Last night, the nation had the pleasure of witnessing 10 GOP candidates on one stage, vying for media attention, donor dollars, and voter attention spans. The assembled candidates vied to make an impression, with many, such as Ohio Governor John Kasich, who just entered the race less than two weeks ago, striving to have their voices heard over the 500 lb elephant in the tastefully decorated room of the GOP known as Donald Trump.
The 10 candidates was were selected from the overall field of 17, based on an average of the five most recent national polls, with seven candidates left out due to their low poll numbers. While the stage was crowded for both debates, the moderators managed to keep things on course, and ask the candidates pertinent questions. This is only worth noting given the criticisms of Fox News from numerous sources, as it speaks to the willingness of Fox to entertain journalistic standards of the Fourth Estate.
The crowded field of candidates included real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
An earlier debate at 5 p.m., dubbed by some as “The Happy Hour Debate”, featured the other seven candidates, consisting of former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.
While the initial debate GOP debate of the seven “lesser” candidate’s garnered positive ratings, over 24 million viewers watched the main debate. According to Nielsen, it was the highest rated primary debate since candidate debates became televised in 1960. While this debate did not offer the antagonism of the Kennedy/Nixon debates, it did offer a glimpse into the ongoing infighting between the GOP base and the additional adherents it has offered shelter.
While 10 candidates gathered onstage Thursday night, the main attraction, and the leader in the polls, reflected in his center position on stage, was Donald Trump. Riding high on a wave of anti-intellectualism, carried by an undercurrent of frustration with the glacial pace of political process, and buoyed by a populist anger directed at policies many within the GOP voting base consider intrusive and oppressive, Trump came into the debates with the media spotlight focused almost solely on his fine hairpiece and rampaging anecdotes.
However, while a press conference and a sound bite do not offer a chance for a rebuttal, or exploratory questions, the debate stage is an entirely different animal. Given his aggressive yet topical nature, Trump succeeded in meeting expectations, countering the staid expectations of GOP allegiance and lockstep campaigning with a bluster his brand remains famous for on TV, Twitter, or his best-selling books. This is not to say that Trump answered any lingering questions, or succeeded in countering growing doubts among the GOP party leaders. If anything, he may have deepened existing problems many perceive with a Trump candidacy.
While Trump often faces little counter-arguing during his appearances, the Fox News moderators came out forcefully against statements he made during the lead-up to the debate. Fox News Bret Baier asked the assembled candidates if there was anyone on stage who was unwilling to pledge their support to the winner of the GOP nomination, and additionally, not run an independent campaign against that candidate, which many could interpret as a pointed jab directed at Trump, given his aggressive claims as of late that he would seek his own candidacy outside the GOP should he fail to claim the nomination.
Trump unabashedly raised his hand and proclaimed that he would not make any such promises, given his prior comments on his willingness to create an Independent opposition should he lose the candidacy.
Additionally, while the crowded field of candidates reflects the overall demographics of the GOP, namely, male and white, with the sole female GOP candidate, Fiorina, relegated to the earlier debate, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked pointed questions of Trump, raising many of the questions asked of Trump regarding his verbal assault on numerous women, from political figures to contestants on his former show ‘The Apprentice’ and his lack of allegiance to either major party.
Kelly asked, “You’ve called women you don’t like, ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ slobs, and disgusting animals. (Trump interrupts)… It was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”
Trump interrupted to mention it was “Only Rosie O’Donnell”, but then followed it by essentially threatening Kelly, mentioning that he had been nice up to this point, but did not have to be going forward. While some in the crowd cheered his misogynistic dismissal, Trump has a long and storied history with verbally attacking women, and showing a callous disregard for women lurking behind the media sound bites and Twitter flame wars he has become noticeably famous for in the media.
Later on in the debate, Kelly asked Trump “When did you become a Republican?” prompting Trump to defer and ignore the implication that his candidacy is merely seeking a party to build off of, not because he is truly a GOP supporter.
In his time in the spotlight, where he has changed platforms and viewpoints with the deftness inherent to any true salesman, Trump aims for the controversial. Whether it is making racist and disparaging remarks about immigrants, illegal or non-illegal, or supporting outright lies, such as his stance claiming President Obama’s birth certificate was fake, Trump time and time again manages to court the media spotlight, content with the old adage, “There is no bad publicity”.
Given his behavior onstage Thursday, the new Trump is the same as the old Trump, courting the masses, while alienating those who disagree or fail to adhere to his confusing stances, such as his support of a single payer health care system, despite, the obvious and continual effort by the GOP to oppose such a measure.
Of particular note, despite the carping of this article and other media sources, is the continued resilience of Trump to exceed his perceived limitations and those crafted by his critics. According to online polls conducted by TIME, Slate, Twitter, and CNN, Trump won the debate. Granted, polls are merely a bellwether of those who choose to participate, but it is worth noting that despite the continued criticism of Trump, he remains popular among the GOP and independent voting base, if only for his willingness to break from the talking points and scripts that remain well-practiced in political primaries.
However, while Trump remains a media darling for the moment, there were nine other candidates onstage with him during the debate, and their performances cannot be overlooked.
While covering the performance of each candidate is a bit more than this particular article is willing to do, the assembled candidates showed flashes of why they are running for President, and there performances are worth exploring, if not in too much depth. Beyond Trump, the most appealing of the candidates appears to be a mixture of those already considered promising.
According to Google Trends, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush garnered the most after-debate searches, but a performance worth noting in the debate, beyond the spotlight hogging of Trump, had to be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Rubio appeared poised, and offered a bit of youth and verve, beginning with his remarks regarding the idea that the presidency should not be decided on resume alone, and finishing with his remarks about living paycheck-to-paycheck and paying student loans.
Rubio stated: “Who is Hillary Clinton to lecture me about living paycheck to paycheck … who is Hillary Clinton to lecture me about repaying students loans?” By making a remark to the possible Democratic frontrunner, Rubio is hoping to show the GOP voters that he offers the best chance to defeat Clinton, as he represents a younger generation, and his candidacy versus Clinton has a greater threat than any other candidate in the GOP to make it a new v. old discussion for the Presidency. According to Rubio, he is the future, and Clinton is a by-gone relic of an era whose time has passed.
On a night brimming with plenty of one-liners and testy exchanges, Rubio was able to rise above the bickering and bravado of the din he was surrounded by onstage. He was prepared, comfortable and most importantly, relatable, something that may not serve him successfully in seeking the candidacy in 2016, but it will help garner name-recognition and future success within the GOP.
Additionally, there were two notable arguments during the debate. In the first, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul battled over terrorism and civil liberties, with Christie accusing the senator of failing to understand the threat to the nation, with Paul sharply responding that Christie failed to understand the Bill of Rights, thereby infringing upon the privacy rights of American citizens. While their argument was interesting, it demonstrated that while each candidate offers competing positives, they remain unable to find a consensus at the upper levels of the GOP regarding policy.
Later, in the second argument, Christie tangled with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has presented himself as a defender of entitlements for workers and seniors as they argued about Social Security. Christie remains almost immovable regarding his position that Social Security needs severe cuts, or even a possible termination of the program to reduce government oversight and spending, a policy he may become loathe to explore beyond simple talking points if his candidacy continues into 2016.
While many considered the candidacy of Christie to be D.O.A., Christie made his best effort to stand out, despite the lingering issues during his time as governor of New Jersey. Christie performed admirably during the debate, elaborating eloquently, showing the passion that helped elect him in New Jersey, while also being aggressive without appearing angry.
While standouts performed admirably, the remaining candidates, depending on your views regarding their candidacy, performed below expectations. Jeb Bush came into the debate needing a strong performance, as the criticisms surrounding his gaffe on women’s health care followed him in the past week.
Bush, who hasn’t been in office for almost a decade, appeared a bit sluggish in the opening volleys of the debate. Given his false claims of economic growth in Florida during his time as governor, it would appear Bush still has a bit of rust to shake off before he can claim his assumed spot as the GOP candidate.
Bush certainly didn’t prove himself as the anointed frontrunner that many in the Republican establishment once believed him to be, as other candidates like Kasich and Rubio continue to eclipse him on domestic policy, and the name recognition that has carried him this far failing to solidify his faltering campaign. While many appear ready to hand him the candidacy out of sheer name recognition, Bush is ding his best to drop the ball and avoid becoming the newest jewel in a shiny new oligarchy.
Another of the candidates, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has consistently run alongside Bush and Trump atop polls, but his answers were forgettable. In his closing statement, Walker promised he was “aggressively normal,” stating what he perceives as a positive, while may considers his vanilla style of campaigning to be a detriment to his candidacy. While Walker provided no gaffes or missteps to derail his campaign, he also failed to produce a moment or statement that will help to differentiate him from the extremely crowded GOP field. Specifically, when Kelly threw him a softball on the Black Lives matter movement, and he deflected to talk about police training.The bland anti-union and anti-public education policies of Walker will do him little favors if he is incapable of elaborating on other issues in a way that appeals to voters.
There was also Ben Carson, undergoing his first candidacy for office and his first debate, coming off as almost sullen, or too-relaxed, as he barely spoke during the first hour of the debate. Carson seemed to rely on the worn tropes that garnered him initial support, but offered little elaboration on his actual policy ideas and platform beyond defending his foreign policy missteps and erroneous claims.
Offering a bit more comedy than the other candidates in his commentary, (besides Trump’s unintentional hilarity) specifically during the closing, Carson appears simply happy to be here, and his candidacy will likely fade as the campaign season continues to escalate. However, despite my own perspective on Carson, his poll numbers continue to remain high, and his candidacy could become a dark-horse contender if he can maintain the momentum.
Not to be forgotten is Rand Paul. Paul was quick with the biting zingers, and used the rest of the field for target practice, but he fumbled questions about Iran and foreign aid to Israel, ignoring the missteps of his rivals onstage and failing to capitalize on his own previously stated counter policy points. Currently engulfed by a campaign funding investigation that has netted a few of his close associates, Rand needed to do more than appear as the smartest person in the room, and his performance did little to bolster his campaign. Rand always appears happiest when he can become the focus, something he was unable to do last night with the stage filled to capacity and the interest of the media and moderators on other candidates.
Finally, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Gov. of Arkansas Mike Huckabee made up the middle performances at the debate, while offering an interesting, yet divergent duality. Both present themselves as compelling figures competing to be the social conservative vote darling. Cruz tried to offer more of the same couched language that speaks to the party faithful on his end of the spectrum, while Huckabee continued his assault on liberal policy and progressive legislative efforts, aiming to draw in more of the religious right who feel abortion, gay marriage and birth control are the biggest issues facing the U.S. Neither did much to improve their standing or become a noticeable figure in this crowded milieu.
The odd man out at the beginning of the debate was John Kasich. The Ohio governor was the lowest polling candidate among the 10 candidates who made the cut, although this is in part due to his candidacy only becoming official July 21. Kasich’s statements on gay marriage and the AHA helped garner him massive applause form the hometown crowd in Cleveland, but they also showed that not every member of the GOP is immovable on issues regarding healthcare and gay marriage.
However, his time as an unknown quantity is over, and he will enter the next debate with a larger target on his back as his opponents become familiarized with his rhetoric on policy issues. Additionally, his religious rationale may turn off some voters, however, his justification is resoundingly eloquent and thought provoking in a unchanging GOP field littered with the same old policy ideas.
While the debate served to expose a few weaknesses among the candidates, it offered more of the same rhetoric from all of the candidates. As noted by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, in the most re-tweeted commentary during the debate, “It’s over. Not one word about economic inequality, climate change, Citizens United or student debt. That’s why the Rs are so out of touch.” The candidates said a lot, but about not very much. While it easy to critique their performances, it is troubling that the critique is how they said it, not what they said.
Too often, much of the rhetoric and policy put forth in these debates does little to elaborate on the true plans each candidate has if they were to become elected to the Presidency. While the race continues to 2016, the need to condense the field, and start conversing about real issues is becoming all the more apparent as the circus continues onstage. The media circus and fundraising/cult of personality function of politics is indicative of a changing environment that has turned political office into just another form of celebrity, with a focus on who they are, not what they represent. The vapid nature of political office has become a naturalized behavior within the U.S. electorate, and this debate serves as evidence of the continual march towards irrelevancy by many of the candidates.
In the future, as the field becomes smaller, the remaining candidates should allow for better elaboration as time limits and relevant issues become lengthier and of greater interest. This however, remains dependent on the GOP field becoming narrowed to those concerned with policy, not just bombastic statements coupled with racist/sexist ideologies to pander to the cheap seats.
In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with enjoying the media spectacle that now constitutes the GOP presidential hopefuls. So draw up a drinking game, or just take bets on who gaffes first, but try not to take any of it too seriously, as it appears the candidates are not either.
The Orotund Opinion 