Shortly after last night's Republican debate, moderator, Megyn Kelly, intimated to her audience on the Kelly File that she had two outlines for the debate - one for a debate with Trump and one without. She then went on to admit that "they were totally different," and that there could have been "two totally different debates" last night depending, of course, on Trump's presence. My question is, why? Why on Earth would Trump's mere presence change the entire nature of the debate? After all, we are electing a President. There are unresolved policy issues in this country, but they are fairly well defined. The next President will be dealing with taxes, the VA crisis, the deficit and debt, ISIS, Putin and a host of other well known issues. So why such a dramatic difference between a debate with Trump and a debate without Trump, Ms. Kelly?
Then it occurred to me. If the ring leader was willing to show up, they were ready to turn the debate into a circus, just like the last one. Rather than serious questions about foreign policy or immigration, the audience would have been titillated with questions about Trump's controversial statements about Muslims or women or Hispanics. Serious questions about policy would have been replaced with invitations to the other candidates to attack or humiliate Trump. Kelly was undoubtedly prepared to lob dozens of questions at Trump about his values, statements he's made about Kelly and others, and who knows what else. In other words, seriousness would have been replaced with the circus.
No wonder Trump didn't show up. As an entertainer, he knows other entertainers when he sees them and, specifically, he knows it's time for Megyn Kelly to get off the stage. Two narcissists never get along, and Kelly's histrionics are damaging Fox News's reputation as a serious news organization.
Trump's absence was good for the process. Not only did it force Kelly and company to take the debate more seriously, but it also meant the end of personal attacks. Whether he is entirely to blame or not, when Trump is on the stage, a significant amount of time is spent engaged in hyperbole, insults and Trump's juvenile AMOGing. It significantly detracts from the discussion.
With Trump off the stage last night, the true depth of the Republican field became apparent. Jeb Bush had his best night. As an insider related to two Presidents, there is very little question about whether he understands the issues. The fear with Bush has always been that he will address those issues in some squishy, moderate, establishment way. There is no question, however, that he sounded supremely competent and ready to be President.
Rubio had his best night. Despite Bush's command of the issues, Rubio's aspirational message and tone elevated him above the rest of the field. He appeared the most Presidential and addressed each issue with the language of success rather than demagoguery. Marco Rubio will be President one day.
Ted Cruz acquitted himself well in the center of the stage, but his smooth style lacks a smooth message. Cruz spends much more time reciting the facts surrounding problems than he does offering solutions. In a short answer format, like last night's debate, Cruz is cut off by the bell just as he is about to get to his point. It leaves him sounding like a complainer rather than a President with well-developed strategies for the country.
Chris Christie had his best debate. With The Donald elsewhere, Christie was able to resist his natural inclination to be overly-combative. When Christie is focused, it is easy to see why he is doing so well in the New Hampshire polls. He is an independent thinker and knows his own mind. Like most Americans, he has little patience for politicians who split hairs or use parliamentary tricks to take both sides of the same issue. His ability to call out Senators Cruz and Rubio for their lack of parliamentary transparency was very effective.
Rand Paul also had a good night, but it is very clear by now that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party will remain nothing more than a wing. Paul is far more centrist than his father was and far more open to mainstream political solutions. Still, unfortunately, Americans are not ready to return to core Constitutional principles no matter how much they say they are. Paul is the right messenger. He has the right stage and this is the right time. The message simply is not being accepted by the voters.
Then there's Ben Carson. I think everyone appreciates having Carson in the race, but he just does not belong in the Oval Office. His answers on core policy issues are vague and seem forced or rehearsed. He is clearly not comfortable with the nuts and bolts of policy, preferring instead to stick to broad principles. Broad principles get you elected, but they will not substitute for a solid understanding of policy.
That leaves John Kasich. One day, someone somewhere will explain to me why Governor Kasich is criticized as a "moderate." I've been watching his career since he was first elected in the Republican Revolution of 1994. He has balanced nearly every budget he has ever touched. He was chairman of the budget committee in Congress and worked with Bill Clinton (yes, Bill Clinton) to balance the budget and create a surplus for the first time since before World War II. How that makes him a moderate, I'm not sure. His positions are more nuanced, but that's because he is a policy expert. He understands the details and knows exactly which buttons to press to get the desired result. Disliking John Kasich for being able to get into the weeds on these issues with Democrats is inappropriate. The Party needs men like John Kasich and I would strongly encourage people to take a closer look at his record of conservatism and success.
What I fear most is that Republicans want nothing more than to elect a candidate who will humiliate Democrats and rub their noses in conservatism when elected. This is, of course, what Obama did to Republicans and conservatives. While turnabout is fair play, the country needs much more than it has gotten from its leaders over the past ten years. We need to raise the level of discourse in this country and at least try to reach a consensus on some of the more difficult issues we face.
What we don't need, is a circus.
No comments:
Post a Comment