View on the News

In election 2016, the GOP horses have left the starting gate

Christopher Curran
Posted 8/13/15

Last Thursday, the long-awaited Republican Fox News debates transpired. The aspiring 17 candidates attempted to distinguish themselves. As a result of their efforts, some held their ground, some were …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the News

In election 2016, the GOP horses have left the starting gate

Posted

Last Thursday, the long-awaited Republican Fox News debates transpired. The aspiring 17 candidates attempted to distinguish themselves. As a result of their efforts, some held their ground, some were exemplary, and some were tepid and innocuous, while one in particular was a target for one of the moderators and consequently reacted with his customarily juvenile retorts.

The first debate of a long primary season is an opportunity to shine and capture the attention of not only the voting public but also the financiers of political campaigns. Therefore, the gravity of a candidate’s response can halt or propel forward one’s quest for the highest office in the land. Anxiety can disable a usually issue-fluent candidate and afflict him or her with a nervousness that appears to the viewer as dullness or incompetence.

In these forums, different candidates will exhibit their narrowness by harping on the same issue over and over.

Which current contender will fall by the wayside and soon be classified as a former candidate, and who will rise from the improbable to the possible? These debates provided us with the clues to answer those questions however time and perception will ultimately tell the tale of who might possibly be our next president. Realistically, these forums were the true starting gate of a long horse race.

The first debate of the evening last Thursday involved the bottom seven polling candidates. It was dubbed the “Happy Hour” debate, while the top 10 candidates participated in what was deemed the “Prime Time” debate at 9 p.m. Even though the 5 p.m. scheduled forum was slated at a time that usually yields miniscule ratings, surprisingly the lower-tier debate garnered almost 6 million viewers. Incredibly, the 9 p.m. forum gained an astronomical 24 million viewers.

Without question, the clear winner of the “Happy Hour” debate was businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Her answers were concise about not only domestic issues, but also foreign affairs. She also artfully posed pertinent questions about frontrunner Donald Trump’s inconsistency on the issues of amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion and health care, citing past statements.

Additionally, Fiorina adroitly portrayed likely Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton as deceitful and untrustworthy. Thus, she exhibited how she would act in a head-to-head match with the former secretary of state.

Her opponents were lackluster by comparison. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal simply repeated elements of his stump speech no matter what he was asked. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham nervously rejected the premise of virtually question and responded with a warmonger’s diatribe on how we should inundate the Middle East with American troops. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum was a “one-trick pony” and redundantly spoke against legal abortion. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry displayed an unearned arrogance by constantly referring to the economic record in Texas. However, what he did not mention is that the Texas governor’s chair is the weakest constitutionally in the nation. Therefore, he was personally responsible for very little of the success experienced by our largest contiguous state. Former one-term Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore seemed half asleep and uninterested. Former New York Gov. George Pataki appeared uneasy, as if he was applying for a job at a Human Resources Department. He kept reciting his CV as the viewing audience was waiting for his salary requirements.

On the contrary, the “Prime Time” debate was more provocative and provided greater insight into the candidates. Moreover, the forum displayed the possible palatability of several candidates.

Unfortunately, a moderator of the debate also strategically sandbagged frontrunner Donald Trump. Fox anchor Megyn Kelly posed questions to Trump regarding past disparaging statements about his former spouses and comedian Rosie O” Donnell. This was an attempt to paint the Donald as a misogynist, and her interrogatives exceeded the bounds of a standard news questioner and stepped into the realm of accuser. Rather than meet the inappropriate with indignity, Trump was callous in response. Additionally, he was adolescent in further remarks he made on social media after the debate. The incident steered the dialogue in a superfluous direction and succeeded in depicting Trump as petty and petulant.

Kelly relegated herself by sensationalizing what could have been an opportunity to promote real discourse with the current frontrunner.

Second-place polling politician Jeb Bush came across as bland and relatively unenthusiastic. His responses were matter-of-fact and trite, with an obvious concentration on not making any errors rather than cultivating any new ideas. He also spoke a great deal about his governorship in Florida. He tried to present the Sunshine State as a successful microcosm for the nation.

Meanwhile, union adversary and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker expressed that he was “in line with everyday America,” whatever that means. He also was challenged about abortion rights in regard to a possible run against Hillary Clinton, should he gain the nomination. His response was conservative Republican boilerplate.

Also addressing the abortion issue was minister and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He cited the strength of the fifth and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution as tools to thwart legal abortion. He also piqued the ears of many by gruesomely comparing the biological exponents of abortion to the “parts of a Buick.” Thus, he portrayed himself as another myopic, single-issue candidate, only in a more graphic manner.

Brilliant and unpredictable, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz improved his public perception by speaking rationally about the radical Islamic threat and citing legislation he had proposed aimed at the problem of Americans who join our enemies. Reasoned and not reactionary, Cruz abandoned his sometimes radical notions for practical proposals. He undoubtedly helped himself.

Surgeon Ben Carson, who no one seems to understand why he is running, came across as strongly out of place. He seemed to not know what the “Syrian Red Line” was and deflected the question by giving an unrelated, nonsensical answer. His closing statement had some merit, although still not enough to know why he is in the race.

In a wrestling match between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Christie seemed practical and cautious regarding the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. Whereas, Rand Paul expressed his extreme libertarianism and his inability to think beyond his core Tea Party beliefs, and condemned Christie for his support of monitoring communications of possible terrorists. Christie won this imbroglio by personalizing the issue, expressing the appropriate sentiment, and well reflecting on 9/11. Christie improved his standing by abandoning his usual incivility for strong advocacy of reasoned national security.

In my opinion, the clear winners of this debate were Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Kasich seemed commanding and at ease. He personalized an answer about gay marriage and endeared himself by doing so. His other answers were confident and sometimes self-deprecating and engaging. He strongly increased his profile positively.

Similarly, Rubio managed to refer to his modest roots while simultaneously answering policy questions in a cogent and informative fashion. When addressing the Iran nuclear situation, he correctly denounced the negotiated deal and announced his intention to strengthen sanctions. Thus, he showed his acumen regarding foreign policy. One cannot escape the conclusion that a Kasich/Rubio ticket might be the best Republican chance of victory in the general election next November.

All in all, these first debates were the starting gates to a long race on an arduous track. Whoever your horse may happen to be now, the following debates will see candidates “throwing shoes” by the missteps of their responses. When the prevailing candidate reaches the winner’s circle, then a whole new race will start, with the White House as the finish line.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here