If you missed the third Republican primary debate last night, don't worry you didn't. It was so poorly run that it didn't even resemble a debate at all. Being a business network, I had better hopes for a more professionally run debate by CNBC. However, as I watched the pre-debate show, it became clear that there was a strong bias against those who were about to participate in the debate. There was open hostility and disdain for the candidates. Furthermore, the pre-debate discussion was unorganized, rambling and it telegraphed what was to come. This attitude carried over into the debate itself and the moderators - John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintilla - became participants in the debate themselves representing the Left. To make matter worse, they were often not in command of the facts even when they had their facts straight. In one example, Quick challenged Trump on his stance on H-1B visas. Turns out, as Megan Kelly pointed out afterwards on her show The Kelly File, Quick had Trump's position right and Trump had it wrong - at least according to his own website. However, she was so incompetent that she didn't even know the source of her information and when Trump provided a quick (no pun intended), disarming retort, she folded and later even apologized to Trump! It was unbelievable.
The purpose of a primary debate is to help potential primary voters decide which of their candidates should get their vote to become their party's presidential candidate. It should be a forum for the candidates to compare and contrast their views to substantive issues and to the same questions. Instead, what viewers saw was the moderators inserting themselves and their views into the debate as defenders of left-wing policies which they framed as reasonable, normal, successful, etc. as a part of each of their questions and then challenged the candidate to defend their "extreme" views. It was so completely transparent and one personal "gotcha" question after another. Fortunately, I think any fair-minded person saw this charade for what it was - progressive members of the left-wing mainstream media against their Republican enemies. Hopefully what will come of this will be to no longer allow journalists act as moderators for future debates. They have clearly proven themselves to be incapable of doing the job.
The blame isn't solely that of the moderators and the media. They are what they are - full time lobbyists and spokespeople for progressivism and the Democrat Party. Much of the blame needs to fall squarely in the lap of the Republican National Committee for allowing this to happen.
Win/Lose/Draw
In spite of the fact that the debate itself was a complete fail on the part of CNBC and the moderators, it was possible for the candidates to advance their standing, fall behind or maintain their position.
First, those who were able to make gains. In my opinion, the clear "winners" were Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina. Each of these candidates were able to demonstrate that they are principled, understand the issues and articulate them in a clear manner. Additionally, in the case of Cruz and Rubio in particular, they were able to counter-punch those who attacked them to great effect and highlight just how awful and hypocritical the media are. Fiorina helped advance her candidacy by insisting on getting her time to speak and clearly discussing the issues. Time will tell, however, if the performance of any of the candidates translates to higher numbers in the polls. I suspect we will see at least a moderate bump for Rubio and Cruz. I don't expect much impact on Fiorina's numbers because between debates she has had a tendency to remain largely out of sight which caused a slip in her numbers following a strong performance in the first two debates. To a lesser extent, I think Chris Christie had a pretty good night. He also effectively made his points and slapped around the moderators; delivering what I found to be one of the best lines of the night: "...even in New Jersey, that question would be considered rude."
Next, those who maintained their standing - Trump and Carson. Trump was somewhat less the center of attention during this debate but he continued to promote himself as only Trump can: using the same hubris, bravado and running as an insurgent that has led to his popularity so far. He was also able to delivered some effective counters to the moderators who seemed to have it in for him in particular even though some of his facts weren't exactly straight. Perhaps most importantly, Trump delivered a stinging rebuke to criticism of him by John Kasick by pointing out Kasick's connection to Lehman Brothers where he was a board member when it collapsed; nearly crashing the entire US economy. Even though he gave supporters what they like to see, I don't think there was enough of it to change his numbers much. On the other hand, I don't think Carson had a particularly good night. He was measured and under control even while under attack by Quick but he didn't come off as confident of his budget plan numbers as he needed to be. Fortunately for Dr. Carson's, his best assets have been that he isn't an insider, he is likable, principled and a gentleman which continued to come through during the debate. I anticipate that will continue to serve him well following this debate and his poll numbers will remain steady.
Last, the losers (in addition to the aforementioned CNBC and the media) - Paul, Kasick, Bush, and Huckabee. Of these candidates, Paul and Huckabee just didn't garner enough attention although Huckabee did deliver a positive message and give a pretty humorous analogy comparing our bloated federal government to the runaway aerostat that broke away and rampaged across rural Pennsylvania earlier in the day. Speaking of our current problems he said, "It is the perfect example. It's something the government made - basically a bag of gas. It cut loose; destroying everything in its path, left thousands of people powerless but they couldn't get rid of it because they had too much money invested in it so we had to keep it." Spot on!
Paul made a few good points but I just don't think it was enough to matter. Kasick went after his fellow candidates and tried to paint their views as crazy. Thanks John, that was helpful! After getting slammed by Trump for his role at Lehman, Kasick tucked his tail and slinked back to his corner to lick his wounds. In my opinion, he is done. Likewise, Bush really didn't impress. He just hasn't seemed to have gotten the memo that most Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, are fed up with "establishment" types. Spouting off past political accomplishments isn't what Republican primary voters are looking for. It just reinforces the notion that Conservatives have been betrayed by the establishment types they sent to the House and Senate in the last election and Bush is a kindred spirit with them. They aren't going to make that mistake again. His attack on Rubio citing an editorial from the left-leaning Sun Sentinel was ridiculous and a serious unforced error - a proverbial hanging curve ball right down the middle that Rubio knocked right out of the park by pointing out that neither Bush nor the Sentinel had any problems in the past with Democrats when they ran for office and had even worse records for missed votes. Money or no money; ground game or no ground game; establishment support or not, I think this is it for Bush. He might last a bit longer but he has all the traction of a "donkey" (or maybe RINO) standing on the ice in the middle of a frozen lake.
That's how I saw it. I invite reader thoughts and observations. Comment by clicking where it says, "No Comments" or "Comments" and feel free to share this with friends. I enjoy hearing from those who agree or disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment