Last week's Republican debate was the most viewed primary debate in history. More than 24 million Americans tuned in to watch 10 men and three journalists spar over their records and the issues. Earlier in the evening another 7 candidates in the second tier got their chance in front of 5 million viewers. As most of you know, I try to keep the content of this blog unique. I'm not doing this to simply regurgitate the analysis of professional pundits and, in the case of these debates, there is plenty of analysis out there. Most of it is regurgitation - literally and figuratively. Here are my thoughts on the winners and losers.
Fox News - Winner
With a combined 29 million viewers between 5pm and 11pm, Fox News was obviously a winner. There is no question that this was a huge media grab for the network. The styling was gameshow slick, the stage was bright and colorful, and the hosts made Bob Barker look like a boring news anchor. In short, the showmanship was superb, if you believe politics is entertainment.
Fox News - Loser
But, Fox News may have also finally jumped the shark. Yes, the ratings were high. Yes, there was substance to the debate and some of the questions were good. But 24 million viewers did not tune in to watch Megyn Kelly. In fact, the American people tuned in to watch the next President emerge from the pack - whoever that may be. Fox News would do well to remember that drawing a huge crowd is only one part of success. You can fall flat too. If you appear too slick, or too partisan or too agenda driven, everyone sees it and you've lost more than you ever could have gained from a single ratings bonanza.
I have been a loyal Fox viewer from the beginning. I've appreciated their success in restoring some balance to the media. But after watching that debate, I really question the future of the network and really all news media in general. The repeated questions about abortion - as if that were the only issue in America - the gotcha questions lobbed at Trump, and the general focus on everything except the actual issues really showed a lack of seriousness.
We already knew that everyone on that stage was opposed to the Iran deal. We already knew that everyone on that stage was pro-life. We already knew that everyone on that stage thinks Obama has done a terrible job. Tell us something we don't know. Having failed to do that, and having turned American politics into something just short of a scene from Hunger Games or Running Man, Fox News failed the American people. My guess is most people tuning in for the first time may also have tuned in for the last time. Nothing truly newsworthy came out of the event and the network spent three hours afterwards analyzing a handful of 30 second snippets from the candidates.
Trump - Winner
Trump obviously survived his first debate. In a twisted way, he was lucky that Fox focused on his personal statements rather than pressing him on policy. My guess is Trump probably had no idea who General Sulemani is, what army he leads or why it was bad that he went to Russia. Those who believe that Trump is qualified to be President because he hates politicians and has been reasonably successful in business are wrong.
Donald Trump is not a self made man. He inherited $300 million from his father. He then used that to become a billionaire. Good for him. But the idea that he scraped his way to success through cunning and the "Art of the Deal" is just part of the Trump myth, which is carefully maintained to keep the Trump brand valuable. He has not demonstrated any command of any issue. Instead he channels the rage of the American people and uses that as leverage to remain relevant.
Americans, and I am one of them, are absolutely finished with both parties. The establishments of both parties are made up of self-serving liars. They line their own pockets with our money and almost none of them is serious about solving any problems beyond their own. They take us for fools and continue to interfere with our daily lives to a degree usually only achieved by authoritarian regimes. Americans are fed up and Donald Trump is that voice. But rage is not a strategy and "to Hell with all of them" is not a policy. Trump is a showman and entertainer. He has excelled in this media-driven, gameshow environment. Eventually, however, Americans will settle down and select someone who has both the anger and the skill necessary to be effective. Trump just isn't that guy.
Rand Paul - Loser
Rand Paul represents the Libertarian wing of the party. The libertarian wing is extremely important to the party, but is constantly marginalized by the establishment. Rand Paul was overlooked in the debate, and when given the chance to interject, he failed to make a compelling case for himself. To be fair, it is easy to be shouted down by Chris Christie. Christie is a professional loud mouth and was determined to show Paul, who is usually measured, that he can shout down anyone with emotional anecdotes. Paul's strength is his measured demeanor and his intellect. In the future he needs to rely on that if he wants to succeed.
Chris Christie - Loser
Christie shouldn't even be in the race. Bridge-gate disqualified him, but the moderates in the party never gave up. Christie demonstrated both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness in that exchange with Rand Paul. Christie is bombastic. He is rotund. He likes to throw his weight around. He is also just plain wrong on many of the issues, and he is not a conservative.
Christie favors broad gun-control, has raised taxes and fees in New Jersey, and was partly responsible for Mitt Romney losing the election after he endorsed President Obama with a hug. Christie told us during the debate that he favors unlimited surveillance to "keep Americans safe." His "whatever it takes" argument is not new. In fact, Lindsey Graham said exactly the same thing just a few hours before in the second tier debate. The problem is, "whatever it takes" is bad policy and ultimately these candidates can't possibly believe in it.
Does "whatever it takes" include lobbing nukes at ISIS? Does it involve declaring martial law? Does it include stop and frisk of all Americans any time, anywhere? Does it include reading every email communication? Does it include suspension of habeas corpus?
Of course it doesn't. Anyone making a "whatever it takes" promise is foolish and ultimately lacks the intellectual discipline to be President. Either that or they are lying about their true position. Combine that with Christie's constantly raised voice and you get an unelectable candidate. Imagine that exchange with Hillary Clinton. He'd lose a huge chunk of the vote because most people don't like yelling, no matter who is doing it.
Marco Rubio - Winner
Rubio is young, but he is by far the most articulate and well studied candidate on the stage. He has a command of the issues and has a gift for delivering his message. It doesn't hurt that he's handsome. The question for Rubio has been whether he has the gravitas to stand on that stage with older, more experienced candidates. I think he answered that question with a resounding "yes." He is conservative, ran against the establishment in Florida and embarrassed them in the process. He still has enough establishment support, however, to survive the nomination process, and he has sound policies for the future. In the short time that he had, he acquitted himself very well.
Jeb Bush - Winner
Jeb Bush did not distinguish himself. His squishy record on conservative issues should have been the target of every candidate on that stage. His brother's failure in his last two years as President, when he suddenly became a big government Republican, and his father's failed presidency should have been issue one for the rest of the field. The chances are exceptionally high that Jeb Bush will govern the same way his brother and father did. Now if you're the establishment in the Republican party, you like that - a lot. The Bushes were responsible for the largest deficit increases in the history of the country until Obama. Bill Clinton spent less. The Bushes play ball with Congress, handing out goodies and pork to get their big government agendas passed. They reach across the aisle to the likes of Ted Kennedy in an effort to "legacy build." They pass terrible bi-partisan legislation and give massive bailouts to their buddies.
Jeb Bush is the establishment favorite. The party power brokers just hope he stays under the radar and avoids being obliterated by the conservatives in the race long enough to get to the Convention. Any debate that Bush walks away from is a good debate for him. In that sense, with all the attention focused on Trump, Bush got a free pass. That makes him a winner.
The Field - Neutral
The rest of the field survived. They did not distinguish themselves, but they didn't entirely self-destruct either. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are solid conservatives and both are articulate. Neither, however, had a real opportunity to lay out his policies.
Ben Carson looked like a fish out of water because he is. He is great for the party, and he is a great addition to the debate. His answer on the race question and his closing argument were brilliant, reflecting a true genius. He probably helped himself a little with his performance, but he will continue to be eclipsed by the professional politicians and Donald Trump.
Scott Walker will not be President. He managed to breathe new death into the pro-life movement with his answer to Megyn Kelly's 187th question on abortion. When asked whether he would force a mother to die rather than allow her to have an abortion, he had no answer. Instead be began prattling on about the wonders of modern medicine as if that circumstance would be exceptionally rare. Rare or not, his position on the issue is Medieval. Either he failed to articulate his position clearly, or he really doesn't favor any exceptions to a total ban on abortion. If he really does not believe in a "life of the mother" exception, then he is done. Women are not going to vote for a man who would rather them die than have an abortion. It's really that simple.
Finally, there is John Kasich. Kasich is a conservative and has a long record as a Congressman and Governor. There is no question that he is competent and he would make an excellent President. Unfortunately, he didn't really do anything to distinguish himself. But that's not really his style. Kasich is a policy guy. He really knows the issues and wants to talk about the issues. Unfortunately, with 9 other men on that glitzy stage, he just looked like the working-class guy he is. He can't stand out until the field narrows, but I suspect he will continue to rise in the polls.
No comments:
Post a Comment