Desperate Times, Desperate Measures

Well, in the last week or so, there have definitely been quite a few noteworthy developments in the Republican presidential primary race.  These recent events have led me to a couple of conclusions, one definite and the other hopefully premature.  First, I can at least say that the apprehension I’ve felt about the contest for many months was not unwarranted.  That’s small consolation, though, because, if I were a stock character in a comic strip or cartoon right  now, I’d be the person walking around with a sign proclaiming that “The End is Near!”  Things do not look at all good for those of us horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and I’m almost to the point of resigned despair.  Even though only four states have voted so far, it seems that a result other than a Trump victory will require a near-miraculous turnaround -- picture, for example, your favorite baseball team being down 15-0 after the first few innings while facing an opponent with a pitching staff on a winning streak and an approaching rainstorm that threatens to cut the game short.  While it’s possible your team could pull out an improbable win as long as the game continues, it’s certainly not something you can expect is likely to happen.

Why has my pessimism increased so much as February has gone on?  Donald Trump, who, to my mind, no sensible person would consider a suitable president for one second, has now won three primary/caucus elections in a row, all by very large margins.  According to polls, he did very well in those states among many different subsets of the electorate, including people describing themselves as evangelical or even as “very conservative”.  Now, in some of those cases, if the voters are not playing games with the data collectors to make their guy look even more widely appealing than he (bizarrely) is, I think they are rather confused in their self-perceptions -- there is nothing “very conservative” about Mr. Trump.  In Nevada, Trump’s percentage of the vote was up to 46%, which was not only more than his two closest competitors (Senators Rubio and Cruz) received together, but was also getting perilously close to the 50% mark.  I understand that Nevada has a rather chaotic and unusual caucus process and does seem like a state particularly suited to support a TV-star/casino businessman with a rather glitzy persona, but these numbers are still very troubling.

How long will we be able to even cling for minimal comfort to the notion that a majority of the primary voters want someone other than Trump, so that, in theory at least, another candidate could win if this majority were to consolidate its support behind one non-Trump choice?  Donald Trump has been leading in the polls in many of the upcoming states already, and it seems that candidates who win early primaries usually gain even more support in later contests, as voters may be influenced to prefer the frontrunner by the positive coverage of him winning and giving victory speeches, may want to get on the bandwagon of the likely winner, or may think it’s in the best interest of their party for the general election if the eventual nominee has early and convincing support in the primaries.  It is also not necessarily the case that everyone who prefers another candidate now is also actually against Trump.  Some may have him as a second choice or be just fine with him being the nominee, so he would most likely gain some of the votes if the field should narrow at some point.  Add to these factors the apparently immovable support many of Trump’s fans have for him, as they are not deterred from championing him no matter what he says or does, and the unfortunate tendency the other candidates have had to largely avoid confronting or criticizing Trump while beating up on each other regularly, and it has seemed difficult to feel very confident that things in the race will change dramatically enough for a candidate other than Trump to have much of a realistic chance to win the nomination.

None of this means that I think anyone should give up the effort to secure a real conservative, or at least authentically Republican, nominee.  To the contrary, I hope that everyone who thinks this is important will do whatever they can to make it happen until the nomination is officially decided.

So, when I watched Thursday night’s debate in Texas, I was pleasantly  surprised to see Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz make a concerted effort to challenge Donald Trump.  Cruz stepped up the criticisms he’s been making the last few weeks, pointing out that Trump is hardly the best candidate for Republicans to send up against Hillary Clinton in the fall, since he has shared many of the same liberal positions and even donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Rubio, who hadn’t really taken Trump on very much before, went after him on a multitude of topics, pointing out that, while a major theme of Trump’s campaign has been toughness on immigration and bringing back American jobs, Trump had hired illegal workers to build his Trump Tower in the past and now brings in foreign workers on visas for his resort in Florida instead of hiring Americans.  He also brought up the complaints and lawsuits against Trump University and the bankruptcies Trump’s companies have been through.  On health care, Rubio kept pressing Trump to explain his plan, which not only demonstrated that Trump really doesn’t have one other than removing “lines around the states” to promote competition, but also allowed Rubio to zing Trump for repeating himself over and over again, something that hurt Rubio in New Hampshire and that Trump was still using against him.  On issue after issue, from Trump’s statement that he’d be “neutral” in the Israel/Palestinian conflict to his praise for the work of Planned Parenthood, Trump faced criticism from both sides, and at one point he even complained that the moderators were asking him too many questions, quite the opposite of most candidates who practically beg for more time to speak.  As an added bonus for me, the amount of attention Senators Rubio and Cruz gave to taking on Donald Trump also meant that they took somewhat of a break from their recent battles with each other, with only a couple of remarks pointing out conflicts between them.

The attempt to catch up to Trump did not end with the conclusion of the debate, either.  Since then, Cruz has kept making his points about the need for a conservative nominee to contrast with the Democrats and about Trump’s weak position in general election polling so far, and Rubio has cranked up his assault on Trump, not only attacking his record on illegal immigrants, bankruptcy, etc. and calling him a “con man” who isn’t really the person he’s presented to voters, but also sort of taking a page from Trump’s book to make fun of him for his Twitter misspellings, rattled behavior backstage at the debate, and pretty much anything else available.

As someone who has been passionately anti-Trump from the beginning, I am glad that his opponents aren’t going to just quietly give up and concede the nomination to him at this point and have instead stepped up their efforts against him and even tried some dramatically new tactics.  I do, of course, have to wonder with exasperation why everyone didn’t make some of these obvious points (Trump is a liberal with a spotty record even on things like business and immigration that are supposed to be his strengths) months and months ago, and why they didn't feel it was imperative until recently to make the case that he should not be the conservative Republican standard-bearer.  But it’s better now than never, so I can only hope that it’s not too late to stop Trump’s momentum and prevent him from winning the nomination.  I’m not getting my hopes up, though, and I do have a couple of new thoughts and concerns related to the events of the last few days.

Even though it seemed pretty clear to me that Donald Trump had a tough night in the last debate, who knows how it will be perceived by his supporters and the general public.  Trump did get in a couple of good lines and later claimed that polls showed him winning the debate.  (I don’t know if he made that up completely or if these polls were conducted at Trump campaign headquarters...)  As we’ve seen before, Trump’s fans are usually not swayed by anything said against or by him.  Some people may be hoping that making him appear as less of the dominant strong “alpha male” on the stage might start to weaken the devotion of his voters, but they may just dig in even more firmly when they see their guy under attack.  As for other viewers who may still be undecided or even newly tuning in to the campaign, will all of the criticism aimed at Trump have registered and made them unlikely to support him, or could it be possible that they might either have tuned out the unruly portions of the debate or have actually felt some sympathy for the candidate facing so much fire?  If I had to speculate, I would say that I wouldn’t count on the new flood of criticism aimed at Trump pulling more than a few casual supporters away from him, but I’d think we could hope a number of late-deciding voters in upcoming states who might otherwise have chosen to go with Trump will have reason to make a different selection instead.

Based on what happened at the debate, I’d offer a couple of suggestions to Donald Trump’s opponents for future events.  While it’s good that that they didn’t let his responses or interruptions distract them from making their intended points against him, I think they shouldn’t have allowed some of the things he said to go unanswered.  They could have briefly addressed these things and then continued with the case they intended to make.  For instance, Trump said multiple times that the other men on the stage had never hired anyone.  Surely this isn’t true, since they have obviously at least hired staff for their various campaigns.  Also, Trump claimed that Ted Cruz should apologize for criticizing Trump’s sister’s judicial rulings and suggested that Samuel Alito had agreed with her about one of the cases in question (by “signing the same bill!”)  I really wish Cruz would have begun his answer by, first, pointing out that judges don’t sign bills, but also briefly explaining why Trump’s sister’s opinion was objectionable and why Alito’s was not the same.  Also, while I’ve read some commentary from people who felt Wolf Blitzer cut the confrontational debate exchanges too short and thereby helped bail Trump out, I disagree.  Once there have been a couple of back and forth statements and rebuttals, it’s really best to move on to the next question.  Continued, often repetitive, arguing about the same point is not pretty or likely to influence viewers in a good way, I think, and the other participants on the stage do deserve some time to speak, as well.  Plus, it’s nice to have some substance in these debates, and it would be nice to have as much time to actually discuss policy and viewpoints as possible, which leads into my last related comment.  Both at the debates and in general, I’d advise those challenging Trump not to let him become their sole focus, but to also make sure they are prepared to highlight and defend their own messages every chance they get.  At one point, Senator Rubio was asked about the ongoing conflict between Apple and the FBI.  I’ve seen him discuss the issue in multiple interviews, and I thought the question that was posed to him mischaracterized what he’s said.  While the answer he gave was OK and reflected some newer developments in the case, I thought he could have done a clearer job of explaining what his position has been and is on the matter, and I wondered if perhaps he might have been so much in “anti-Trump” mode that he had a tough time switching his attention to something else.  For the campaigns as a whole going forward, it’s always important to make the case for one’s own candidacy.  Telling people why they shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump is important, but giving them reasons to vote for you is necessary, too.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am generally against inter-party negativity and attacks.  In the case of Donald Trump, however, it seems to me that someone whose views really make him more suited to being a Democrat or an Independent has chosen instead to seek the Republican nomination and has also been particularly destructive in doing so, attacking not only his opponents in this race, but also previous Republican candidates, former President George W. Bush, and positions widely held by Republicans.  For these reasons, I think that treating Trump more as one would a general-election opponent in order to prevent the defeat or destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement as we know them is justified.  However, that does not mean that we should completely take an “anything goes” approach in going after the frontrunner.  Attacking his record of unsound liberal positions, outrageous statements, and not always stellar business results is great, as are hammering home the points that he really doesn’t have detailed policies to offer the public or a very good understanding of many of the things he would need to deal with as president.  Anything at all relating to issues, policies, and record is fair game.  I realize that more measured criticism hasn’t worked to this point, and the use of more personal jabs and insults seems to draw greater media coverage that could help get the message out to a larger number of people, but I think considerable caution should be exercised in this regard.  After all, the unpleasant vulgar and insulting tendencies Trump has displayed throughout his campaign are part of the reason many of us consider Trump undeserving of the nomination or the presidency.  If others stoop to his level, and I’m not saying that they have gotten to that point so far, it would make it difficult to make that argument against him or to feel great about the alternative candidates.  Since Trump is the one who started taking the tone of the race in a petty and negative direction, I don’t think giving him a little of his own medicine is unfair, but I hope his opponents will be careful not to cross the line into becoming mini-Trumps themselves.

On that note, I’ll make a couple of comments specifically about Senator Rubio.  From what I’ve seen over the last few days, he’s been pretty effective at bashing Donald Trump while still seeming fairly good humored, but I’m a little worried about his new tactics anyway, for a couple of reasons.  Much of his material about Trump is amusing, and most of it is fairly harmless.  Especially since Trump likes to call people “dumb,” I don’t think it’s wrong to point out spelling mistakes in things he sends out on Twitter, and, while making fun of his tan is rather irrelevant, that itself is not a terrible thing to say.  Still, a few of the things Rubio has said at his recent rallies have made me rather uncomfortable, including an age-related remark and some comments inspired by Trump having recently said he’d like to have punched a protester in the face.  I can see criticizing Trump for having said something threatening like that, but Rubio’s comments instead seemed to mock Trump because he wouldn’t actually follow through on hitting someone.  I understand that the overall point of Rubio’s Trump monologue was to show that Trump is not really the guy he purports to be, so this was presumably intended as a way to say that Trump only talks tough, but I think it kind of implied that we should prefer it if our candidates actually did go around assaulting protesters, and I don’t think that’s good.  So, I just would advise Senator Rubio to really think about some of these things before including them in his public comments, and I do hope he’ll turn the personal insults down at least a few notches.  He may be aiming for the humor of a late-night talk show host rather than the mean-spirited bullying we’ve often seen from Donald Trump, but I think he may have started down a dangerous path.  (Please don’t give in to the Dark Side, Senator!)  Just last Thursday, one of his campaign e-mails reiterated that he wants to run a positive campaign with integrity, and I very much want to believe him, so I’d hate to see him do things he might regret in the long run or have a tough time explaining to his four lovely children.  Besides all of that, I wonder how voters will react to the “new” Marco Rubio.  The old, mainly positive and optimistic version pretty much won me over and seemed to be having some success gaining the support of late-deciding voters recently.  Will Rubio be able to add the votes of some people who appreciate the new aggressiveness he’s showing or who might otherwise have chosen Trump without sacrificing any of the support he’d have had before?  We’ll have to see, but he definitely should make sure to keep promoting his own policy ideas and good qualities in addition to pointing out the flaws and problematic positions of the candidate everyone is chasing.

Of course, I must note that Mr. Trump has not been sitting idly by the last few days.  In addition to hitting back at his opponents, he has also been collecting endorsements from prominent Republican elected officials, including the somewhat moderate New Jersey Governor and former presidential candidate Chris Christie and, depressingly, conservative Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  Before Christie left the race a few weeks ago, he had less than positive things to say about a Trump nomination, so it is interesting that he made such a quick decision to jump on board with Trump.  As for Sessions, I still cannot see how anyone who really believes in conservatism can prefer to support Trump, and his decision to publicly do so must have been like a dagger to the heart of Ted Cruz, who has heaped Sessions with praise during his campaign.  (I feel for you Senator Cruz.  You deserve better.)  Why are these politicians choosing to endorse Trump now?  It’s bad enough that there’s been talk that, rather than trying to help someone else win, some Republican officials have been resigning themselves to the notion of Trump becoming the party’s nominee, but now these endorsers are actually trying to speed up the process of making that terrible outcome a reality.  Why on earth do they want to do that??  Sigh...  People really do seem to have gone crazy.

Super Tuesday is almost here, and those primaries and caucuses will tell us a lot about the future of this race.  If Donald Trump dominates in most (or even -- shudder -- all) of the states, especially if he gets fairly large percentages of the votes, it may show us that he’s probably going to continue to do so and will be extremely difficult to stop from claiming the nomination.  If his percentages seem to be a little lower than in recent polls or in the last couple of states, maybe, just maybe, the ramped up movement to stop him will have had some effect, and we can hope that a continuation of the effort can eventually wear down his support to the point where another preferable candidate can defeat him.  I’m keeping my fingers crossed for some hint of good news on Tuesday night, but I still fear the worst.

Snap out of it, Republicans!

From the beginning, following the Republican presidential primary campaign closely has been a source of great concern.  While Iowa caucus day offered a glimmer of hope that there might still be a chance a real conservative (gasp!) politician could win the nomination in the end, it’s pretty much all been downhill since that night.  I really do fear that this race, and the general election to follow, will not end well.

I realize that, on the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are saying all kinds of ridiculous leftist things, and a large portion of their voters are embracing outright socialism.  There’s plenty of room for criticism there, but I don’t really expect anything better from the liberals/Democrats, so I’m not going to spend much time worrying about them now.   On the other hand, in the past I would have thought better of Republicans and conservatives, looking to them to behave much more sensibly and responsibly, but that is clearly not happening right now.  Instead, the voters in New Hampshire turned out in large numbers to award a dominant victory to the most unqualified, uncouth, and unconservative “Republican” candidate in my memory.  Donald Trump continually lowers the levels of civility and discourse in the campaign to the point where, considering his willingness to use profanity and repeat vulgar comments about  his opponents, perhaps stations covering debates or his other appearances might want to start airing them with a 5-second delay.  Of course, when not denying having said anything wrong in the first place, Trump now says that he’ll clean up his language from now on.  We’ll have to see how long that pledge actually lasts, because he did promise on national television that he wouldn't file a lawsuit questioning Ted Cruz’ eligibility for the presidency but has since threatened on multiple occasions to do just that.

Frustratingly, despite all of Trump’s flaws and all of the reasons he should not be the Republican nominee, most of the other candidates have not directed much of their attention to making a case against him.   This has allowed him to basically coast along as the front-running center of attention, largely able to define his own image through his rallies, media coverage, tweets, and so on.  There have been some exceptions, as Jeb Bush has been a consistent Trump critic, and, after a long time treating Trump with kid gloves, Ted Cruz finally began pointing out his deficiencies in the last few weeks, although he still seemed extremely reluctant to do so on the debate stage.  Perhaps some of Trump’s opponents want to minimize potential alienation of Trump’s supporters so that those people will be more likely to still vote for them if they win the nomination.  Or maybe they are afraid that Trump’s next move to test the boundaries of his political invulnerability might involve actually trying out on one of them his theory that he could shoot someone in public without losing votes.  (I’m joking about the last reason -- mostly.)  Some analysts have written that it hasn’t yet been in the interests of most of the candidates to take on Donald Trump, suggesting that they have had more reason to concern themselves with others against whom they might be more likely to gain an advantage or that it might even help them to have Trump defeating certain of their rivals at this point.  I’m no expert in running political campaigns, so perhaps this is correct in some practical way, but I find it difficult to believe that it is a good idea for anyone aiming higher than second place not to challenge the person who’s had big leads in the polls for many months.  The voting has already started, and it seems that the leader after just a few states often becomes very difficult to overcome.  Furthermore, I suppose I’m asking too much, but I think that these people seeking to be the leader of our country should understand that it is an urgent matter more important than their own personal goals to make sure that Donald Trump is not designated the supposed representative of Republican and conservative ideas, whether he would end up running a losing general election campaign that hands control of the presidency once again to Democrats, or if he would ultimately be doing irresponsible things in the White House himself if he should actually somehow win.

It is especially exasperating that, while Mr. Trump has been spared much of the criticism he would deserve, there has been no shortage of attacks among the other Republican candidates and the groups supporting them.  I did not appreciate all of the infighting that took place in the primaries in 2012, and I was afraid going into the race this time that it was likely to happen again.  I don’t see how it can be helpful to the Republican Party or the conservative movement for a field of generally successful and respected candidates to enter the presidential race only to spend the better part of a year having their accomplishments, opinions, actions, and character minimized, called into question, or attacked by those on their own side.  Isn’t it difficult enough for Republicans to win a Presidential election without helping the opposition by damaging the image of the eventual nominee in the eyes of the public during the primaries and handing the Democrats plenty of quotes and avenues of attack to build upon in their quest to defeat the Republican candidate?  Of course the primary competitors should point out differences of opinion they have about the ways to address various issues, and sometimes (see above) an opponent will merit outright criticism.  However, we seem to have an environment where, even amongst those who basically agree on most matters, harsh criticisms are flung over things large and small in great number, often becoming exaggerated, generalized negative characterizations of the candidates.  Defeating one’s rivals is paramount, even if it involves tearing down colleagues and friends, possibly with partial or misleading references to their records.  Oddly to me, it even seems that the willingness and ability to attack your opponents vigorously and well is seen by some to be a necessary qualification for a nominee, and someone considered lacking in this area is deemed too weak to be the party’s choice.

After the New Hampshire debate, during which an extended exchange with Chris Christie was seen to have resulted in a serious mistake and political damage for Marco Rubio, I was struck again by the absurdity of some of the conduct and thinking involved in the race.  I read that Christie was very pleased by what happened in the debate, as he felt he had accomplished his goal of taking down Rubio, to whom he referred as the “anointed one,” even though Rubio had only recently been gaining some momentum for and from his strong third-place finish in Iowa.  So, we have a situation where, rather than convincing everyone of the superior merits of his own candidacy or pointing out the reasons voters should choose a Republican in November (although he may believe he also did these things,) the acknowledged main aim of one (or more) of the candidates was to basically destroy the chances of a fellow Republican contender (in particular, one seen by many to have the potential to be a successful spokesperson for many conservative ideas)?  Well, if Republicans devote much of their energy to thinking of and treating each other this way, is it any wonder they aren’t more successful in defeating Democrats?  (By the way, am I the only one to think it might  have been nice for Christie to employ at least some of his tough prosecutorial debating tactics against Trump, instead??)  Governor Christie suspended his campaign after finishing sixth in New Hampshire, but, hey, at least Rubio had a very disappointing result there, too, right?  Quite a victory -- for Donald Trump’s chances, as the number and strength of his competitors dwindles, and for the Democrats who can just sit back and watch the Republicans do their dirty work for them.

As the focus of the race turned to the next primary in South Carolina, commentators pointed out that campaigning there has usually tended to get tougher and nastier, which is a pretty scary thought considering the way things have already been going.  With that in mind, I was quite apprehensive about watching the latest debate Saturday night.  Adding to the gloom of the week was the terrible news that the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia had died, which is very sad and also throws the balance of the Supreme Court and the likely fate of laws on many issues into question going forward.  The importance of trying to make sure a conservative president, rather than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, is the one to fill this and future potential vacancies was discussed in the debate, and voters should (but, alas, may not) weigh this topic heavily when making their decisions.

I’m not sure what to think about the way the debate, as a whole, went this weekend.  I would say that an angry Donald Trump seemed to be the most prominent feature of the event, which got more and more out of hand as the evening went on.   At least Trump finally faced more challenges from the others this time, but many of these were prompted by Trump saying even more outrageous things than usual and being particularly insulting to his competitors, whom he kept interrupting, at times rather randomly.  In other words, he went so far that they really had no choice but to respond.  Among other gems, Trump again defended his use of private eminent domain, said that he thinks Planned Parenthood does some “wonderful things” for women’s  health, accused President George W. Bush of lying to “get us into” the war in Iraq while knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and, to top it all off, practically blamed Bush for the September 11 terrorist attacks that happened during his ”reign.”  (Does this choice of words indicate that Trump sees the presidency as some sort of kingship?)  None of this is really new, and Trump even took some of these forays into the world of Democrat Bush Derangement Syndrome in one of the early debates last year, but the volume and frequency of these rather un-Republican statements seemed to be increased.  The big question remains whether any of this will actually make a difference to the voters.  Will those supporting him be bothered by it, especially enough to make them switch to another candidate or at least stay home during the primaries?  So far, they’ve stuck with Trump no matter what, often even increasing their support when he says and does things that would seem beyond fatal for any other candidate.  I can only hope it will be different this time, when more people are expected to be paying serious attention, but I’m not holding my breath.

As for the other candidates, I thought that they did fairly well, especially since, in addition to answering questions, they had to deal with the loose cannon at center stage.  I thought that Jeb Bush was able to hold his own against Donald Trump while defending his brother and pointing out some of Trump’s troublesome past statements.  He also made a few other good points, but I’m not sure he’ll be able to make his way back into serious contention for the nomination.  I was a little worried for Marco Rubio, as many said he needed a “comeback” performance after the problems in the last debate, but I thought that he was very strong throughout the evening on many issues, including his contributions to the conversation in defense of President Bush regarding Iraq and 9/11.  Ted Cruz was also solid, and I do appreciate the way he is able to remain calm even when under fire on stage.  Unfortunately from my perspective, there were a couple of verbal skirmishes between Cruz and Rubio, and a few things were said that I wish were not.  The two Senators seem to me to be our strongest options right now, and I would prefer for their strengths, rather than any perceived shortcomings, to remain the focus, especially at these high-profile events.   John Kasich has seemed more energized the last couple of debates, and I’m sure his second-place finish in New Hampshire gave him a boost of confidence.  I’m not sure how his more moderate-sounding rhetoric, defense of his Medicaid expansion in Ohio, and expression of an intent to pursue comprehensive immigration reform early in his administration will play out in the campaign, though.  While they don’t make him my preferred candidate, I do have to sympathize with his call for a more civil Republican primary process.  It would certainly be nice if, as he suggested, the candidates could avoid attacking each other and just tell us what they are for , but that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

So, we have another week before the Republican primary in South Carolina.  The results there could be crucially important in determining the way the race turns out.  If Donald Trump, who has had a big lead in the polls there, has another victory, even after his latest displays of unsteady temper, crassness, and a tendency to think like liberals, it may be yet another sign that voters are determined to make the colossal mistake of nominating a completely unfit person for the presidency.  The other Republican campaigns should dial way back on attacking each other and focus on doing whatever they can to convince any persuadable voters not to go down that road.  Most importantly, I would implore the members of the public to come back to their senses and stop giving their support to someone so dangerously undeserving.  It’s not completely too late to turn around now, but that time is fast approaching.

Roller Coaster Ride: Iowa Results, New Hampshire Debate, etc.

This past Monday, I was very apprehensive about what might happen in the Iowa Republican caucuses.  Donald Trump had retaken the lead in the polls a few weeks ago, and there seemed to be a growing acceptance, even among established party officials and officeholders, of the idea of Trump as the Republican nominee.  Especially since Trump was expected to win the second contest in New Hampshire fairly easily, it seemed that a victory for him in Iowa to start the contest might make it difficult for anyone else to overcome his lead and defeat him elsewhere.  The best hope for slowing down Trump’s apparent momentum seemed to be a possible comeback win in Iowa for Ted Cruz, who had led in polls there for a while in December and January, but Cruz was facing opposition from the state’s governor and others who didn’t like his opposition to ethanol mandates and subsidies.  So, I was rather hesitant to check the results Monday night and postponed doing so until quite late, after everything was sure to be over.  I was very relieved to see that Senator Cruz had indeed managed to win by several points, and I was also encouraged to learn that Marco Rubio, another conservative candidate, had done very well and placed a strong third.  (If only he could have gotten just a little greater percentage and taken second over Trump, I might have actually started jumping up and down with excitement, but we can’t have everything, right?)  While I was happy with this outcome, which provided a welcome ray of hope in a confounding primary season, it was only the first step in a very long process.

With the focus of the race shifting to New Hampshire, the stakes for the candidates remain very high, and there is still plenty to concern a political worrywart like me.  In particular, if Donald Trump, who has been comfortably leading the polls in New Hampshire for a long time, wins the primary there, he might be able to regain the momentum and the air of near-inevitability that was put into question by the results in Iowa.  While it might be too difficult for someone to overtake him in the few days before Tuesday’s vote, hopefully some of his opponents will at least be able to give him some serious competition and demonstrate that the contest is far from over.  Based on Iowa’s voting, as well as other factors, the most likely people to present that challenge seem to be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, but others could have a chance as well.  Saturday night’s debate on ABC was a high-profile opportunity for the candidates to try to convince voters to support them and could potentially have a big impact on both the New Hampshire primary and the overall race.

After watching the coverage of the event, I have many thoughts, but I’ll try to contain myself and discuss a more limited group of important points.  To start with let’s just say that some of the conversations on the stage, along with the commentary offered on the air during and after the debate, did not put my mind more at ease about the upcoming elections.  Hearing what the political experts on the network had to say actually left me once again wondering if I was completely on another planet, because my perceptions of some things were so different, and it will be interesting to see which view prevails among the public in general.

In the days before the debate, there was speculation that Marco Rubio was likely to be a frequent target on Saturday, since the chances for success of quite a few other candidates, both ahead of and (especially) behind him in the polls, are seen by many to largely depend on defeating him.  These predictions proved accurate, as Senator Rubio certainly was a focus of attention, and things didn’t always go well for him.  An exchange with Chris Christie fairly early in the evening seems to have gotten the most attention, and it definitely wasn’t pretty.  Rubio was asked to address a line of criticism that has been raised by Christie and others, which suggests that Rubio does not have a record of accomplishments in his career to justify the voters electing another first-term senator (like Barack Obama) as President.  Besides naming some things he has done as a legislator, Rubio chose to address the Obama-related portion of the charge by arguing that Obama, rather than being someone making poor decisions because of inexperience, is, in fact someone who “knows what he is doing.”  Christie came after Rubio from multiple angles at the same time, attacking him both for this characterization of Obama and also for being an unaccountable member of the Senate, who can just spout memorized talking points about issues (as opposed to a governor like Christie, held responsible for making decisions.)  Regrettably, Rubio’s responses to Christie involved repeating parts of what he’d already said, which played into Christie’s charge about scripted answers.   Obviously, Rubio should have found different words to articulate his message the second and third time, but perhaps he thought he needed to repeat the point because Christie was too busy interrupting and misinterpreting him for the audience to understand it the first time.  When Rubio said that Obama “knows what he is doing,” he clearly meant that Obama’s (very often unwise, outrageous, or disastrous) actions are intentionally taken in pursuit of his goals to “fundamentally transform” the nation, which is an important notion worth discussing, but Christie chose instead to mock Rubio more than once by interpreting the phrase to mean that Obama is competent, well-qualified, and/or doing a good job.  Christie also repeatedly criticized Rubio for the immigration reform bill he sponsored a few years ago, but I’m not sure Christie’s critique was particularly logical.  Rather than criticizing Rubio for supporting an amnesty-granting bill in the first place, he seemed to be suggesting that the problem was Rubio’s lack of leadership in eventually abandoning the bill rather than continuing to fight for it.  Again, Rubio could probably have done a slightly better job of explaining and making his case, but I certainly don’t think that the Senator would have demonstrated more fitness for the presidency by waging a never-ending battle to pass a (bad) bill that did not have the support to pass, especially a bill that many Republicans already hold against him.  In the end, the TV analysts seemed to characterize the New Hampshire debate as a huge stumble for Rubio that could practically destroy his campaign -- showing that he’s “not ready for prime time” and wouldn’t really be such a challenging candidate for Hillary Clinton to face in the general election, etc., but I seriously disagree with this interpretation.  (Perhaps there’s even a little wishful thinking involved on Democrats’ part?)  The exchanges with Christie will clearly not make Senator Rubio’s highlight reel (although I don’t think they put him in as bad a light as the commentators suggested,) but I don’t think they should define his whole night, as he also gave many strong answers throughout the evening on a wide range of issues including foreign policy, taxes, and social issues.  (More on the last one a bit later.)  I continue to believe that Marco Rubio would be a very qualified and capable nominee, and I hope that a few rough moments of debating won’t overshadow all of his good qualities in the eyes of the public.

While Chris Christie may have harmed Marco Rubio during the debate, I’m not sure that his performance will actually be particularly helpful to his own electoral chances.  As usual, he told us repeatedly (hmm, imagine that) that he has been a federal prosecutor and US Attorney, dismissed the importance of members of Congress (who just talk a lot) while painting himself as a governor who, by necessity, has to actually make things happen, and, as the self-designated teller of truths and debate translator, directed some of his remarks straight to the audience at home.  To me, most of this is just window dressing aside from the actual content of what he has to say, and I think he’s overdone it to some extent, but other people may see things differently.  As for the substance, Christie did contribute some worthwhile points (such as New Jersey’s experience with raising taxes on millionaires), but I found a couple of his statements about drugs and abortion particularly troubling.  It’s fine for Christie to make the case that non-violent drug offenders should receive treatment rather than incarceration, but he also said that addiction is a disease, not a moral failing.  Since people do choose to use illegal and destructive substances in the first place, I don't think it’s correct to absolve them of moral responsibility in these situations, as if random citizens just happen to come down with heroin addiction after being bitten by Brazilian mosquitoes.  Christie (and others) have asserted that Rubio’s stance against abortion (not favoring exceptions other than to save the life of the mother) is too extreme, and this was brought  up at the debate.  Rubio explained his position and pointed out that the Democrats are the real extremists on the issue, and then Christie had a chance to have his say.  The position that an anti-abortion law (which, of course, can only be hypothetical as long as Roe vs Wade remains in effect) should allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest is a common one among pro-life politicians, but it seems to me that Governor Christie justified it in a very unsatisfactory way, characterizing the termination of a pregnancy resulting from one of these situations as an act of “self-defense.”  This description seems to disregard the basic purpose of the pro-life movement:  protecting the lives of young, developing human beings, who are innocent even it their fathers have committed terrible crimes.  I think that Senator Rubio was on much more solid, consistent ground here, and, in any case, I don’t think it is helpful for Republican candidates to criticize one another as being “too pro-life” -- I’m sure we’ll hear more than enough of that from the Democrats down the line.  

While the last debate was, happily, a no-Trump zone, the national front-runner returned to the stage in New Hampshire.  The on-air commentators thought that he had a good night, but I think that is only the case because people continue to hold Donald Trump to very low standards.  Yes, he avoided any complete meltdowns and didn’t spend the whole evening insulting and attacking everyone, and there may have been one or two sensible things (such as the problems caused by recent condemnation of the police) buried in his rambling statements.  However, he still was very self-centered and vague in many of his answers, citing his terrific companies as evidence he has the temperament to be president and saying that his health care plan would be something “much better” than Obamacare.  His continued and aggressive defense of eminent domain was a low point, especially as he tried to talk over and deny the facts when Jeb Bush pointed out that Trump had tried to use the courts to take the property of an elderly woman for a private casino parking lot.  Trump still did take a few cheap shots at Bush and Cruz, and the audience, for that matter, when they expressed disapproval of him, but he didn’t seem to face much tough questioning from the moderators or his opponents.  It will be interesting to see if Trump really does have strong support from the voters as the primaries continue, because it still makes no sense to me for large numbers of people to believe that this man is the best choice to be President of the United States.

As for Trump’s main recent challenger, I think that Ted Cruz probably didn’t have quite as good a night as he might have hoped.  The early focus on the controversy concerning his staff circulating reports before the Iowa caucuses suggesting Ben Carson might not be continuing his campaign (based on an initial news byte from CNN) cannot be helpful to Senator Cruz.  We can’t know all the details about what happened in that situation, and I wouldn’t think that the results would have been greatly affected, because Carson’s supporters would be unlikely to just assume what they were being told by the camp of another candidate was true and because Carson’s percentage of the vote was actually a little higher than his recent poll numbers.  Still, attention paid to this incident rather than to Cruz’ come-from-behind victory with huge voter turn-out on Monday is unfortunate for the Senator, especially if, despite his apology to Carson, people come to believe he accepts questionable campaign tactics.  After Iowa, Donald Trump first seemed to take his second-place finish fairly well.  He then went on a Twitter rant alleging that Cruz had “stolen” the election and insisting that the results should not stand, before claiming a couple of days later that he didn’t really care about that any more.  In response to these wild changes of attitude within such a short time, Senator Cruz had, rather logically, stated that Trump does not have the temperament to be president, although he may have used a bit too much hyperbole in suggesting that Trump might “nuke Denmark” in a fit of pique.  At the debate, the moderators asked Cruz, twice, about this assessment of Trump, and, for whatever reason, Cruz would not take the opportunity there to explain this aspect of Trump’s unsuitability for the highest office in the land, only saying that the voters would judge the temperament of every candidate.  I’ve expressed frustration before with the unwillingness of Trump’s competitors to criticize him or take him on, particularly when they are with him at the debates.  I think this particular instance was especially problematic for Cruz, because Trump called him on it, not only pointing out that Cruz had not answered the moderator’s question, but also citing this as an example of the reason the country would be able to “win again” with Trump as president:  others back down when facing him.  Sigh...  The night was certainly not all bad for Cruz, as he gave solid responses to questions about foreign policy and defense, immigration enforcement, the ways presidents can use authority, and other issues and also shared a memorable personal story about the impact drug addiction had had on his family.  While it makes perfect sense for Cruz to point out that he was able to win in Iowa while taking a principled stand against the ethanol mandates that are considered so important to that state, I thought that it was probably not the strongest choice around which to center his closing statement.  All in all, I think that Senator Cruz had a fairly steady night that should not hurt him with those inclined to look favorably on him, but I’m not sure if anything happened to give him a significant boost of support heading into Tuesday’s primary and beyond.

Briefly, I thought Jeb Bush had a fairly good performance, although he seemed to have articulated things somewhat better at the previous debate.  I did appreciate his willingness to engage with Trump on eminent domain, since most other candidates seem to avoid conflict with Trump at these events, and Bush’s references to returning some power and responsibility to the states were a positive addition to the discussion.  The ABC commentators had lots of good things to say about John Kasich and thought he had his best night.  I didn’t see much difference from the last couple of debates, although he did present one or two of his responses in a more rousing fashion this time.  He seems like a nice enough guy who has a good record in government, but I’m not sure that his message of bringing people together, including across party lines, is what Republican primary voters are seeking or what would be most able to defeat the Democratic nominee in November.  I felt bad for Ben Carson Saturday evening.  It was terribly unfortunate that he didn’t hear his name called during the initial introductions calling the candidates to the stage, and he likely felt that he was being ignored or slighted, especially after Monday’s events.  I hope that someone made sure to let him know what actually happened (and even showed him some video to prove it.)  During the debate, he had some worthwhile things to contribute, and I especially liked his answer regarding the contrast he could draw in a contest against Hillary Clinton based on honesty, integrity, and character.  On a more general note, I was underwhelmed, to say the least, by the answers of all three candidates (Rubio, Bush, and Christie) asked about the potential registration of women for the Selective Service.  Overall, I did appreciate the fact that the questioners at this debate covered many different issues, although they may have selected a few obscure ones while still leaving out some big things.  We did hear from everyone quite a bit, but I’m not sure how evenly the time or questions (in number or friendliness) were distributed among the candidates. 

It has certainly been an eventful week in the world of the presidential campaign.  While Donald Trump did have significant support in Iowa, thankfully, the voters there ensured that he will not have an unchallenged electoral romp to the Republican nomination.   Ted Cruz’ victory on Monday and Marco Rubio’s strong showing put them both in good positions going forward, but things were not all positive for them over the last few days, as Cruz had to deal with questions about his staff’s actions and Trump’s allegations of election theft, while Rubio was the favorite target (including at the debate on Saturday) of many opponents seeking to surpass him in New Hampshire and elsewhere to gain consideration as legitimate contenders.  After Iowa, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Rand Paul left the presidential race, and I wish them all well in the future.  Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to have a large polling lead in New Hampshire, and, if he has a big victory there, who knows how things will play out in future state primaries -- he may be able to reclaim his “winner” image and use it along with his national frontrunner status to dominate much of the race, especially if his competitors spend most of their time and energy bashing each other.  I hope that this does not happen, but we’ll know a lot more by the time the results are in on Tuesday night   Then, we can once again take stock of the way Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and the others are faring with the voters.  One state down, one right around the corner, and “only” forty-eight more to go.  I’m afraid it’s going to be a long, exhausting year before we even get to the general election campaign!

South Carolina January Republican Debate

After what already seems like a long campaign, the first actual primary and caucus votes are now drawing near.  As a result, any new developments and events in the race at this point seem to take on added importance, so the high-profile debates from now on will likely get even more attention.  After watching last Thursday’s FOX Business Republican debate from South Carolina, I have a lot of thoughts related to the candidates and the contest for the nomination -- too many for one post, I think.  Therefore, I will try to limit this piece to some fairly specific comments and observations about the happenings of the evening.  My intention is to follow up soon with some more general thoughts and impressions about a couple of the candidates and the state of the primary race.

During the early part of the debate, most of the candidates were basically on the same page and getting along, as they focussed on disagreements with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.  I appreciated that portion of the event, which reminded me of the first Republican debate last year.  I rather like being able to hear multiple capable conservatives discussing ideas and acting like they are all on the same overall team, and it makes me rather wish that there were some way to select a nominee that didn’t lead to these good candidates eventually attacking each other to try to secure a victory.  Unfortunately, there has been a lot of conflict and criticism among the candidates during this campaign, and this was reflected in some notable clashes in Thursday’s debate.  I’ll comment further on some of those, and I do continue to think it is problematic that Republican presidential primary contests tend to inflict damage on the images and reputations of the candidates.

As I’ve made quite clear since last summer, I think that Donald Trump is a completely unsuitable choice for the Republican presidential nomination.  I’ve kept hoping that something might change in the race or the treatment he’s received in conservative media that could dislodge him from his frontrunner status.  Very recently, some campaign hostility broke out between Trump and Ted Cruz, and I was anxious to see if Cruz might (finally) criticize Trump during this debate and if that might possibly have a negative effect on Trump’s poll numbers.   The end of the apparent Trump/Cruz non-aggression pact was largely precipitated by Trump raising questions about Cruz’ eligibility to serve as president, and this topic was raised near the beginning of the debate.  I thought that Senator Cruz handled the issue of his status as a “natural-born” citizen just fine, explaining that, when he was born in Canada, he was an American citizen because of his mother's American citizenship.  He pointed out that Trump had said a few months ago that his lawyers had looked at the issue and found no problem with Cruz’ eligibility, and he also suggested that Trump was only bringing up the question now because Cruz’ standings in the polls, particularly in Iowa, have improved.   Trump in the end basically acknowledged that this was the case, and I don’t think his contention that new opinions from well-known lawyers, such as liberal Lawrence Tribe of Bush vs. Gore fame, have now made him revisit the issue was very convincing.  Therefore, I would say that Cruz probably benefitted from this exchange during the debate, although I don’t see how it could be the case that it would have put the issue to rest, as some have suggested.  It seems that some people (notably, some of Donald Trump’s supporters) now do believe, or at least think it is possible, that Ted Cruz does not meet the Constitution’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States, and I don’t think their opinions will change just because Cruz assured everyone that he does.

Later in the evening, Senator Cruz did (at long last) attempt to point out that, although he’s saying (some) different things now, Donald Trump has a considerable history of expressing liberal views.  Cruz referred to an interview Trump gave some time ago in which Trump explained having these positions and opinions by saying that he was from New York and that those were “New York” values.  Proceeding from this basic equating of “New York values” with liberal values, Cruz suggested that those values are not in line with those of Republican voters.  Donald Trump responded, at a lower level of volume and brashness than usual, by recalling the way New Yorkers handled the horror and extreme challenges of the September 11 attacks and also said that he found Cruz’ remarks about New York to be offensive.  While I don’t think bringing up the devastating terrorist attacks really addressed the points Cruz was trying to make, I do think that Trump’s response would probably be effective to many viewers, especially those who weren’t aware that Cruz’ remark that “not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan” was actually a response to the line Trump has been using for some time to question Cruz' religion and claim that “not a lot of Evangelicals come out of Cuba.”  Unfortunately for him, in the end, this exchange did not turn out well for Senator Cruz.  (It has also apparently been turned into a big issue since the debate, which is one of the topics I would like to revisit later.) 

Donald Trump actually seemed to have toned things down during some other portions of the debate as well.  As a cynical anti-Trumper (if that is a word), I’m not sure to what extent that might have been a planned strategy and an acting performance, but it may well have made him come across as more reasonable and more plausible as a presidential candidate to some people.  Of course, there were also times when he bragged about his poll numbers, his great business success, and his confidence that he’ll win, and he did still give some incoherent answers, most notably about potential tariffs on goods from China.  Still, much as I hate to say it, I think there’s little doubt that this was Trump’s best debate performance by far.  (That does not, of course, mean that he’s any more qualified to be president than he was before.)

Ted Cruz’ conflicts on Thursday were not limited to those with Donald Trump, as he was also involved in heated exchanges with Senator Marco Rubio.  Rubio raised some substantive issues about Cruz’ tax proposals, such as its inclusion of what has been characterized by many people as a European-style “Value Added Tax.”  Cruz stated that his “business tax” is not actually a VAT and defended his plan.  This subject, along with intelligence gathering and others, is one where voters will need to examine the specifics of the candidates’ positions to determine which they agree with the most.  Later in the course of the debate, Senator Cruz criticized Senator Rubio’s involvement with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill from a few years ago, which since that time has been perceived as his greatest area of vulnerability in terms of disagreement with many Republican voters.  Rubio responded with a long list of instances and topics on which he said that Cruz had changed his positions, and he concluded by saying that this showed political calculation rather than consistent conservatism on Cruz’ part.  Cruz denied the truth of many of the accusations and once again pointed out that Rubio’s position on immigration remains one that is very unpopular among many on the Right.  Now, there are usually omissions, selective references to past records, and even somewhat stretched interpretations, along with genuine differences of opinion, when one politician criticizes another, and I believe that those factors played a part in the various conflicts in Thursday’s debate as well.  Yet, it seems to me that there is also some truth in the criticisms that, for example, Rubio and Cruz leveled at each other, but there are also plenty of reasons to defend the merits of each of these men as good candidates and solid conservatives.  I’m not sure what viewers with no particular attachment to either senator will make of their exchanges, but I wouldn’t expect the debate to change the views of those who already have formed positive or negative opinions about either or both of them.   Again, I think that it is unfortunate that Republican candidates and their supporters often wind up helping the other side (liberals/Democrats) by highlighting each others’ weaknesses.  Sigh...

Marco Rubio did not limit his criticisms on Thursday to Ted Cruz.  He also had plenty to say in opposition to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, gun control proposals, and our current interactions with Iran, among other things.  Some have said that Rubio was “angrier” than usual, perhaps in response to the polling success of candidates like Trump, who are mainly known for harsh rhetoric.  I’m not completely sure what to make of that assessment.  I do think that Rubio focussed more on disagreements with the way things are going than on the positive vision of the future that his campaign has touted at other times, but I’m not sure that this was entirely new at the most recent debate.  I seem to recall thinking that this has been the case in earlier events as well.  I believe that Senator Rubio’s statements about the problems he sees and the things he would intend to do differently are usually quite strong and eloquent, so they are often welcome and necessary, but I also think that he should take care not to omit the more optimistic aspects of his message that distinguish his candidacy from those of some others.

One other specific recipient of criticism from Marco Rubio during the debate was Chris Christie.  Rubio charged that there were several issues and instances where Christie had, to one degree or another, been on the same side as Obama, Clinton, et al.  Christie essentially flatly denied all of Rubio’s assertions.   While I would note that a couple of the things Rubio said might have been worded a little more carefully, and Governor Christie might well have been able to give somewhat mitigating explanations for some of them, it seems to me that the actual record does not support his outright denials at all.  Citing a previous complimentary comment from Rubio, Christie also suggested that Rubio was only attacking him now because he thought it would help him in the polls.  The New Jersey Governor then said that he wasn’t going to change his tune in a similar fashion before adding a few positive comments about Rubio.  This is all well and good, but it rather ignores the recent spate of negative things that Christie has been saying about Rubio on the campaign trail, including labeling him as weak and stating that he is not doing his job due to missed votes in the Senate.  As he has before, Christie seemed to do pretty well in the debate itself, portraying himself as someone who takes successful action rather than just talking about things and who will give straight talk to the people at home, even about tough issues.  I don’t know to what extent viewers will be swayed by his forensic skill, even if it perhaps relies more on creative license than honesty at times.

Ben Carson contributed some humor to the proceedings and made a few good points, remaining a likable man on the stage, but perhaps not seeming very likely to be the successful nominee.  To me, this was John Kasich’s best debate.  He seemed less angry and not completely at odds with everyone else this time.  I still don’t think he has much chance of doing well in this election, but I think it was easier to understand why he’s been a popular Republican Congressman and Governor in Ohio for many years, and he might have some worthwhile things to contribute to the conversation about various issues.

As for Jeb Bush, I think that he has continued to improve in his debate responses, but it does not seem that this type of event shows him at his best.  He did make some good points, among them identifying some of the problems with the positions Donald Trump has taken regarding Muslims entering the United States and tariffs on imports.  Interestingly, at times it almost seemed to me that Governor Bush sounded a little like a Republican party consultant rather than one of the candidates, hoping that Trump would reconsider some of his positions and cautioning people to take the negative charges being leveled among the candidates with a grain of salt, as they are just a common part of the primary process.  Perhaps, despite his continued hope to be the nominee himself, he’s also feeling (possibly way in the back of his mind) that it’s not particularly likely?  If so, I may be one of a small minority, but I continue to feel considerable sympathy for Governor Bush, as I think he was rather unfairly characterized and dismissed before the campaign even began.

(Well, so much for keeping this post to any sort of manageable length!)

In conclusion, I thought that the debate was pretty well run and contained some valuable material for the continuing evaluation of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, although there do seem to be many topics that never seem to get much discussion at any of these events.  Overall, I don’t know if anything that took place in South Carolina last Thursday will drastically change the state of the primary race, and that concerns me in itself, because maintenance of the status quo means that Donald J. Trump continues to be the national frontrunner as the election draws ever closer.  More specifically, I worry that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, perhaps the opponents with the best chances of presenting a challenge to Trump, may have been damaged, at least somewhat, by last Thursday’s verbal battles with each other, as well as with Trump and Christie, respectively.  Also, since Trump had been sailing along so successfully even with completely horrible debate performances and while being left alone by his chief rival, how high might his poll numbers go with a much improved presentation on the debate stage and after being able to withstand (and possibly even triumph over) new criticism from Senator Cruz, the champion debater and experienced litigator?  I shudder to think about it, but I am very afraid that a Trump nomination is becoming more likely all the time....

The CNN Las Vegas Debate

This past week, the Republican presidential candidates participated in yet another debate, this one focussed on issues of foreign policy and national security.  There was rather a lot of substantive discussion, which is a good thing, and several of the candidates performed well.  At this time, I’d like to mention just a few observations related to the CNN debate in Las Vegas.

Regarding the format, I think that debates devoted to one broad category of issues, like national security or the economy, allow for some more detailed examination of important subjects.  However, some potential voters will not watch all of the debates, and, for those perhaps only tuning in to one event as the actual voting draws near, it might be beneficial to have a forum in which the candidates discuss a wide range of topics to give the public a better idea of their overall positions and philosophies.

Jeb Bush has had a tough time so far in this campaign, so I was glad that he had a good night in Las Vegas.  He was solid during the actual debate and also got in a couple of effective one-liners directed against Donald Trump.  I especially liked his quip that he wasn’t sure if Trump was getting his information from TV shows on Sunday morning or Saturday morning.  (Come to think of it, having Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn as policy advisors might explain a lot...)  When asked about others’ proposals or statements with which he disagreed, I thought that Governor Bush managed to present himself as a reasonable alternative without seeming apologetic or lacking in strength, and also to articulate his own ideas for the issues under discussion. Unfortunately, he did stumble a bit during both his opening and closing statements.  Maybe he let the pressure of the big moments he’d prepared for get to him.  In any case, while I don’t know if Jeb Bush still has a real chance in the race, at least I think he can feel good about his most recent debate performance as a whole.

Chris Christie does seem like someone who could plausibly be seen as a Commander in Chief, but I’m not sure that he’ll have that much opportunity for success in this year’s large field of good candidates.  During the debates, I don’t think that Governor Christie should be so dismissive of policy discussions among other candidates.  Many of these issues and details are important, and the particulars of the laws enacted by Congress do have a large effect in determining what prosecutors and governors like Christie are able to do when, for example, surveilling or investigating suspected terrorists.  On a more positive note, I will also say that, especially for someone known as rather a blunt-talking “tough guy,” Governor Christie showed himself capable of considerable restraint.  Standing right next to Christie, Rand Paul accused him of being likely to start World War III and then threw in a gratuitous reference to the New Jersey bridge scandal, but Christie stayed calm, basically ignored Paul’s comments, and just continued making the points he wanted to convey.

It almost seemed as if Marco Rubio had a big target on his back during much of the evening.  The moderators often set up direct, conflicting exchanges between him and Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul joined in with criticism of Rubio on multiple occasions.  Overall, I thought that Senator Rubio held his own and kept his cool under pressure, but some of what was said about him, along with renewed attention on his immigration views, could potentially hurt him in the race.  Still, throughout the debate, I think that Rubio once again did a good job of sounding prepared and knowledgeable and making a case for his positions and past votes, and I continue to think that he would be a very strong nominee.

Ted Cruz could also be a good nominee and conservative spokesperson, and it seems that things have been going his way lately, with polls showing him leading in Iowa.  He always has pretty good performances in the debates, and I’d expect those most inclined to support him liked much of what he had to say on Tuesday.  In the debate exchanges with Senator Rubio, particularly on the immigration issue, I think that Senator Cruz may have come out with somewhat of an advantage, especially because Rubio was put on the defensive, fending off criticism, much of the time.  However, I do think that Senator Cruz may have come across as less than clear or even as evasive on a few occasions, including when discussing his stance (past and present) on legalization of immigrants and when asked why he wouldn’t publicly say the same things about Donald Trump’s candidacy that he’d said at a private fundraiser, and that’s not an impression likely to be helpful to him.

I’m not sure how much point there is discussing anything in particular Donald Trump says in a debate.  In this case, he still often sounded very vague and sometimes, as when asked about the nuclear triad, didn’t seem to have any idea what the question meant.  In addition, he expressed ideas of questionable practicality and constitutionality (such as shutting down parts of the Internet to deter terrorist recruiting), falsely denied statements he’d previously made, and demonstrated (again) that the sincerity of the things he says is frequently in doubt by complimenting and praising opponents (Ben Carson and Ted Cruz) he’d harshly criticized and insulted as recently as two days earlier.  Yet, most of the other candidates didn’t seem willing to express criticism of Trump at the debate, and the usual rules of politics don’t seem to apply to him.  So, people will give Mr. Trump credit if one or two of his answers are more coherent than usual, and his supporters will presumably continue to keep him at the top of the polls, as they have since he first entered the race.

As I’ve stated before, I really can’t comprehend the way the public is viewing this primary campaign, but based on the way things have been going, I’d guess that this debate won’t really have much of an effect on the standing of the national frontrunner or of any of the candidates who’ve been polling in the single digits.  I am concerned, however, about the impact recent developments, including this debate and its aftermath, might have on Senators Rubio and Cruz.   Maybe things will remain basically unchanged in the race, or perhaps one or the other will benefit, but I do worry that the conflicts between them could wind up damaging both candidates.  I hope that this is not the case, as both men are capable and qualified contenders for the Republican nomination -- and, if they should fall out of favor, I’m afraid that victory for someone extremely unsuitable would become even more likely than it already seems.

Milwaukee Debate & Other Recent Developments

A lot has happened in the world in the last couple of weeks, much of it far more important than the details of the primary election campaign.  Still, I’d like to take at least a brief look at the most recent Republican debate and a few other things related to the race.

The Fox Business debate held in Milwaukee was an improvement over previous events in giving much more attention to substance.  Because there are differences among the candidates regarding various issues, there were some interesting exchanges, and the responses and comments made by the participants should give potential voters more to consider in forming their opinions and candidate preferences.  (If, that is, the members of the public are actually concerned about and interested in policies and ideas, which, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to always be the case.)

Regarding the early debate for those not doing as well in the polls, I still think it’s unfortunate that some of these candidates have never had a chance to “compete” with the others in the prime time event.  People who are far better-qualified and prepared choices than anyone on the Democrat side (and than some in the Republican field) seem to have been summarily dismissed by voters without serious consideration, which is a shame.  Rick Santorum keeps plugging away, pointing out both his prior conservative accomplishments in the Senate and the distinguishing aspects of his current platform that are especially aimed at helping American workers/labor.  I’ve admired Senator Santorum for a long time, so, even though I’m not necessarily in agreement with all of the items in this latter category, I feel he has earned a fair hearing in the race.  I thought that Chris Christie did a good job of sticking to his main message that it is crucial to focus on stopping Hillary Clinton and that he believes he is the best person to “prosecute” the case against her.  He did this even while facing quite a bit of criticism from Bobby Jindal, who kept hammering the point that voters should choose to elect, not just any Republican, but one who would actually do things that he promises, especially cut government spending.  It seemed to me that Jindal didn’t make the most effective use of his time by coming back to this same theme in pretty much every response, when he could have used the opportunities to detail more of his accomplishments and proposals.  Since the debate, Governor Jindal has ended his campaign for the nomination, which means that three men who all have very successful records as governors and would seem capable of doing a solid job if elected President have now dropped out of the Republican race quite early in the process.  Meanwhile, candidates lacking experience, a strong grasp of issues, and/or a reasonable temperament continue to be favored in the polls, and I really must once again question the choices that Republicans and “conservatives” have been making in regard to this campaign.

I’m not sure how much of an effect the prime-time debate might have on the fortunes of the various candidates.  John Kasich once again spoke a lot.  He seemed to be on quite a different page than most of the field on many issues and to be criticizing the more common Republican positions, and I really don’t think this will help him win over voters.  Rand Paul also presented some more unique views, but he did do a better job of presenting his points than in previous debates.  He doesn’t seem likely to have a huge surge of support in the polls, but he did add additional dimensions to the discussion and serve as sort of an on-stage “fact-checker” at times.  Carly Fiorina did fine, pretty much as she had before, but I don’t know that we heard anything new or that she stood out as she might have in the first couple of debates.  This may be about the only time I say this, but I personally agreed with Donald Trump(!!) that she was interrupting too much, and I certainly didn’t think it made sense for some people to say that it was “sexist” for him to mention it.  As for Mr. Trump himself, he still gave many answers that were vague (about his fantastic plans and experiences) or rather puzzling (about China and the trade deal being discussed, for example.)  He was less hostile and insulting toward his opponents, which was a positive thing, but, unfortunately this mood did not last long, as he attacked other candidates at length in a speech a couple of days later.  Ben Carson was pleasant and made some thoughtful general statements, but other answers, particularly about foreign policy, didn’t seem very strong.  In recent weeks, there were quite a few stories in the media questioning the accuracy of some details in Dr. Carson’s biography, etc.  I rather wonder if these efforts, especially since they did not wind up demonstrating any clear falsehoods on his part, actually had the effect of helping Dr. Carson.  Many people felt that he was being unfairly criticized or targeted and therefore rallied to defend him, but, beyond that, time spent researching incidents from Carson’s youth is time not spent examining statements he’s made or positions he’s taken on current issues (such as strategies for combating ISIS or dealing with illegal immigration) that might not inspire confidence in voters.  Jeb Bush’s performance in Milwaukee was much better than at the previous debate, but he still seemed a little hesitant.  He should be more forceful, but not by trying to attack his opponents, which I think has only hurt him in the past.  Rather, while Governor Bush’s position on the issue will not help him with many Republican voters, I thought that his strongest presentation might actually have been on the immigration issue.  He unapologetically stated what he felt, and I think that is the direction he needs to move in general in sharing his views on various issues.   Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio once again were solid performers, although I did think that they both had some more shaky moments than in the earlier debates.  For example, Sen. Rubio misspoke about the primary importance of the role of parent  (not President) in defending his proposed child tax credit expansion, and Sen. Cruz hesitated while listing the five government agencies he would propose eliminating, and then mentioned the same one twice.  Still, both of these men have demonstrated considerable preparation and knowledge in all of the debates, and they deserve to be serious contenders for the nomination.

I am a little concerned about the way individual past votes or comments of candidates (especially those currently serving in the Senate) have recently been brought up, possibly out of context, to suggest that they are weak on national security, illegal immigration, refugee policy, etc., and I hope that the candidates themselves, as well as others, will be careful about the way they use and discuss these details.  While we should certainly examine the records and statements of those running for the presidential nomination, we should not be too quick to label or categorize someone as wrong or unacceptable based on one or two comments or votes with which we might disagree.  Otherwise, because no one is perfect, we’ll likely wind up in a situation where we’ve eliminated everyone as unworthy of our support.  We need to look at the candidates’ histories, characters, and current proposals as a whole in determining which person would be the best choice.

In the time since the debate, the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere have understandably drawn more attention to candidates’ views and experiences related to issues of national security, fighting terrorism, etc.  So far, it does not seem that the shift in focus has caused significant changes in the polling rankings of various candidates, but I certainly hope that voters will think very seriously about all of these grave matters before selecting a nominee, and eventually a President, to be entrusted with the enormous responsibilities of the office.

CNBC's October Republican Debate

Much has already been said about the Republican debate held in Colorado last week.  Probably the most prominent characteristic of this event being discussed has been the questionable handling of the proceedings by the moderators.  They were, especially in the prime-time portion of the evening, over the top in asking hostile questions, phrasing queries in ways most likely to cast a negative light on the candidates, and treating those on the stage rather rudely.  Still, the debate was another opportunity to see and hear for a couple of hours from those running for the Republican presidential nomination, and I think that it’s worth taking time to note some impressions about the candidates in addition to directing deserved criticism at the team from CNBC.

Donald Trump

As others have noted, he was somewhat toned down last Wednesday.  The insulting of other candidates and making of faces was reduced, but he did go after John Kasich quite a bit at the beginning of the debate and more than once mentioned that he wasn’t going to criticize other people on the stage about something, even though he certainly could.  Perhaps he figured that he could take a break from spreading negativity about his opponents that evening since the moderators were already taking on that task.

I still find the topic of the bankruptcies of Trump’s companies to be a glaring fault that should be a problematic issue for voters, but many others must not see it that way.

In response to a question related to immigration, Trump claimed he had not said what the moderator attributed to him regarding Marco Rubio and Mark Zuckerberg. By the time the moderator was able to find her source and point out that the statement was on Trump’s website, people may have dismissed this as another falsehood or mistaken point from the moderators.  Trump’s comments about increasing visas for tech workers and allowing more international students to stay after they graduate from American colleges might not be appreciated by some of the people whose support for him centers on the immigration issue.  While inviting more legal immigration doesn’t offend the rule of law the way amnesty-type policies for those who come (or stay) illegally do, there are still concerns about the effects increased levels of immigration may have on jobs and wages for Americans and current legal residents, on costs for government services such as education and health care, on the assimilation of newcomers into American culture, and so on.  I understand that Mr. Trump (once again) completely changed his tune in appearances the next day, presumably after realizing (or being told) that his statements in the debate could be problematic among his supporters.  Will this latest flip-flop and/or the notion that Mr. Trump was not even familiar with the opinions and positions attributed to him on his own website cause anyone to re-think their support of his candidacy?  Who knows?  But, many other inconsistencies and controversies haven’t seemed to dissuade his fans up to this point.

Ben Carson

Dr. Carson continues to seem like a nice man with good intentions, but I’m not sure that he gave us much information or clarification about the policies he would favor.  Over the last several weeks, Dr. Carson has been subjected to a lot of overblown criticism in the media, etc. about various comments he’s made, which seems to have actually caused him to gain support from many people who want to combat political correctness and the “outrage” it can generate.  I do think, though, that we need to be careful not to just regard every question or challenge (for example, about the amounts of revenue to be expected under his tax proposal) posed to Dr. Carson as an unfair “gotcha” question that doesn’t merit a thorough answer.

Carly Fiorina

Mrs. Fiorina once again had a pretty good debate, but, to me, she didn’t seem to stand out as much this time,  maybe because we’d already heard some of the things she was saying or perhaps because more of the other candidates were able to take the opportunity to present themselves well, too.  I’m not sure how those of us who are not experts on the world of technology business can really evaluate how good a job Mrs. Fiorina did as a CEO, but, since this part of her background is important in judging her qualifications to be the country’s Chief Executive, it is an issue worth our attention.

Jeb Bush

Unfortunately, this was not a good night for Governor Bush at all.  He still seemed to have trouble presenting his points clearly and assuredly, and actually probably took a couple of steps backward in this regard from the previous debate. Of course, I’m sure it doesn’t help a person’s confidence to start the evening answering questions about your greatest weakness and your dropping poll numbers.  Cutting into the conversation to add to the Senate attendance-related criticism the moderator had already raised with Marco Rubio was a painfully poor choice for Gov. Bush.  He needs to turn things around in a major way, and I can only hope we’ll be able to see a much improved performance at the next debate.

Marco Rubio

I thought that Senator Rubio had another successful night in Colorado.  He communicated well and also managed to keep his cool even when facing hostile questions and criticisms.  His characterization of the mainstream media as a Super PAC for Democrats was memorable and should be popular with many Republican voters.

Ted Cruz

Obviously, Ted Cruz’ rebuke of the moderators for the antagonistic nature of their questions was one of the most notable exchanges of the night and will resonate with many people who do not like the way Republicans and conservatives tend to be treated by the media.  Beyond that, though, the debate was a very good one for Senator Cruz.  He has demonstrated before that he is knowledgeable and well-spoken, but this time he also seemed to come across as more “relatable” and better connected with the audience than before, which should be a big plus for him going forward.

Rounding out the field

Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie each had a few good lines and moments.  John Kasich seemed to get quite a bit of time to speak, but he also seems to often be on a different page from most of the others and from what I’d think most Republican primary voters are seeking.  It appeared that Rand Paul didn’t get that many chances to talk, but he may also have been the rare person on stage who was asked some more straightforward questions about policies.  As for the four candidates in the earlier pre-prime-time debate, while I agree much more with a couple of them than the others, I think that they all did a credible job of articulating their views and really should have a full chance to make their cases to the public along with the rest of those running for the nomination.  I’m not sure what debate arrangements would have been the most fair with the very large field this campaign cycle, but the two-tiered setup we’ve seen so far doesn’t seem ideal.

Conclusion

Some candidates definitely have much more reason than others to be pleased with their individual performances last Wednesday, but, in general, despite the way the debate was handled by CNBC, the GOP field may benefit from what happened at the event.  Besides managing to get at least a little substantive discussion of things like entitlement programs and tax reform onto the airwaves, the candidates pushed back against the negativity of the media (as represented by the moderators) and rallied support from a sympathetic audience, both in the venue and watching at home.  It will be interesting to see how things go for the group when they gather for debate number four in Milwaukee next week, so we will all have to stay tuned.

CNN Debate Impressions

The second major Republican presidential primary debate took place this past week at the Reagan Library in California.  After watching the lengthy event and reading just a small amount of the succeeding commentary and analysis, I’d like to share some thoughts about the debate in general and about quite a few of the individual candidates.  I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by now, but my take on some things was quite different from what I’ve read in various articles the last couple of days.  Perhaps I really am in a world of my own, but here are some views from that out-of-step planet.

General Observations

I understand that it must be very difficult to try to manage a debate such as this, with many  participants, high stakes, and lots of attention.  Still, some things about the way the event was conducted seemed rather problematic.  The allocation of time and questions among the candidates did not seem very fair.  It may make sense for the most prominent contenders to have more time than others, but the difference should not have been so vast, with some candidates barely getting a chance to speak.  This problem was exacerbated by the extended back and forth exchanges between sets of candidates that were requested by the moderator and by the lack of control the moderator seemed to have over the proceedings.  I would think that, in general, one rebuttal and one response per question would be more reasonable in a setting like this, and I did not think that so many interruptions should have been allowed.  Perhaps those hosting future debates will have to resort to muting people’s microphones if they persist in talking out of turn or speaking far longer than the allotted time.

Probably even more importantly, though, I thought that issues should have been brought up in a more straightforward way, with candidates having the chance to express their own opinions.  Instead, far too often, one candidate was asked either to give an opinion about what the questioner stated to be the position of one of the others, or to react to an opponent’s comments about him or her.  Also, in posing these questions and in following up on candidates’ responses, the moderators seemed to feel the need to summarize and interpret for us what the candidates had said, either during the debate we were actually watching or in previous interviews, statements, etc., and I took issue with this for two reasons.   First, it did not seem that the third-party portrayals of the candidates’ views and intentions were always correct.   Second, this technique seemed to be used more than once in an attempt to bring about more on-stage confrontations when some candidates had tried to be somewhat measured and indirect in speaking about their rivals, and this really seemed unnecessary.  (Paraphrased example:  Q:  Do you think Candidate X is unqualified to be president because of a lack of foreign policy knowledge?  A:  Well, you should ask Candidate X questions about foreign policy so that the voters can make an informed choice, as it is extremely important a president be prepared in this area.  Q:  So, Candidate X, Senator Y seems to be saying you don’t have the necessary knowledge to be president.  How do you respond?)

Having said all of these things about those conducting the debate, there certainly was plenty of food for thought in what actually happened on the stage over those several hours Wednesday.  So, I’ll move on to discussing some impressions related to the candidates themselves.

The Early Debate

The afternoon debate, seemed a bit more organized and balanced, as the four candidates had more of a chance to speak and also seemed more respectful of the parameters, such as time limits.  I think many of the things discussed during this session relate to important themes or trends affecting the race as a whole.

I have always been fond of Rick Santorum, and I appreciate the fact that, as he pointed out, he was involved in efforts to actually accomplish things such as welfare reform, confirmation of conservative judges, and passing pro-life legislation during his time in the Senate.  As he also mentioned, he differs from many others in the race regarding immigration, favoring more restrictions and opposing amnesty, positions that he says are taken with the intention of protecting American workers.  A couple of Santorum’s other points related to this theme, such as support for an increase in the federal minimum wage and his assertion that the Republicans have focussed too much on businesses and business owners, are not personal favorites of mine.  However, since many say that populism is one of the things driving the polling success of non-traditional candidates such as Donald Trump, one might think that Santorum’s concern for workers along with his immigration stance would benefit him in the current electoral climate, but he has so far been getting far less support in the polls than in his previous campaign -- is the fact that he actually has government experience just an automatic disqualifier for many voters right now?

As I’ve said before, I think that Bobby Jindal deserves more consideration in the race than he seems to be getting, and I liked much of what he said on Wednesday.  He defended his comments about Donald Trump not being a serious candidate and articulated criticisms of Democrats in interesting ways (such as pointing out that Barack Obama’s wants to have a war against trans-fats but make a deal with Iran).  In addition, Governor Jindal expressed frustrations conservatives have had with things on the Republican side, including judges who “evolve” and make liberal rulings and members of Congress who, even in the majority, seem unwilling to even fight for stated goals.  Senator Lindsay Graham, on the other hand, said that many of the things Republicans wish to accomplish cannot be done without also winning the presidency.  I think these contrasting attitudes merit some more thought and discussion among Republicans and conservatives, as we do need to avoid unrealistic expectations about what can actually be accomplished under certain circumstances while still striving to make our case to the people, bring about positive changes, and stop negative ones.

Scott Walker

Governor Walker did not get that many chances to speak, but I felt that he made full use of the opportunities he did have to make his points and bring up proposals that he has made.  I had read that the governor intended to take a “more aggressive” approach in this debate, and I was somewhat worried about what that might mean, but there was no uncharacteristic rude or obnoxious behavior.  He just seemed to be trying to get his share of time and to set the record straight.  When Donald Trump was criticizing Scott Walker’s record, I especially liked Walker’s response that, “Just because he [Trump] says it, that doesn’t make it true.”  Hopefully, people will finally realize that (but I’m not holding my breath.)  Governor Walker’s remark that we don’t need another “apprentice” in the White House, made in reference to Trump, was another good line.  All in all, I thought this was a much improved performance and a pretty good night for Governor Walker, but I don’t know if it will help him at all in the polls, especially since many seem to disagree with me.  Also, although it has been suggested that Walker needs to change to stand out in these debates, it is my opinion that sticking to being the nice guy, can-do Republican would work better for him.

Jeb Bush

Here again, I was glad that a more forceful approach to the debate did not manifest itself in any drastic ways.  Governor Bush did seem more energetic and had some good comebacks to Donald Trump without stooping to a low level, but I remain concerned about the impact this debate might have on his campaign, as he still seemed somewhat tentative  in making the case for his candidacy.  Of course, that may be somewhat understandable, since he seemed to have to spend most of his time fending off a lot of negative charges thrown his way -- many of them in questions about criticisms made by Donald Trump, who was standing right next to him.  I think that Gov. Bush may have been a little unsure what to do when Trump would just make statements or denials that Gov. Bush believed to be plainly untrue.

In relation to some particular exchanges from the debate that perhaps might be problematic for Mr. Bush, I’d make a few suggestions.  I would advise him to prepare a solid explanation about the women’s health care comment that supposedly was just so horrible, as it’s pretty ridiculous to hear Donald Trump gleefully harping about it while declaring that he, unlike Bush, respects women!
In an exchange about the nomination of Supreme Court justices, in which Governor Bush’s main point was the good one that presidents should nominate people with proven records of following the Constitution, he also made the statement that John Roberts has done a good job.  I think that he may have been thrown off by the way his interaction with Ted Cruz went, but, since he has said he disagrees with the Obamacare decisions, I think that he needed to qualify the compliment to point out that those rulings were incorrect.  (I will note that Senators Graham and Santorum did make some positive statements about Justice Roberts earlier in the evening, as well, so perhaps Gov. Bush’s comment won’t be as huge of a problem for him as I thought at first, before I had a chance to watch the afternoon debate.)

Finally, it seems to me that Jeb Bush does not need to be so afraid of being associated with his brother (or his father, for that matter.)  After listening for a while to Donald Trump once again bashing President George W. Bush’s administration and blaming him for Obama’s rise, poor Jeb Bush seemed almost like someone forced to do something that might have dire consequences when he finally asserted to Trump that his brother had kept us safe during his presidency.  I was glad to hear him say it, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one, but I wonder if Jeb Bush half expected the floor to open up and send him plummeting far away from the debate stage and any political future.  Saying something positive about the last President Bush is not an extreme or outrageous act, and I think that his brother will be able to more freely pursue his campaign if he can accept that.  Perhaps the fact that Governor Walker responded to Trump’s retort that he doesn’t really feel safe by chiming in to say that that is because of Barack Obama, not George W. Bush, will help in that regard.

Marco Rubio

I thought that Senator Rubio generally presented himself well and gave many good answers last Wednesday, but I did think there were a few things that made this debate a bit less successful for him than the first one.  Later in the evening, he seemed to be a little less smooth when delivering some responses.  Also, towards the end of the debate, I found myself thinking that he’d seemed pretty stern and serious much of the night, which is understandable, considering the gravity of the issues being discussed.  However, the Senator has expressed the intention to present an optimistic view in his campaign, and I think that that positivity, along with the good humor and winning smile he possesses, is an important part of his potential appeal to voters.

For me, there was one especially weak spot for Marco Rubio during the debate.  Donald Trump took a shot at Rubio’s Senate record, and I’m afraid that I didn’t think the Senator’s response was strong.  He seemed a little flustered to me, and I actually wasn’t really sure what reasons he was trying to articulate for having missed Senate votes, but I thought that he might be saying that he’d realized that Congress wasn’t really going to be able to accomplish what is necessary to help people, so he was leaving to run for president instead.  Based on an e-mail I received from his campaign the next day (in which they actually cited this part of the debate as one of their favorite moments, confirming, I suppose, how out of step I must be,) I guess that I did have the general idea correct, but I think that it is really quite sad.  Here we have a talented, conservative young member of the Senate apparently giving up on the institution after less than one term -- if he doesn’t think it’s even worth trying to improve the way things work in Congress, who will?  Besides, in any case, being a Senator is still his job right now, so I’m not sure how much of a justification his upcoming departure over a year from now provides for any lack of commitment to current job obligations.  He very well may have an explanation that, expressed more clearly, would defuse the issue, and, if so, I hope that he’ll provide it the next time he’s asked.

Those things being said, I do like Senator Rubio and think that he is a very strong candidate for the nomination.  Since a top-notch performance in the first debate didn’t seem to help him in the polls, I hope that this somewhat less successful one will not hurt him.

Ted Cruz

As I expected, Senator Cruz gave some strong answers during the debate -- when he was given a chance to speak, which did not seem to be all that often.  I’m not sure why, but I was a little surprised that he didn’t add his comments on a couple of extra occasions once it became clear that some candidates were being allowed to force their way into the conversation.  Of course, when he tried to ask for the opportunity to weigh in as a climate change skeptic, he was dismissed by the moderator, so maybe he should have just started talking instead of trying to be acknowledged.

I did have a bit of a problem with the way Senator Cruz handled his exchange with Jeb Bush about Supreme Court nominees.  I think it’s great that Cruz intends to nominate the people he believes to be the best and most reliable choices and to fight to get them confirmed.  When it came to discussing John Roberts, though, I thought that Senator Cruz should have acknowledged from the beginning, once Jeb Bush mentioned it the first time, that he had supported Roberts after he was nominated, even though he now feels it was a mistake.  Waiting until Governor Bush had repeated the point might have made the exchange less than helpful for both of them -- Cruz might be seen to have been less than straightforward in his comments about the issue, and, until the end, people might have been wondering whether Bush was not telling the truth about Cruz.

It’s a small observation, but Senator Cruz seemed to often have a very formal way of presenting his answers, delivering them as mini speeches directly to the close-up camera.  I wonder if that manner of speaking might not particularly connect with TV viewers, but I think people should pay much more attention to substance than to matters of style, as Ted Cruz is another very capable presidential candidate.

Ben Carson

Dr. Carson still seems like a very nice guy, but he did not help himself with me in this debate -- quite the opposite, actually.  I’ve said before that I don’t think a candidate without previous experience in office should get the nomination, but I now also have serious questions about the types of policies Dr. Carson might adopt.  I was especially concerned to hear that he did not even think that we should have gone after the terrorists in Afghanistan after 9/11 and that he thought we could have achieved what we wanted through some intellectual plan.  Also, even though he had very recently outlined a sort of “path to legal status for those people already here once the border is secure” type of immigration plan in an interview, when he was asked in the debate about Donald Trump’s expressed deportation approach, he just said he’d be willing to listen to different alternatives.  Has he not yet decided what he thinks would be the best approach, even with the prominence of the issue in this campaign?  Dr. Carson also seemed quite eager to point out that he, like Donald Trump, had opposed the Iraq war, and he also was on the same page with Trump’s comments about “special interest” contributions.  He may sincerely hold these latter views and still be open to persuasion about the best way to handle immigration, but it almost seemed like he might have been specifically trying to identify himself with Trump and/or his type of candidacy, possibly in the hopes of winning over some of Trump’s supporters.  Even if this was not  his intention, let’s just say that demonstrating agreement with Donald Trump on more issues is not going to move someone up on my list of preferred candidates.

Donald Trump

Once again, Mr. Trump spent much of his time insulting his opponents and making goofy faces, which some people may still find entertaining, but I think is quite tiresome.  During one of his first chances to answer a question, what was the point of gratuitously attacking Rand Paul for just being there, when he didn’t even have anything to do with the topic?  Mr. Trump did seem to at least attempt to answer more questions this time, so, who knows, he might have actually come across Wednesday more as a rather unprepared and rude political candidate than as some random guy who crashed the debate.

While Donald Trump has criticized other people for speaking Spanish during their campaigns, I think it’s interesting to note that others basically had to translate some of Trump’s points (attempted in English) during the debate.  Specifically, Senator Paul had to be the one to articulate why some scholars would believe that “birthright citizenship” for children of people not here legally has not been definitively ruled to be required by the 14th Amendment, and the moderator had to point out that, when Trump had said that Marco Rubio had the worst voting record in the Senate, he was referring to the Senator being absent during votes.

I’ve read some debate commentary expressing the opinion that Donald Trump’s remarks about vaccines could be particularly harmful to him, but I’m not so sure.  Dr. Carson had stated that no link has been demonstrated between vaccines and autism, and I would agree that it seemed rather awkward to hear Mr. Trump follow that immediately with an anecdote suggesting that a child he knew had become autistic after receiving a vaccine.  If the discussion of the issue had ended there, I’d say that more people might see it as putting Mr. Trump in a bad light.  However, afterward, both Dr. Carson and Senator Paul (also a doctor) essentially said that what Trump actually suggested should be done -- administering vaccines in smaller amounts at a time -- was a good idea!  So, I can see people, particularly those who already support him, responding to the exchange, “See, Trump was right again!”

I have no idea if anything that happened on Wednesday will affect Donald Trump’s standing in the race at all, as those who support him seem committed to doing so no matter what.  The way things have been going, since this debate performance might have been a little less terrible than the first one, he may even increase his lead.

Carly Fiorina

Plenty has been said about Carly Fiorina since Wednesday’s debate, so I’ll just make a couple of comments.  Ms. Fiorina definitely presented herself confidently and seemed to hold her own in exchanges with Donald Trump.  Her willingness to go into detail about the sorts of things revealed in the Planned Parenthood videos was noteworthy and welcome.  How can Democrats insist on funding an organization capable of such gruesome actions?

I must say, though, that by the end of the debate, I was a little perturbed by Ms. Fiorina’s behavior, as she repeatedly forced her way into the conversation when she hadn’t been addressed and continued speaking well past the allotted response times.  A little of this might be acceptable, and I understand that she was doing what she could to get her views heard by the public.  However, other candidates deserved the chance to speak, too, and I felt she overdid it.

In addition, now that Ms. Fiorina is getting more attention in the race and rising in the polls, I would like to hear more specifics about the policies and actions she would intend to pursue should she be elected.


Chris Christie

This is probably a backhanded compliment, but I’ve found listening to what Governor Christie had to say in both debates much less annoying than I might have expected based on what little I’d heard about him before.  Perhaps the presence of certain other personalities in the race has made him seem more reasonable in comparison.

Conclusion

The CNN Republican debate gave us the chance to hear and compare many of the candidates once again, but they did not all have equal opportunities to share their views.  It will be interesting to see how polling and media coverage develop in the coming weeks.  Hopefully, through other debates, interviews, speeches, and other means, the voting public will be able to get a more comprehensive understanding of the qualifications, proposals, strengths, and weaknesses of all of the candidates and make the best possible decision about the person who should ultimately win the nomination.  It seems the current wave of public sentiment is against me, but I am still hoping a solid and experienced member of the field will eventually be able to rise to the top.