inevitably would spin the winners and losers, how each candidate's team would spin the results, the interest in the debate, etc. I would then watch the event later and pick out my own takeaways.
The debate turned out to be the single biggest non-sports event in the history of cable history, nearly 24 million viewers watched. And after the first 20 minutes or so of watching the video, I have to admit unlike past debates, it made for compelling television. For anyone thinking that the FNC was going to be a love fest with softball questions from swooning star-struck moderators as per leftist propaganda, FNC proved that it was capable of putting politicians on the spot, including a rehash of Jeb Bush's equivocating response on his brother's Iraq intervention and the Christie-Paul spat over NSA and, as I discussed in an earlier post this weekend, the Kelly/Trump exchange over Trump's questionable behavior with women.
Obviously there's only so much that can happen with 10 candidates on stage and a 2-hour time slot. The Rand Paul folks had been griping, before the event, over how Fox News freezes them out: there is the fact that Fox News has omitted on at least 2 occasions Rand Paul's place in one poll and another showing how well he would run against Hillary Clinton. And in fact this post-debate analysis clearly shows, even including the 2 times he interjected himself into 2 exchanges with Donald Trump and Chris Christie, he had less than half the speaking time of Trump, and less than any other candidate, including fringe support candidacies like Huckabee, Kasich, and Christie:
 |
| via InfoWars |
Some notes on the debate:
- Trump (on "hold your hands up if you won't necessarily support the eventual nominee and/or rule out an independent bid in 2016" (paraphrased)). Any voluntary organization has a right to expect a good faith commitment from its members. Trump's response for not taking the pledge was self-serving and outrageous (wanting to be kingmaker, even if he didn't win). Rand Paul took a big hit in 2012 for endorsing Romney after he mathematically clinched the GOP nod. Paul had endorsed his dad (Ron) up to that point; Rand took a big hit for disloyalty to his dad over that. Small wonder that Rand Paul rightly accused Trump of wanting to manipulate the political process to his own benefit. Trump, who has made a talking point about being invulnerable to political manipulation because of his wealth but takes cynical pride in buying political favors from the likes of Hillary Clinton, and, yes, some of his fellow candidates on the stage, was quick to end the exchange with a misleading note that Paul himself took a lot of money from Trump. Actually, as the Gray Lady noted in a brief note, Trump gave Paul's volunteer eye surgery operation a $10K donation, not a political contribution.
- Carson, on his gaffes on foreign policy matters. Carson came across as too defensive. I might have approached the question, in a manner like this: "It's true that I'm not a career diplomat, but I do have broad objectives for foreign policy--non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, to recognize the limits of our resources and to streamline our foreign alliances/commitments, not to prop up corrupt or aggressive regimes, to pursue unrestricted trade with other countries. Here is what I see as challenges to American leadership: x, y, z" He got a lot of mileage by putting out that he's a quick study, but I would have pointed out "Hey, I'm not a professional politician or diplomat. What I see is that the so-called "experts" have been spending money we don't have propping up corrupt regimes, wasting American blood and treasure on dubious interventions; we need someone with a fresh approach which doesn't repeat old mistakes."
- Rubio, on Jeb Bush's executive experience vs. his lack of experience. Oh my God, I can't believe that Rubio effectively made a soundbite that Hillary Clinton's minions will probably use in campaign spots, arguing Hillary Clinton has a "better resume" than anybody else on stage. What an idiot! Hillary has been on the ballot twice (2000, 2006) and served one term as Secretary of State. As a senator, Clinton had no legislative accomplishments and did not serve in leadership; hardly anyone believes there were breakthroughs in foreign policy; it was pretty much a convoluted mess, and Clinton has pointedly avoided (beyond lip service) accepting the responsibility for Benghazi, refusing to pull personnel (like the British had) even as the ambassador pleaded for more security. My personal appraisal: Hillary Clinton dozed through her infamous 3AM call. Her executive experience is limited to her dubious tenure at Secretary of State, while a number of candidates on stage--Bush, Kasich, Walker, Huckabee, Christie--were elected to a minimum of 2 terms as governor. He seemed to imply that past experience is irrelevant and seems to base his argument by Clinton talks about the lower middle-class, while he himself lived in the lower middle-class. I'm not exactly sure where he's going with this--is he going to intervene in the economy?
- Jeb Bush, on being his own man vs. part of the Bush dynasty. For one thing, he's spent 8 years out of politics, including the economic tsunami. So we don't know how he would govern in this slow-growth economy. He made reference to being popular in a purple state--essentially arguing the electability argument. But I didn't get a good feel for how he would govern distinctly from his father and brother,
- Donald Trump, in the infamous above-cited War on Woman exchange. I'm not going to repeat my earlier cited commentary here, except to point out that Trump directly attacked Kelly in his response, tried to deflect the question by singling out Rosie O'Donnell (which started by Trump basically backing one of his beauty pageant winners with personal issues; O'Donnell criticized him, and we were off to the races), and never addressed the real intent--the War on Women and Hillary Clinton. It was a tough but fair question, and Donald wasn't the only candidate getting tough questions. I think if you were pro-Trump going into the question, you probably came out pro-Trump, but I think he'll end up regretting this. Megyn Kelly is a rising star at FNC, and she's not going anywhere. His campaign could find more limited or even adversarial coverage from FNC. So far, Donald Trump has had a Teflon candidacy; if anything, his ratings surged even more after he personally attacked McCain. I think he's playing with fire and one of these times it'll be a point too far. Personally I think 25-32% is about as high as he can go. Drudge still has his back, but other portals, like redstate, nationalreview, townhall, and hotair are hitting back, not only on his treatment of Kelly and his general temperament, but his participation in buying political favors and his unprincipled politics (certainly not conservatives).
- Cruz on Paul's critique of divisiveness. He sees it as a badge of political courage. It wasn't responsive to Paul's point of growing the party.
- Chris Christie on NJ economic issues. A defensive response in the sense he largely bashes the predecessor Corzine Administration; another point is the opposition legislature and the limited power of a governor to change an economy. He tried to put lipstick on a pig, but it's not even clear he could carry his own state against Clinton. I do think he implied a response that he might prune regulations, etc. This should have been phrased in the context of things he might do as President with a GOP Congress beside him
- Scott Walker, asked about his opposition to abortion exceptions. Even as a pro-lifer, I think that he would be better served to note that abortion is regulated at the state level, and the President has virtually no say on the matter , even in passing a constitutional amendment protecting preborn life. What is it about what happened in the 2012 Senate races of Akin and Mourdoch that GOP social conservatives don't understand.
- Mike Huckabee, basically an extension of the Scott Walker question with his adovocacy of a traditional marriage amendment. Huckabee notes that amendments the old-fashioned way unlikely. His response seems to a recognition of the preborn child's personhood and the application of the fifth and fourteenth amendment. I presume he's talking about having the Solicitor General going after state abortion laws. I don't think he answered Chris Wallace's question of attracting Dems and independents. Given our court systems, I doubt he would be likely to prevail.
- Rand Paul, basically with his differences with other Republicans over Middle East/Gulf Region foreign policy. He strongly points out that American arms have ended in the possession of ISIS. Strong response, but he didn't really address the broad disagreements with neo-con policy and why ISIS intervention is our problem.
- Kasich, challenged by Kelly about his agreement to expand Medicaid. He makes an argument that he's returning taxpayer money to Ohio (oh, tell me you didn't just say that), raises Reagan's memory in expanding Medicaid (expletive deleted!), starts arguing compassionate conservatism, and how he juggled the state's books into the black. I cannot tell you how much I disliked this response. I could write a whole rant on this alone.
- Jeb Bush, on immigration. He recently adjusted his policy to pay lip service to the right-wing populist soundbites of heightened enforcement, getting control of the border, etc. I would have preferred to him to look at broken immigration processes that exacerbate unauthorized entry, a failed War on Drugs that lures drug lords to capture obscene profits.
- Trump on immigration, in particular accusations that Mexico is dumping its prisons across the US border. Trump makes the truly RETARDED point that he's the only reason people are talking about immigration. Where the hell has he been over the past decade? The anti-immigrants have been high-profile since at least 2007. Bad talking point: Trump has been exploiting the issue, just like Romney did 4 years ago. Maybe he was referring to the allegation of prisoner dumping. More populist rhetoric on building a wall (while the drug lords are building tunnels...) Wallace noted that Trump didn't answer his question on evidence of prisoner dumping. Trump would like you to believe he regularly consults with border control folks who tell him what's really going on. (Yeah, right.. I'm saying this directly to Donald Trump: this is crackpot conspiracy bullshit and a completely unsupported charge. Unnamed Pedro, the Border Control agent, who personally knows millions of Mexicans crossing the border? What, he's found Mexican prison documents left behind by fleeing aliens? Come on, I've heard better lies about why Junior showed up at school today without his homework. You've visited the border only for photo opps and only after you made illegal immigration your signature issue. Me, I think you want to bring Pedro to the executive boardroom and fire him for doing such a lousy job.)
- Kasich, asked to comment on Trump's allegations of prisoner dumping, tone of his rhetoric that US politicians are "stupid" but Mexican ones are "smart". He seemed to split his time between puffing up his resume to acknowledging Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric has touched a nerve, echoes Trump's rhetoric to build a wall, etc.
- Rubio, on immigration. He does point out, contrary to Trump, the majority of Southern border aliens are non-Mexican. He pushes e-Verify (which I reject to as a libertarian), the wall/fence (which I see as an ineffective boondoggle)--but does point out a fence doesn't prevent tunnels. He does point out that we have serious bottleneck issues, taking 15 years or so to get here legally. I was hoping that he would start to point out Trump and the others are treating the symptoms not the disease, that illegal entry is an artifact of bad public policy.
- Walker, on why he flip-flopped on prior support immigration. He lamely argues that he educated himself on the topic since 2012, basically echoes the soundbite of enforcing the existing law, no amnesty,etc.
- Cruz: He basically point out he's authored and tried to push to the Senate floor Kate's law (i.e., in reference to a young woman who was tragically killed allegedly by an authorized alien.). He suggests that the Congressional leadership doesn't want to fix immigration.
- Chris Christie, asked by Megyn Kelly about his statement that Rand Paul's opposition to collection of metadata should result in Congressional sanctions if we experience another terrorist attack. He wraps himself up in 9/11, even saying he was nominated to the office of US Attorney by Bush on 9/10. This has been fact-checked by others, He is basically not truthful here; I think prospective nominees have to go through a background check, and a 12/7/01 news item said that Bush "intends to nominate" Christie. Now "intends" is not the same as appointed or nominated, and this is nearly 2 months later. It may very well be the case that Christie was contacted on 9/10 about his selection with intent to nominate after he had been cleared. Other sources indicate that Christie may have exaggerated the nature and extent of his involvement as claimed. There is a memorable exchange highlighted by Paul's "I want to get more records from terrorists, fewer from the average American". Christie seems to think the NSA needs more tools, not fewer compromising the Bill of Rights.
- Cruz on defeating ISIS. Basically Cruz bashes Obama for not calling out Islamic radicals and talked about stripping Americans going to join ISIS of their citizenships. Cruz bashed the Petraeus anti-insurgency strategy (not in name, of course)
- Bush, on the earlier "was your brother wrong to invade Iraq?" His response is basically, "If I knew then what we know now, I would not go in." He most blamed the failure to extend the Iraq agreement on Obama and the subsequent rise of ISIS.
- Walker, on how he would retool the Gulf alliance against radicalism. Walker basically blames Obama for being disengaged on the alliance and argues on focusing our attention on regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
- Carson, on whether we would bring back waterboarding. He doesn't directly answer, saying a little ambiguity is a good thing. He does not believe in interfering in what it takes for a military to pursue its mission and objectives.
- Trump, on ObamaCare and his past support for a single-payer system. He first backs up and says he came out against the Iraq War in 2004 vs. anyone else on the stage. (Rand Paul's Dad Ron Paul opposed the war from the get-go, and I'm sure Rand did to.) He doesn't back off praise for some nationalized health systems, but says he wants a private one able to operate across states. Rand Paul interjects to point out his praise for single-prayer goes against the party's position for the past decade or more. Trump makes a petty remark at Rand Paul. Bret Baier goes on to point out Trump's willingness to buy political favors. I'm not exactly sure why Hillary Clinton coming to his wedding is a political failure...
- Huckabee, on stealth government growth under both parties. Huckabee argues that much of government problems involve strings attached to federal money to states, that we need to devolve authority back to the states. He argues for the Fair Tax, a consumption-based tax, which would largely simplify taxation and the need for an overbearing IRS.
- Carson, follow-up to Huckabee. Carson advocates a proportional/flat tax. My first big cheer for Carson...
- Bush, on common core and his support. He points out he's not arguing for federal government meddling in curricula, etc., for higher standards, an end to social promotion, bucking the teacher unions, etc... Very strong response.
- Rubio argues that federal empire building and expansion into compromising local control is inevitable. A good point.
- Kasich on how he would respond to the inevitable Hillary Clinton class warfare politics. Kasich argued that getting one's fiscal house in order facilitates growth and provides a boost to social policies.
- Carson, same question. Carson sees Clinton as the prototypical failed progressive. He argues that we need to educate voters on economic issues... Good luck on that...
- Bush on expanding the economy. He points out 2% growth projected by progressives is bad and basically arguing that rules and regulations, e.g., stopping the Keystone Pipeline, impairs growth and our path to faster sustained growth is getting the government out of the way. Not bad...
- Walker. Wallace points out that he added half the jobs promised over his first 4 years. He argues that on a national level, the performance is better and his formua of cutting taxes, lowering regulations, etc., will also work on the national level.
- Christie, on the need for entitlement reform. Christie argues that phasing in retirement qualification one month per year plus means testing would put the 71% of current entitlement spending on a more sustainable path. Probably his best response to date.
- Huckabee. same question. Huckabee argues that the government is responsible, and don't mess with what people have earned over their lifetime. Huckabee argues his Fair Tax improves the tax base. Some interchange between Christie and Huckabee. I think the consumer-based approach does have some merit, but Christie makes a stronger case.
- "Four Bankuptcies" Trump. Trump basically argues almost every successful businessman has taken advantage of bankruptcy laws. Not a chance. He keeps telling everybody how great a businessman he is, how he bailed out of Atlantic City years ago--although he made a heck of a lot of money there. Oh my God; every time he talks, I despise him more.
- Rubio, on a FB question of what he would do to help small business. Simplify taxes and regulations, etc., generally spot on. One of his best answers on the night.
- Walker on the Iran deal. Uncomfortable for me, because I oppose economic sanctions in the first place and think whatever weaknesses, the given agreement is a positive step forward. Walker won't back down and will reinstate sanctions. I'm not happy...
- Rand Paul. He will vote against it, thought it wasn't strong enough, poorly negotiated. I don't like to hear Rand talk about sanctions.
- Huckabee. He spent most of his time bashing the Obama Administration for giving away the store.
- Jeb Bush, on why he sat on a Bloomberg foundation which doled out millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider. Bush points out his involvement was with education reform, they didn't approve the budget piecemeal. He turns to point out he had defunded Planned Parenthood in Florida, several pro-life initiatives in the state under his leadership. Strong response.
- Rubio. He supports exceptions, which some Catholic prelates call preposterous. Rubio says that he believes babies have a right to life under the Constitution. Good for him.
- Trump. His record is that he was pro-choice to the point of allowing partial-birth abortions. Trump argues that his views have changed to pro-life.
- Bush on comments he called Trump a clown and buffoon. He denied the specifics, but did argue we need a more civil tone among candidates.
- Kasich, on gay marriage. He's for traditional marriage, but he's willing to accept the law as it is and recently attended a gay wedding.
- Rand Paul on protections for those who support traditional marriage. Basically he says policies have no place in Washington.
- Walker, on "Black Lives Matter" issues. He talks about police training and disciplining rogue officers who don't follow the law. A good response.
- Trump, on how he would handle Iranian military person going to Russia. He basically called Obama incompetent and points out we negotiate stupidly, giving away the store and not getting anything.
- Cruz on cyberwarfare, in particular the recent suspected Chinese hacking attack on the Pentagon. Basically he unloads on a number of Obama Administration foreign policy failures.
- Carson on whether, unlike Obama, he would have dropped bombs on Syria. He basically argues that our military has shrunk to levels that would not be able to respond to a sustained military mission.
- Walker. He has one of the best lines of the night that the Chinese or Russians may know more about what's on Clinton's email server than the Congress. Walker wants to stand up to Russia by reasserting our presence or resources to countries on the left flank of Russia, reinstate missile systems. This really bothers me.....
- Huckabee on Obama's diversity policies, now including transgender: he basically argues that these initiatives are diverting attention from the core mission of the military. Good response.
- Rand Paul on the kerfuffle of whether at some point he proposed ending aid to Israel. (Yes, but he eliminated aid for everybody.) Paul basically stakes out a general position that we can't give away money when we're in a deficit. At minimum, he argues we need to stop chopping away at the money list, and he also notes our foreign aid to Israel is morally hazardous.
- Chris Christie basically agrees with Carson to rebuild the military, could go along with trimming some foreign aid like Paul, but hands off Israel.
- Cruz on divine inspiration for initial Presidential action. Cruz talks about the importance of his Baptist faith in his life and argues he's the most consistent conservative--fiscal, national security, etc.
- Kasich basically talks about his humble roots and his vision of compassionate conservatism.
- Walker testifies to his Christian faith but argues that God hasn't delivered detailed priorities for his administration.
- Rubio, on the veterans. he finds it astonishing over the Congress gave the VA Secretary the authority to fire the bureaucratic chiefs, only one ax has fallen. He pledges to engage in serious reform if elected.
- Carson makes an argument for a more positive, individually (vs race/class) based perspective.
Closing statements;
- Kasich outlines his Washington experience, his interim business experience, and a list of accomplishments leading Ohio.
- Christie talks humble origins, his 8 years as US Attorney pursuing the War on Terror, and his accomplishments in years of leading a blue state.
- Paul argues that he's a different type of Republican who leads Clinton in 5 states won by Clinton.
- Rubio says that he's lived the American dream and want to propagate the same for others.
- Cruz gave a detailed agenda of his first day in office, including rolling back Obama executive orders. dealing with Planned Parenthood, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, etc.
- Carson talks about some of his challenges as a surgeon, talks about fighting the fight for freedom everyday.
- Huckabee cracks a joke that seems to be aimed at Trump but ends with Hillary Clinton; he argues that he can restore leadership to the White House.
- Walker talks up his trial by fire after the unions went after her including a recall election and argues that he has the right stuff to lead America.
- Bush talks about being able to solve problems in Washington as he tried to solve problems in Florida.
- Trump has a list of things America isn't winning at and argues that he's the one to bring American on the winning track.
Some Quick Takeaways:
- better than expected: Bush, Carson
- worse than expected: Kasich, Walker, Trump
- best "real" debate exchanges: Paul with Christie and Trump
Who "won" the debate. Here's my overall assessment, from best to worse:
- Bush
- Paul
- Cruz
- Carson
- Rubio
- Christie
- Huckabee
- Kasich
- Walker
- Trump
Just to be fair: I've been backing Rand Paul and have come out against Trump. It may look like I'm letting my personal opinion influence my rankings, but Trump, as the leading candidate in the polls, should have been using the time to talk more policy specifics and instead engaged in disrespectful slaps at fellow candidates and Megyn Kelly, calling American leaders "stupid" and gullible. His responses were more populist filler than substance. You don't win debates through incivility.
I think Rand Paul did as expected, especially given his more limited time available. I thought he was really effect in engaging Christie and Trump.
Now the last thing I want is another Bush-Clinton match up. Other people seem to think Bush lost the debate. I thought he came across as very articulate, experienced, likable, measured, electable--sort of the anti-Trump.
