Every time I do one of these, I promise myself never to do it again. It takes so much time and effort. I try to summarize the debate below and on occasion embed my counter-arguments. I'll close with some summary analysis and conclusions. I've embedded the debate video at the end for readers who want to judge for themselves.
The setting: Elder and Pence have withdrawn, the former endorsing Trump. Trump has ignored all debates, having an overwhelming lead in the polls. Five remaining candidates have qualified for the debate: DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy, Christie, and Scott. The debate was in Miami, where DeSantis has the home state advantage. [As I write, Tim Scott has suspended/ended his campaign.]
The first question was poorly stated: the way I heard it; Trump is the first Republican in over a century to run for reelection in a century. That's not true; for example, Eisenhower, Nixon and George W. Bush all won reelection, and Taft, Hoover, G.H.W. Bush and Trump failed to win reelection. Maybe he meant attempting to win non-consecutive terms? That includes Grover Cleveland, a Democrat.
Why Not Trump?
Why should Republicans support you v Trump? DeSantis claims "the elites" don't care about inflation or "open borders". So, Trump didn't care about immigration? DeSantis wants to know why Trump didn't get Mexico to pay for the border wall, he spent too much taxpayer money, and he points out that despite Trump's backing, the GOP didn't have a good day Tuesday at the ballot box. He points out unlike Trump; he has leadership skills proven in his military service. He gets results and unlike Trump, he's proven he can win state elections. Trump owes it to voters to show up and debate.
Haley starts with a laundry list of issues (economics, war, debt, the border, etc.) She argues Trump was the right choice for 2016 but not now: he added too much debt as POTUS, he's been inconsistent on Ukraine, etc. Transparency in the classroom? [Does she realize education is not an enumerated responsibility of the federal government?] Same thing with her listing of crime, another local responsibility.
Ramaswamy targets the RNC chair for party election woes starting in 2018. He starts railing against the mainstream media, especially NBC hosting the debate, and brings up Russiagate. He then takes up a Trumpist theme of rigged elections. He never explicitly criticizes Trump [in previous debates, he's argued he would better attract younger voters than Trump.]
Christie focused on foreign policy challenges [Ukraine and Israel] and in this critique of Trump argues that Trump will be too distracted by ongoing personal legal problems to be an effective POTUS.
The moderator reminds Scott of his argument that Trump is not electable. Scott argues his story and more positive messages/tone will attract more voters. Scott references a Judaic-Christian foundation. [I'm not sure where Scott is going with this, unless he is trying to pander for evangelical support. I could argue separation of church and state, implied by constitutionally protected religious liberty.]
Foreign Policy
Initial discussion on the Israel/Hamas war. What would you do as POTUS?
DeSantis: Encourage Israeli PM to finish the job on Hamas. Hamas must unconditionally surrender. He claims credit for evacuating over 700 Americans from harm's way. He argues Biden Administration was AWOL on security for Americans in the region. He argues he stopped Hamas from kidnapping more Floridians. Just a few comments on this: there is a high probability of collateral damage in Gaza. Israel has been giving short timeframes for evacuations and has allowed only a trickle of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Collateral damage to hospitals and children is playing into the hands of Hamas propagandists and risks widening the war. DeSantis' hawkish encouragement discourages diplomacy. As to DeSantis' claims, his planes arrived after Israel had secured the target area of incursion and early hostage taking, and the Biden Administration was offering nearly 7000 seats for American evacuations in the same relative timeframe.
Haley: stressed her unilateral bona fides as UN ambassador. She echoed DeSantis' call for unconditional elimination of Hamas, whatever American hardware is needed to finish the job, and release of hostages. A lot of finger-pointing at Iran and China for exacerbating the regional crisis on behalf of Israel's enemies. I don't see her as identifying policy differences from Biden or Trump (or even DeSantis for that matter). I see no evidence of her diplomatic skills, and her hardline stance could exacerbate the regional conflict.
Ramaswamy: tries to compare Israel's border issues with US ones but really argues a variation of America First policy and argues against interventionist/neo-con policies. He sneaks in an attack on Biden on Ukraine, seemingly linking Russia's invasion to Hunter Biden's Burisma entanglement and against Nikki Haley, arguing a revolving door where she financially benefited from ties to the military industrial complex. I'm not sure of the debate rules; I thought they might give Haley time to respond, but I sense Haley is just biding her time until she unloads on him again.
Scott: like the first two, he takes a hardline in support of Israel but goes further by ominously arguing the US needs to take on Iran, arguing Biden has been weak on Iran and brings up the Biden deal thawing frozen Iranian assets for humanitarian application. Scott's discussion of the deal is partisan rubbish. I do not want another Gulf region war.
Christie: basically, wants to guarantee Israel has all the US military hardware she needs to defend herself and wants to isolate Iran internationally.
Second question: US military operations against Iran?
Haley: basically, argues that the proxy wars against US soldiers in the region are the consequence of weak, inconsistent Biden policy.
DeSantis: reminds listeners that unlike his competitors he once served in Iraq where Iran-backed forces killed US servicemen; unlike Biden, he won't engage in half measures; he's willing to take whatever measures are necessary to protect deployed US troops
Third question: how to deal with rising antisemitism and pro-Hamas rallies on US college campuses?
Ramaswamy: deal with underlying issue of wokeism with leadership and public exposure, but not by censorship (vs DeSantis or Haley's approaches)
Scott: might consider using the strings attached to federal dollars to campuses or consider revoking student visas for troublemaking foreign students
DeSantis: revoke student visas, use the Justice Department to crack down on hate crimes against Jews on campus; in Florida as governor, deactivated pro-Hamas groups on state campuses. He further attacks Biden for allegedly focusing on the wrong issue of Islamophobia. He doesn't seem to realize that education is not an enumerated responsibility of the USG.
Moderator pointed out a post-Oct. 7 Chicago area landlord had attacked Palestinian-Americans:
Christie: pointed out as a US Attorney of NJ in the aftermath of 9/11, he had to deal with hate crime threats against Jewish temples and mosques. He further distinguishes between leadership protecting Muslim Americans and support for Hamas terrorists.
Haley: talks about Jewish students being targeted on US campuses. She basically argues a double standard on campus of intolerance towards racism but turning a blind eye to antisemitism.
US Aid to Ukraine
More aid to Ukraine?
Scott: argues the US has a strategic interest in providing military aid, namely degradation of the Russian military. He's skeptical of Biden's package bundling Israel, Ukraine and border funding, preferring separate bills, and he clearly prioritizes Israeli and border funding. He wants more accountability of existing Ukraine aid and its relationship to NATO obligations. He largely dodges a more focused follow-up question on funding increases. This emphasis on degrading Russia's miliary vs. Ukraine's self-defense rights plays into Moscow's concerns of American involvement and NATO expansion to its borders.
Ramaswamy: is unpersuaded on the need for more aid. He points out Ukraine has some restrictions on democracy (did not emphasize corruption concerns) and plays into Russian propaganda on Naziism and ethnic Russian separatist regions and seems to reference a parliamentary ban on the Orthodox church over links to Moscow. He's once again calling out Haley, this time over being a Ukraine hawk.
Haley: fires back at Ramaswamy that he is a useful idiot playing into the hands of Russia and China. Haley reminds us that Putin invaded Ukraine and our abandoning Ukraine will have domino effects elsewhere, including Taiwan and Israel (re: Iran).
Christie: has no interest in appeasing Putin over Ukraine. (He also throws in Nort Korea into the dictator axis.) He also points out (as I have) that the US has an obligation based on Ukraine's post-USSR agreement to give up its nuclear weapons.
DeSantis: argues he won't send troops into Ukraine as POTUS (which I don't think is part of Biden's proposal but he will send them to the US border). (This seems to be part of the alleged Islamic terrorist infiltration at the border and I have issues with soldiers being used as policing forces; we already have a border patrol.) He attacks Biden's proposal as funding Ukrainian pensioners. He agues Europeans need to step up and shoulder the Ukraine burden and we need to refocus on the higher priority of China
China
Is the Navy big enough to defend Taiwan?
Haley: says we need to upgrade our Navy. (She's really not giving specifics on the nature and extent how much it will cost or where the money will come from.) She's adopting "tough on China" rhetoric and talking about arming Taiwan. Once again, I don't see much diplomacy here just provocative dangerous rhetoric which exacerbates relations and risks conflict with another nuclear power.
DeSantis: talks more specifically about eventually expanding the Navy to 600 ships; he takes on his own tough talk, calling China the new USSR of the current era. He attacks Haley for being China friendly as SC governor. but he's been tough on China as Florida governor.
Nuanced question on money for military modernization:
Scott: talks about resourcing our industrial base, argues the border is more of a short-term priority maintains we cannot sustain wars on 3 continents.
Ramaswamy: argues we are unduly dependent on China's economy for our military technology and need to resource relevant production. He accuses Haley and DeSantis of having been China-friendly in part due to donator connections. He wants to charge reparations from China blaming the COVID pandemic on them. When pressed for numbers, he calls for 20% increases in ships.
Christie: points out that 3 of the debaters (D. H & R) seem to be focused on attacking each other than addressing the specifics of Hewitt's questions. He focuses on our nuclear subs and calls for radically expanding them (no specifics). He argues that Ukraine's success will send China, a key Russia ally, a relevant message on Taiwan.
Question on TikTok and pro-Hamas propaganda: Ban TikTok or wat would you do?
Christie: agrees TikTok is spyware and content is worrisome. He blames Trump for letting the penetration grow on his watch without action. One of his first acts as POTUS would be to ban TikTok. I'm not sure what's the constitutional basis for the ban.
DeSantis: calls for a multi-faceted approach (economic decoupling, military deterrence, cultural isolation, etc.) against China including reciprocity of treatment of apps, more fear-mongering over data collection.
Haley: counter-attacks DeSantis got talking about a 10-year fiberglass factory while Florida prides itself on being open to Chinese investment.
Ramaswamy: swipes at Haley over her daughter's own use of TikTok. (Haley snaps back for him not to talk about her daughter.). He argues it's not just Chinese apps handing over USC data to China. He alleges Airbnb, a US company, does the same and maintains policy should be consistent.
Haley: argued economic sanctions worked against North Korea while she was at the UN. Ramaswamy and Haley talked over each other for much of the segment bickering with each other.
Scott: wants to ban TikTok or at least get it under domestic management. He acknowledges court foiled Trump's attempts; he does not address how he would address court-specified issues. More anti-China restrictions e.g., farmland procurement near military bases.
Venezuela
DeSantis: criticizes Biden's encouragement of Venezuela's energy vs. domestic production. He wants a get-tough policy on Maduro's socialist regime and would reimpose sanctions.
Haley: also advocates a get-tough policy on Maduro: economic sanctions, no "dirty oil", Biden's softer stance on Venezuelan refugees which she sees as exacerbating the migrant problem. She attacks DeSantis' NIMBY approach to domestic energy production as hypocritical. (DeSantis responds "Not in the Everglades!")
Inflation
Beyond cutting federal spending what would you do?
Scott: make the US energy independent.
DeSantis: reverse Bidenomics by executive orders on day 1. Rein in the Fed.
Ramaswamy: would increase supplies including labor by reining in morally hazardous unemployment compensation welfare, etc., land use policies (I think that's more of a local issue), zero-based budgeting.
Christie: attacks Bidenomics especially energy policy.
Emphasis on rural voters fighting inflation.
Haley: would cut fuel taxes, pare back COVID relief, IRS staffing increases, focus on exploding US debt service costs stronger dollar.
Social Security
Christie: increase retirement age, means-testing, no increases in payroll taxes.
Haley: would phase in retirement increases, reform COLA adjustments, means-testing of benefits. She notes Trump and DeSantis are sidestepping the eroding trust fund problem. She won't give a retirement age but notes it would be grandfathered and phased in and must be realistic in terms of life expectancy.
Ramaswamy: starts talking about fiscal reforms and pro-growth policies but much of that ignores the fact social security doesn't touch general revenues beyond payroll taxes. He needs to focus on the program and its funding.
Scott: argues you don't balance the federal budget on the backs of seniors. Like Ramaswamy he's focusing on the whole budget not the program. He opposes raising the retirement age.
DeSantis: talks about seniors' checks not keeping up with inflation. He claims life expectancy is declining, argues raising the retirement age doesn't make sense. This is deliberately misleading statistical rubbish: the reason you're seeing a decline has to do with rising numbers of younger people dying than older people dying sooner in retirement. "A 65-year-old can expect to live another 19 to 21.5 years, on average, according to the Social Security Administration. What's more, the government agency says a third of 65-year-olds will hit age 90, and 1 in 7 will live beyond age 95."
The Border and Fentanyl
Scott: spend billions on closing and/or surveilling the border with more advanced military technology.
Christie: talks about doing more funding and manpower at ports of entry. He also talks abut lowering demand: treatment.
Moderator notes DeSantis has talked about military action on cartel operations south of the border and wants more specifics.
DeSantis: would declare national emergency on day 1, military to the border to stop the "invasion", build the wall by taxing worker payments home to Mexico.
Haley: doesn't care what other nations think about military means to stop fentanyl smuggling. She's willing to stop trade with China over fentanyl precursor exports to Mexico. (Defund sanctuary cities? What does this have to do with fentanyl?) She agrees on treating the disease with Christie.
Ramaswamy: wants to separate the black-market fentanyl laced products which should get priority. Redirect the military from overseas to our own borders. Points out his leading focus on the northern border as well.
Fall Election Results
DeSantis: realizes the abortion is divisive and strategies may be state-dependent. He argues though the unimpeded right to abort prior to birth is wrong
Moderator points to Trump arguing the post-Dobbs election losses have been because of abortion.
Haley: notes without a filibuster-proof Senate no pro-life law can pass. She wants to find agreement on late-term abortion restrictions.
Scott: pushes for a national 15-week ban. Exchange with Haley over the Graham ban earlier which Scott did not co-sponsor.
Ramaswamy: as an Ohio resident, blames the loss of the state constitution vote on lack of a tempered GOP alternative.
Christie: rightly notes Dobbs took the issue out of federal hands. He wants to ensure voters understand pro-life goes beyond the womb.
Closing Statements
Why vote for you v. Trump?
Scott: vote for social conservatism over leftism.
Christie: will bring honesty and integrity to the Oval Office.
Ramaswamy: will stop the Deep State and bring a younger voice to national leadership; end foreign meddling.
Haley: pushes her foreign policy experience to edge over her opponents.
DeSantis: argues he makes the best results-focused leader, the only candidate with both military and federal government experience
My Concluding Comments
I think, once again, the candidates largely avoided directly criticizing Trump or his record or contrasting themselves from him. Haley and Christie come closest. (Well, DeSantis did in his opening comments, including getting Mexico to pay for the wall,) Haley says something to the effect Trump was the right choice in 2016 but not now; she also talks about his spending and massive debt. Christie talks about how TikTok weathered his opposition. To some extent, Ramaswamy implies it by noting he is the youngest GOP candidate ever (and Trump would be the oldest nominee). Perhaps they worry Trump's popularity with the base makes criticism a double-edged sword. But at minimum, he outdistances his nearest challenger 2-1. You are going to have to challenge him to stand a chance, short of a criminal conviction. Nobody did that here.
Too much bickering among Haley, Ramaswamy, DeSantis and/or Scott, often talking over each other, annoying and counter-productive
I recently wrote an essay dealing with social security. I think the moderator here pointed out that Trump and DeSantis refused to entertain unpopular reforms to deal with a shrinking reserve which make up the difference from inadequate payroll taxes. Republicans will have to give on revenues to get a deal through the Senate. With debt service soaring, the last thing the GOP needs is having to make up the difference from general revenues. In theory it should be a user-fee (i.e. worker) Also, as I've tweeted, Ramaswamy and Scott seem to be confused, like necessary fiscal reform shouldn't be balanced at the expense of seniors. No, payroll taxes and their reserves are a lockbox. Ramaswamy doesn't seem to realize by law, the reserve has to invest in government debt; he could and should realize that is something to criticize not a high-earning or diversified investment.
As a libertarian, I don't like the diplomatic tough-talk on China et al, discussion of counter-productive sanctions and trade wars (e.g., Haley), DeSantis' discussion of military intervention, including raids into Mexico over the cartels' fentanyl operations. The fentanyl issue discussion fails to acknowledge the failed war on drugs and the fact returning US citizens account for much of the imports.
On inflation, I think only DeSantis made reference to the Fed, and nobody really advocated rolling back Trump's tariffs or expanding trade agreements. There was a lot of talk about resourcing or other autarchic policies. The overemphasis on energy decentralization ignores the long vs short-term nature of energy policy not to mention higher prices attracted higher-cost shale production.
On abortion, Christie is correct by pointing out indirectly that Dodd basically rules out coding Roe v Wade or a ban into federal law. Ramaswamy is correct that pro-lifers on the state level failed to present a more pragmatic alternative. Moreover, whereas there are some single-issue voters on the abortion issue either side, the polls show it doesn't rank as the most important federal issue.
Finally, of the candidates, I would not endorse any of them, although any would be vastly preferable to Trump and I could see myself supporting a few if they got the nomination, probably not DeSantis. I thought DeSantis came across as more decisive and articulate, Haley as more pragmatic and likable, Christie as more honest and principled and Ramaswamy as more innovative and contrarian.
