The Republican “debate”
Well, that was different.
My impressions:
John Kasich: A snooze. I have no idea why he is one of the top 10.
Chris Christie: Didn’t enhance his standing, which is already low. He just doesn’t wear well.
Ben Carson: I thought he showed a nice relaxed sense of humor and was also hard-hitting at times, and acquitted himself well. Whether it’s well enough to move up in the rankings I haven’t a clue. Obviously an intelligent man.
Mike Huckabee: The same people who supported him before will continue to support him.
Jeb Bush: Dreadful. I didn’t like him to begin with, but it seems to me he should lose support because of his weak and mealy-mouthed showing here. He came across as a liberal, which is not going to appeal to the GOP electorate this year of all years.
Rand Paul: No, no a thousand times no. Although the libertarians who like him will continue to like him.
Scott Walker: A bit weaker than expected, and somewhat dull, but about halfway through he started to do better and better and had a strong finish. That midwestern blandness makes it hard for him to shine in the prize-fight-like venue.
Marco Rubio: I thought he did better than expected. Solid but not fabulous.
Ted Cruz: I have always thought him smart and articulate, and a fighter. As a seasoned debater, he’s very polished, perhaps a little too polished. But I think he was probably the winner in this particular debate, clear and focused, and avoided a descent into attacking the others or seeming mean-spirited.
Donald Trump: Yes, I saved him for last. I have no idea what Trump supporters thought of his performance; I’m not a Trump supporter, although I understand how sick people are of political business as usual. I tried, when watching him, to evaluate him as though I didn’t already think him a narcissistic blowhard. I don’t know whether I succeeded in being objective. But it seemed to me that he did very poorly. The format emphasized his worst traits, and made him seem formulaic, full of himself, unnecessarily and reflexively combative, and emphasized the more problematic stances he’s taken in the past: single payer healthcare, contributions to the Clinton Foundation, throwing around his money to get political favors, coming late to the Republican Party (and party).
UPDATE 11:52: Fox commentators seem to think that Bush and Christie did well. I beg to differ. Perhaps they’re just trying to boost them both, but I don’t know what Republican voters they’re talking to.
“The format emphasized his worst traits, and made him seem formulaic, full of himself, unnecessarily and reflexively combative, and emphasized the more problematic stances he’s taken in the past: ”
Bear in mind, I’m no fan of Trump. But I came away from this debate more suspicious of Fox News’ motives than I expected. For two reasons. In regards to Trump, it looked like the entire debate (format and questions) was designed to 1) take the wind out of Trump’s sails and to 2) prop up Jeb. I could have sworn they kept tossing the questions at Jeb while marginalizing the rest, or in the case of Trump, seeking to ridicule him.
I came away from this debate with a lot less respect for Fox News and Megyn Kelly in particular. And I don’t even care for Trump. I’m a Walker/Cruz/Fiorina guy.
James Sullivan:
Yes, I didn’t like the format (I never do, in debates, especially with a large number of participants).
But the bottom line is that a candidate must be able to rise to the occasion. Trump lowered to the occasion.
Neo: Your list of Trump’s flaws missed a big one: refusing to promise not to mount a third party run. That’s a big one for me. He does not belong on the Republican stage, or running for the Republican nomination. He should go.
Oh, I don’t disagree with you regarding Trump. I just think that Fox, and Megyn Kelly in particular (though I have always loathed Chris Wallace) lowered themselves too.
It was like a headhunting mission. It’s one thing to let Trump hoist himself on his own petard. Something else to look like they’re out to trip up the lead horse.
Debates are closer to televised propaganda, like reality tv shows.
Conservatives should never completely trust Fox News on Republican primaries. They are not as liberal as much of the rest of the media, but there is some “Establishment” pull there I think….
…in some ways that is part of “Fair and Balanced”….
F:
I was referring to the flaws in his past. That was a flaw that was revealed tonight, a flaw for the future. I have long worried that he would go third-party, because I have seem him as a Ross Perot figure in many ways.
I had all sorts of insightful comments, but neo pre-empted them entirely, and definitely more succinctly.
I rated every answer from 1-10 and Cruz gave a 10 every time.
Huckabee was close to that, and although I really like him as a person I really am suspicious of his politics.
Rubio was a great performer, and said the right things. Like Huck, he was wonderful (but I wonder).
Fox did an amazing job. So much came out, and the questioners were excellent.
There will not be, and cannot be, a similar experience with the leftists who want to be president.
Trump and Bush were the big, big losers.
Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio are the stand-outs tonight.
So will Fiorina be in “first tier” by the next debate?
jon baker:
I sincerely hope so. I have long thought that if more people could see and hear her, her stock would go up. We’ll see.
Totally off-topic, but yay: Sen. Charles E. Schumer announced his opposition Thursday night to President Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran
I will be interested in the actual time each candidate spoke.
I suspect Fox gave Cruz the least (obviously subjective, maybe re-inforced by Kelly blunting rebuffing him to respond to a question). Yet Cruz seems to have made a good impression.
I have read that Jindal did well tonight.
If Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio and Jindal are the primary debaters in this race, the race is in the best hands we could have.
If Trump wants to run as an independent, he’s got a pretty tough row to hoe: http://ballot-access.org/2014/11/13/2016-national-presidential-ballot-access-requirements-are-lower-than-in-2012/. Not that it can’t be done, but he might have to use lawyers to bend a few rules. Oklahoma is particularly tough.
Bush was boring and obviously danced around his support for common core, his softness on immigration, and as you say, seemed to be a liberal while believing the audience was too dumb to see through his blandness
FIX News seems to want to promote him as the best bet- the same losing formula every time. A polite loser who straddles every issue and never makes a clear statement about anything, while exuding a condescending presence – that suggests he’s tolerating all these formalities until Karl and Reince ram him down everyone’s throat.
In case it’s not obvious, I can’t stand him and think he would be unable to balance a budget because he’s too big hearted and too big minded to tick off any constituency. In other words, a pure politician without a single risk taking brain cell in his big fat head.
Ann; this statement says a lot about Chuck:
“He made his announcement in a statement posted on Medium, the online forum, and at a time when much of the political world was focused on the GOP presidential primary debate in Cleveland.”
Chuck is a bit of a weenie. That guy has never met a camera he didn’t like; but, this, he has to sort of hide? What a weenie.
James Sullivan: I generally was impressed with the thoughtful handling of Fox and the questioners. They made it intriguing and entertaining.
I was initially angry at the snubbing of Cruz.
But it turns out Fox was objectively beneficial to Cruz.
Trump and Bush busted.
Probably a coincidence, but Cruz is getting good coverage on Fox in the aftermath.
Neo: Ok, you’re right about past positions and newly revealed truth. I agree with your analysis of the entire show except for Rand Paul. I still like his irreverence and his commitment to the founding fathers. Ok, he’s wacky at times, but for me it’s honorable wackiness. Unlike some of the others on that stage.
Ann: I saw the announcement about Schumer and my first thought was “be still my heart.” Then I reflected a little and realized that this probably means he has counted the D votes and reached the conclusion he can vote “no” and the results will still not be veto-proo. I recognize that his stance might — and I emphasize the tentative nature of that word — might influence some other Ds. But I think he’s made the count and come to the conclusion that the deal will still pass without him or the one or two Ds who will be influenced by his vote.
Bottom line: write your Senator. Put as much pressure on them as you can. Get your family and friends to do the same. Tell your liberal friends Schumer is against the deal and encourage them to push their Senator to do the same. Push them. They need to hear from you. And write your editors. Please. This deal is bad beyond belief.
Tonawanda,
Really? I honestly came away with exact opposite impression. What little respect I’d given Fox was squandered tonight.
Ann and F:
I wrote about Schumer here:
Frank Luntz’ focus group called Cruz, Rubio, and Huckabee as the top performances. Many were surprised by the good sense and good humor of Ben Carson, the political tyro. Many were Trump supporters going in and he lost most of them.
Paul didn’t hurt himself with libertarians, but he probably didn’t help himself with non-libertarians.
Walker was good, but did not stand out. Jeb Bush was Jeb Bush – nice guy, but not the fire in the belly and he doesn’t explain his policies clearly. Christie and Kasich didn’t hurt themselves but probably will not get a bump.
The polls will probably not line up with the Luntz focus group.
Carly should get a sizable bump and be on big stage in the next go round.
The big loser? The Donald.
starlord: I understand and respect what you are saying about the seeming deference to Bush.
Trump and Walker had 9 periods of substantive speaking.
Bush had 8.
Cruz and Rubio had 6.
If anything, I think Fox had a fine sense of quality over quantity.
My initial anger over the “snubbing” of Cruz has been replaced by my sense that Fox understood who needed how much time to show themselves.
Funny. I thought Bush did just fine.
I don’t think the format helped Walker. His answers were succinct; ok, but almost too brief. I would hope that he would do better in a 1 on 1.
Cruz is sharp. We knew that.
Huckabee sounded fine; I just don’t see him as a President.
Kasich is just a little strident. He has the credentials but may not be able to sell himself.
Paul certainly did not help himself.
Carson is a fine and very intelligent person. He needs to convince me as to why he should be President.
Christie was better than I expected. I thought he fell back into his bullying ways vs Paul. Some people thought that was his high point.
Rubio just does not resonate with me. Nice smile; smooth talker. Come back when you have some seasoning Marco.
I was worried about Trump. No longer. If anyone still sees that bullying, undisciplined clown as Presidential, they should think again. I do worry that there are enough angry people who would follow him to a third party to hand the election to the Dems.
Disappointed in FNC. That has been developing for awhile. Really disappointed in Megyn; and that has been coming on. Bret Baier was ok, but tended to get a little giddy at times. I have never cared for Wallace. They really need more Brit Hume.
neo:
Rand Paul: No, no a thousand times no. Although the libertarians who like him will continue to like him.
Breaking a promise not to comment, here goes. I’m with you on Rand Paul now. His flat tax proposal is nothing more than a VAT tax in disguise. He told Rush Limbaugh privately that the Republican Party had to “evolve” to include a changing demographic and changing views on social issues. Were he simply a doctrinaire libertarian I could approve even while taking some exception in foreign policy. But he is tailoring his views to what he thinks will elect. He has become just another cheap politician and is untrustworthy. You were and are right.
starlord: I re-read your post to reconsider. I realize we all have different perspectives, but I do think Fox gave both Bush and Trump enough rope to hang themselves.
To my mind, from the perspective of a neo reader (obviously my own subjective opinion) it was impossible to take any point away from Cruz on any answer, whether the political, intellectual or moral ground.
I never thought I would say this. Live political tv actually seemed profoundly intelligent.
Nice to see you Other Chuck.
We all need to stick together.
The even keel centers.
Paul is finished. Maybe Christie too. Bush sinks.
Next debate with Carly in the top crowd should be exciting!
I have seen lots of negative comments re the questions. They were excellent. Hard hitting and adversarial in a good way. Playing Devil’s Advocate gets the truth out. We don’t want softball questions.
Best debate ever.
Drudge poll showing Trump won by a wide margin. I despair for this country. I do not think I have ever seen a less Presidential performance; and I saw Al Gore.
Maybe Trump bought a bunch of voters.
Cornhead: as usual, great comment.
Playing Devil’s Advocate gets the truth out. We don’t want softball questions.
These Fox folks (and their team) spent many hours on this.
The left cannot and will not do this. They do not have the character and integrity.
The real significance of this debate is the utter professionalism.
That is the message. When will the body parts of babies become a topic of concern?
Old Flyer:
Drudge poll is not a poll. It’s an online poll that can be gamed by a group. In 2012, it was consistently won by Ron Paul.
Have to disagree on Trump. He got hit with questions designed to destroy him and he threw them right back at the Fox crew. They were out to get him and they failed.
He was aggressive, combative and fought back hard.
Huckabee was better than I expected, as was Christie.
Carson impressed me more than I expected. He didn’t put a foot wrong. I really liked his response on the “gotcha” water-boarding question.
Bush and Kasich are in the yawn category.
Rand Paul blew it and he knows it.
Liked Cruz and Walker. Strong conservatives.
Rubio talks the talk but I don’t trust anyone in the “gang of eight”.
Trump was trying to pull a Gingrich with the moderators but he is not nearly as politically adroit as Newt. It backfired.
I was not pleased with the moderators but then I’m an old fogey. Probably yearning for Nixon/Kennedy with Howard K. Smith as the moderator. Same old BS but with a certain dignity.
MY COMMENT ON THE COMMENTS
Jimmy J – THANKS for the excellent summary!
“Trump and Bush were the big, big losers.” AGREED. Bush was slippery, and could toss read meat to party hardcore. “Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio are the stand-outs tonight.” YES. But as neo acknowledged, Walker got better in the second half. And as FNC hosts noticed, Carson got more milage from his final two answers than anyone else did from all their earlier replies.
Tonawanda says, “If anything, I think Fox had a fine sense of quality over quantity.” DITTO that. As I posted at the end of the other thread, I found the FNC formate entertaining, requiring seat of the pants intelligence that few such events succor. It made it tough for me to root or filter – as I think neo did – and let me see old and newer voices afresh!
Oldflyer says, “They really need more Brit Hume.” Indeed – Brit is a close to a Walter Cronkite figure (to date my youth) as there is in TV news, today. The man carries gravitas in a medium mostly drained of it (save Krauthammer, 90% of the time).
Oldflyer despairs of the Drudge online poll results – all Trump (by 45% last look – Cruz 13, Rubio and Carson around 10%). I’m sure these are reflexive initial responses.
I listened via radio the first time, and liked Trump more – or many of his answers and attitude better.
Later, watching the last-half of the late-night replay on Fox, I can easily appreciated the Luntz group’s total turn-around and turn-off: Trump looks petulant among the pros! This didn’t hit me earlier, listening by radio. The stage presentation format did diminish both Trump and Bush
PatD is thoughtful and specific: Trump “was aggressive, combative and fought back hard. Huckabee was better than I expected, as was Christie.” ….Eeew, maybe. I have high aversion towards Christie (eg, his GOP convention speech in 2012), however.
But susequent polling and momentum carried into the next rounds will matter much more than this debut.
To wrap it, let me echo Cornhead by quoting: “the [FNC] questions…were excellent. Hard-hitting and adversarial in a good way. Playing Devil’s Advocate gets the truth out. We don’t want softball questions. Best debate ever.” For me, too.
There was a lot of little drama and urgency amidst the frolic and pseudo-convention festivities. This year’s presidential campaign start comes as a great relief, instead of the urgent, slow, depressing slog, like 2011s autumn was.
If only because Rubio’s closing line was so consummately spot on: “I think God has blessed us. He’s blessed Republicans with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”
Ymarsakar Says:
August 6th, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Yep. A “debate” is a format in which a statement is posed, such as “RESOLVED: XYZ.”
One side takes the “pro” position and the other side takes the “con” position. They then go back and forth offering arguments and rebuttals of the other side’s arguments.
A forum in which ten political candidates give brief answers to random questions thrown at them by media celebrities can be called many things, but it is in no way, shape, or form a “debate”.
Over at Powerlineblog, reading comments after Mirengoff’s nice analysis, I came across a reader who used the Fox News debate app to score the candidates performances!
Sure enough, a search shows such a device here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/05/have-your-say-on-fox-news-facebook-debate-event-night-with-election-hq-2016-app/
This ought to be of interest to readers here, too.
Unfortunately for me, it’s iPhone and Android compatible only – nothing for WP8 users, like me (DON’T LAUGHT – we’re 10% of the market…in Europe)!
Donald Trump: I Have Never Gone Bankrupt
https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/29505568/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=29505568&type=VideoPlayer/16×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017
Carly handling a media shill:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/watch-carly-fiorina-shut-chris-matthews-down-in-post-debate-interview-video/
Very good!
All:
If you can find it, check out the 10 plus minutes of Carly on Morning Joe on Friday. One of the best interviews ever. She hit a grand slam. She might even earn Mikka’s vote. Must see. Very impressive.
The thing about Carly is she will get many votes from women if it is a close call along with the pure identity voters.
And she is even better in person.
I thought, whatever else you may think of him, Trump showed his skill as a negotiator. If he fails to support another Republican candidate and goes third party, Hillary wins. Republicans have to be very concerned about that. Huckabee surprised me, in that I agreed with his responses. I saw no reason to want to vote for Bush, who showed himself to be big government, nor would I want to vote for Christy.
The high point of my evening was the results Carly got from her performance in the pre-debate.
This is the kind of women that support feminism, hillary, etc… (so the bearing it has on this thread is what may happen if one of those republicans lose, and maybe even if they win)
These Hillary Supporters Want Her to Repeal the Bill of Rights if She’s Elected President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=71&v=eiZFXkmofgI
there is no way this republic can survive when they dont even know what exists…
“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
― Thomas A. Edison
“Five percent of the people think;
[and are hated by the rest]
ten percent of the people think they think;
[but get angry if you point out they dont]
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.
[but they will kill you if you illustrate material denser than a neutron star material]”
― Thomas A. Edison
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Sé¸ren Kierkegaard
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin
John Steinbeck
“Sometimes a man wants to be stupid if it lets him do a thing his cleverness forbids.”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
double face palm..
I didn’t see the debate, but I heard a few highlights this morning. It seems like Fox did a really poor job.
Trump apparently wasn’t in his element in a debate, which puts him such esteemed company as the last two Presidents we’ve had. But I think outside of that format, despite being a narcissistic blowhard (a charge I doubt even he would deny) he is totally pwning the media and the other Republicans. I don’t really think he’s a great candidate, but I’m very glad he’s in the race. Aside from loving the attention, he might genuinely be in it just to try to make the other candidates more honest.
I thought his comment about him driving the conversation on immigration is spot-on. Neither party wants to change the status quo, and I would imagine most of the candidates, especially Bush and Rubio don’t want attention being drawn to this fact.
I also heard some dynamite sound clips from Carly Fiorina from the “kids’ table” debate yesterday and am very disappointed she’s not gaining more traction, especially given the presence of the limp noodles in at the “grown-ups’ table” (*cough*Bush*cough*).
double face palm..
Built-in the neocortex.
The only true convincing argument is fear.
These debates aren’t really debates. I would prefer a series of several candidates talking to each other for an hour or more. Gingrich wanted this type of Lincoln-Douglas style the last time he ran.
Fiorina again impressed. I certainly hope she gets to play in the next big boys debate.
The Bushes all come across as weak and inarticulate. Jeb! didn’t disappoint in that regard, weak, weak, weak.
Cruz is my fav and he gave a solid performance. The next Republican president needs to be extremely intelligent in order to battle the left and the bureaucracy to get the necessary changes done. Cruz is that man.
Rubio is always very fluid and articulate. I see why he is appealing.
Walker gave a good performance. He grows on you. My first view of him during the leftist assault on him was that he was too low key. But he is a tough guy and a winner.
Trump in these settings doesn’t impress. He is still useful for injecting issues into the body politic though.
In defense of Kasich, we tried the anti yawn Obama who had no experience or credentials. Kasich has the record, credentials and experience to actually do the job.
From someone who doesn’t have the stomach, time or patience to watch first-hand, I appreciate Neo’s excellent summary and all the comments too. Thanks!
I live in Ohio, and I consider myself a pretty staunch conservative.
I will state this plainly. I will NOT vote for Kasich. Kasich, Bush, Christie, and Graham are the candidates I would absolutely not vote for, regardless of whether or not they are the nominee.
Kasich lost the battle with the public sector unions here, and since has drifted further and further left. He finally lost me when he took the ACA money for medicaid expansion. Swore I’d never vote for him again, regardless of office.
I would contend that he does NOT have the record or credentials to be anything other than another lukewarm candidate, and will be a go along to get along President.
Rubio was the most impressive of the 9pm debaters. Very impressive. Pair him with Condi Rice or Carly and byotch slappin’ Hillary is no problem. Not to mention they’re two hugely bright, tough and qualified women.
___________________________________
Donald was beyond thuggish, willful, narcissistic, spoiled, childish, a whiner-martyr-victim at the drop of a dime and his value(s)is this: DONALD. Period. Rand Paul was way, way outta his league and petty as hell besides.
The job, is it. Now which job is that, fighting a war against foreign and domestic enemies or the job of running a large country in peace?