I am not favorably disposed to the Trump candidacy, but I liked the debate for being more substantive overall. (To be honest, Trump has a weak command of policy details and simply repeats trite campaign soundbites and takes cheap shots at other participants.) Megyn Kelly at the start addressed the elephant in the room (pun intended) over Trump's absence. Cruz did an amusing fill-in for the Donald, telling the other participants that they are ugly, fat, and stupid. I really wasn't favorably impressed by Cruz' later complaint that the moderators were troublemakers, e.g., asking Paul and Rubio to respond to Cruz' comments during the campaign. However, the debate format allowed him to respond to others referencing him in their comments. It was just the moderators' way of trying to spark a discussion vs. rehearsed responses. Cruz also has an irritating way of using up to half of his time to talk about whatever he wants before responding to the original question. I also want to point out that the process went beyond Cruz, e.g., the moderators wanted Kasich and Christie to explain their differing responses to Medicaid expansion.
I was somewhat dissatisfied with some of the questioning; I think questions on abortion and Kim Davis (the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to certify gay marriages) as a "religious liberty" issue play to the talking point that the GOP wants to exert control over people's personal lives. I have mentioned that I don't buy the argument that signing off on state documents on criteria for legal marriage paperwork is a religious liberty issue. I also thought there was too much coverage on neo-con foreign meddling and immigration. Given Fox News coverage, these questions were of interest to a fair number of viewers. Nevertheless, I would have had different questions; for example, do they agree with Trump's vow to deport 11M people or to halt Muslim immigration (yes, I'm aware Bush discussed this point)? How do they square the GOP's anti-immigrant line with Reagan and Bush's more immigrant-friendly policies? There was also little discussion about pro-market healthcare and retirement reforms, paying down an $18T national debt, streamlining the bureaucracy and regulations, auditing the Pentagon and Fed. Again, I know Cruz gave a substantive response to healthcare, but we needed to discuss things like community rating and preexisting conditions, the state licensing occupational cartels and barriers to insurance competition.
I had several points of disagreement with the debaters. I don't think, for instance, my personal favorite, Rand Paul, gave a good explanation for his two-pronged approach, both federal and states handling of abortion. Killing is typically handled at the state/local, not federal level (with some nuanced exceptions, such as killing a federal government agent, etc.) I just have a philosophic difference using the Supremacy Clause to trump Tenth Amendment responsibilities under traditional state powers. It could be a fairly narrow position, e.g., abortions performed at military facilities, but I don't think Rand made a convincing case for his approach. If I were being cynical, I might say that it's more of an attempt to reach out to social conservatives but knowing his bill would never clear a Senate filibuster by pro-abort choice forces, mostly Senate Dems and some GOP moderates.
There was too much testosterone in the room, e.g., "on the first day of office, I will scuttle the Iranian deal". Even Ben Carson was caught up in it. There was this one rant where he drew a line in the sand over the Baltic states in a test of will with Putin. I was hoping for more of a "primum non nocere" statement; Carson has also been focusing on delegating warmaking to the Pentagon. Whereas I don't want the extreme of an LBJ involved in planning bombing campaigns, I think we've seen the folly of how the post-invasion occupation of Iraq was conducted and Bush's reluctance to push for a shift of strategy until after the 2006 election., more of a lessons learned over trillion dollar occupations and nation building.
Kasich seems to be focused on reclaiming the title of compassionate conservative from George W. Bush, talking about the need for government help to the mentally ill, homeless, drug addicts in prison, etc. A major criticism of the Bush years includes one of the biggest expansions of domestic spending since LBJ: it's one thing to push this spending at the state/local level, another thing to claim a federal role.
As I mentioned in a tweet during or after the debate, I thought the immigration discussion, even without Trump, left much to be desired, although Bush and Rubio did push the case for legal immigration. Rubio and Cruz sparred over the intent of Cruz' amendments to the Senate immigration bill; Rubio wanted to argue that Cruz is a disingenuous closet immigration reformer, while Cruz correctly noted his amendments were meant to poison the bill. Most pushed the standard lines of no amnesty, build the wall, e-verify, strengthen screening criteria for refugees and other immigrants, etc.
Rand Paul was able to push his ideas of protecting the right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and audit the Fed. Bush continues to perform strongly in the debate; the problem is that there is Bush/Clinton fatigue in the country and he has the wrong surname this election cycle. Rubio had one particularly effective anti-Hillary rant, although I think nearly all candidates insisted they were the best to run against Hillary.
Here is my ranking of debate performance from highest to lowest:
- Rand Paul
- Ted Cruz
- Jeb Bush
- Marco Rubio
- John Kasich
- Chris Christie
- Ben Carson
