Trump Card- The Free-For-All at the Second GOP Debate

Trump Card- The Free-For-All at the Second GOP Debate

In our youth, we played a version of football that we called “Smear the Queer” which, in other areas of the country, was called “Get the Goat”, “Maul the Man”, or other such monikers. The football was thrown high in the air and whoever caught it became the target of everyone else, who would jump on the ball carrier until he coughed it up, and then the next kid with the ball became the target, etc., etc., etc. Essentially, it was a kid’s game which melded football with a juvenile version of a “Free for All”…

Last night, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, CNN hosted the political equivalent of our childhood game with a twist- the “ball” didn’t change hands, for the most part, and everyone- including the moderators piled on Donald Trump. This was by design. Almost half of the questions, in both the preliminary and main events, were aimed at “the Donald”, whether directly or indirectly. When the moderators were not targeting Trump, per se, they were setting the candidates against one another and even then, many of these match-ups eventually became focused on the GOP front-runner. To the shame of CNN, not a single question asked any of the candidates what they would do differently than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, nor any of the Democrats- none.

As for “the Donald” himself, he did a plausible job in fending off the attacks, such as they were. As was suspected, he appeared to have come into the debate unprepared to delve into the specifics of how he intends to tackle the larger issues confronting the country, and instead put forth broad generalities and thematic grandiosities, along the familiar and off-stated lines of his campaign…essentially sizzle without much substance. It is uncertain as to whether or not his performance will matter much- especially to his loyal following. Our guess is, however, that last night’s debate performance will do little to add to this following.

As was the case in the first GOP debate last month, it was Carly Fiorina who prevailed with the best overall performance during the evening’s two-heat debate. She only made one tiny mistake (and this is a stretch) the entire night when she failed to say her name during the initial introductions- the only candidate to do so. After that, when she spoke, she was absolutely on fire. Whether it was responding to Trump’s comments in a previous interview concerning her looks, assessing her own record of accomplishments in the private sector, outlining specifics on how best to handle threats from overseas and specifics as to how she intends to build up military and naval forces, and how she views the Iran deal and organ harvesting at Planned Parenthood, she was direct, pointed and thoroughly substantive in her responses. In a word, she seemed more than anyone else, “ready” to assume the presidency right then and there and handle the job with much aplomb and self-confidence. As a result, look for Carly to substantially rise in the polling prior to next month’s third GOP debate.

Marco Rubio, for his own part, turned in a fine performance revealing the depth of his understanding- particularly in the areas of foreign policy and national security- of the issues at hand. He came across as a serious, focused and vigorous candidate, and his smooth delivery reminded us of the man whose plane they all stood in front of at the Reagan Library. His numbers, too, may rise as a result.

Jeb Bush, who came into the debate a half dozen yawns from being obliterated by Trump, turned in a solid performance- tactfully taking on “the Donald” and showing that he does, indeed, have some degree of fire in his belly to assert himself and show a not-so-programmed persona as he had previously shown in the first debate. While he nobly took up for his wife concerning the comments Trump had previously made as to how being married to a Latino affected his view of immigration policy, Bush’s call for a face-to-face apology came across as shrill and school-boyish. He did, however,  a fine job defending Trump’s attacks against his brother, reminding everyone that George Bush managed to keep us safe in the seven years that followed the attacks on 9-11.

Chris Christie also turned in a strong performance and, at one point, took over managing the debate where CNN so egregiously failed, when he chided Trump and Fiorina about their mini-spat on who had accomplished more (or less) in the business world, instead of focusing on the plight of America’s middle class, reminding them that the television audience doesn’t care about their respective resumes.

Going into the debate, Ben Carson was riding a surge of popularity and while his performance last night was satisfactory, it was less than inspired and may well mark the apex of his candidacy. His charm and easy demeanor remained intact, but the less-than-substantive policy positions seemed as hollow as those of Trump.

Where they were able to get a word in edgewise, the remaining candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Scott Walker did well enough not to commit any faux pas and, of this group, it was Walker who showed the most and much-needed improvement, while Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee offered the best content amongst these five candidates. Sadly, their numbers probably won’t move much- likely due to lack of attention on the part of the media more than anything else. Interestingly, the otherwise very likable John Kasich reminded us of Ed Sullivan in his seemingly-spastic physical gyrations and tics, something his debate coaches need to work on, if fixing these are even possible.

Insofar as the initial round, featuring Lindsay Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Rick Santorum, was concerned, two things stood out. First, none of these candidates has a snowball’s chance in the tropics of becoming the eventual nominee. Second, while fewer contestants have a greater opportunity to engage one another, as was the case last night, it does not necessarily mean that such engagement lifts the chances of those so engaged. Our guess is that these four will have effectively ended their campaigns by year’s end.

Given the usual liberal bias that is recognized to be a part of CNN, the moderators did better than expected in their questioning but, the modus operandi of trying to pit candidates against each other and against Donald Trump, in particular, makes us wonder if they would do the same were they moderating a Democratic debate, instead.

One thing did come to mind as we watched both rounds. Given the “free-for-all” nature of this debate, and the mismanagement on the part of the moderators to control its delivery, there isn’t a single one of them who would be a worse president than any of the candidates running for the Democrat nomination- and that bespeaks of the seemingly certain fact that it is the Republicans’ election to lose in 2016, rather than the Democrats’ one to win.

-Drew Nickell, 17 September 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved