Invalid or Broken rss link.

The Republican debate finished at 4am in the UK and was hardly the stuff to help keep even the keenest political junkie awake. The evening slowly warmed up from mild to mildly tepid as candidates vied with each other to say who they would like to annihilate first. Naturally, Chris Christie’s war of choice would come extra large. He didn’t mention World War III by name but he did promise to shoot down the first Russian plane that violated one of his no-fly zones. Carly Fiorina’s war of choice would be with China who, she said, would respect her strength. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz seemed to settle on their own mutually assured destruction whilst Jeb Bush declared open war with Donald Trump. It was probably the most foolish war of the four.

Trump bit back in one of the evening’s few real conflicts and when Trump snarled Bush seemed to cower. It was another ineffective performance from the former Florida Governor and his constant stuttering in prepared remarks would not have convinced anybody that he’s about to become a viable candidate. It is still the big surprise of this Republican race that Bush is failing so spectacularly. He is simply ineffective and perpetually looks lost which might, in all seriousness, have something to do with his choice of glasses. The thick lenses emphasise his eyes, especially when viewed from the side. He can sometimes look startled even when he’s in control. If he wants to revitalise his campaign, he should start by considering contacts or a change of frames. There might yet be a way back for him but time is running out and he’s simply not getting the fundamentals right.

His spat with Trump was unseemly but much about the evening revealed more about the weaknesses of the candidates than their strengths. Trump himself, the front runner for the Republican nomination, was perhaps the least involved but most memorable when he was. We’d heard his replies before and they were typically shy of detail. Bush said Trump won’t be able to insult his way to the Presidency but, in fairness, it has worked pretty well so far. Asked about the nuclear ‘triad’ and which of America’s submarines, strategic bombers, and ICBMs he would upgrade first, Trump prevaricated and clearly didn’t understand the question. Instead he provided the single worst reply of the evening, merely confirming that ‘nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me’. I’m not sure anybody in the audience understood what he meant or whether we should feel worried or reassured by the thought of a nuclear Trump.

Perhaps the most impressive performance of the evening was by Ben Carson who again managed to convince by shrinking back into himself. Imitating a porcupine might be a clever strategy since the others gain nothing by attacking him and he gains everything from their praise. Hostilities noticeably ended whenever Ben had his turn. People might respect him but he has to be careful that respect doesn’t begin to resemble pity. Whether you believe he’s presidential material will still depend on how you view his pyramid remarks and relationship with his friend with the heavenly glow.

Almost as impressive was Carly Fiorina but her ‘impressive’ comes largely by way of Margaret Thatcher, who provided the evening’s best line: ‘If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.’ She sounded strong on matters of self-defence and national security but  sometimes her voice has a corporate monotone that is so emotionless it’s like listening to some Vice President of Personnel tell you that your services are no longer required. She’s another who would be well served by modifying her image so it becomes more obvious that she was only the head of Hewlett-Packard and not assembled by Hewlett-Packard.

As to the rest, Chris Christie constantly made a good case but perhaps spends too much time emphasizing his role around 9/11. The message of the night was that he knows the right people and he’s sorted out trouble before. His remark about shooting down Russian aircraft might win over the baccy-chewing wing of the Republican Party but it’s the kind of remark that could (and perhaps should) come back to haunt him. John Kasich still had his usual deathgrip on the end of the main stage. His campaign might have flatlined somewhere around ‘not happening’ but he still talks confidently about being President. It’s hard to see his lasting much longer in the race but some of his interjections were the best of the evening. He’d have done himself no harm but it’s also hard to say it would have made much difference. Rand Paul, meanwhile, was stuck on the other end and seemed to have smuggled a posse of screaming schoolgirls into the crowd. The screaming was noticeably partisan and overblown for even his least significant contribution. It was a constant reminder at how staged this event really is.

That leaves the Rubio and Cruz fight, probably the clash of the evening in terms of actual policy debate. Cruz probably came out  on top. Rubio has consistently looked like the one candidate who might surprise everybody by emerging from the field to win the nomination. Last night, Cruz landed some heavy blows, especially on the topic of immigration and citizenship and Rubio looked a little stunned by the end. Cruz himself, meanwhile, tried to steal so much of Trump’s thunder that it was sometimes shameless. He too wanted walls and the tone was calculated to echo Trump’s popular generalizations. In the end, trying to soften but emulate Trump left him speaking meaningless statements such as ‘we will not be admitting Jihadists as refugees’. In every sense it’s as meaningless as Trump’s ban on Muslims entering the country but by softening the rhetoric it had all the faults of Trump’s statement but none of the political advantage.

The meaningless statements were perhaps the single thing we can take away from the evening. Even Trump’s pledge not to run an independent campaign if he fails to win the nomination could be said to be hollow. If the polls are correct, he has every reason to say what he did. If the polls lie or turn against him, it would not take a great work of rhetoric to go back on his word and blame the same Republican party he praised last night. The seeds are there in his repeated claims that the debates are being framed by questions deliberately hostile to his nomination.

In the end, the evening felt like a debate a week away from Christmas when the candidates were already thinking about turkey whilst also trying not to look like a turkey. This was the eighth debate of fifteen. We’re just over half way. The next debate will be in North Charlestown, South Carolina, on January 14. I will try my best to stay awake.


7 Comments on "The Republicans pick their wars"

  1. Very interesting David. Cruz and Rubio look to be the big hitters. I hope they do not go the way of Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham and lose to a Maverick!!! Immigration policy as you said seems to be the big difference between these two .I read one commentator agree with you that Cruz had won the debate but he said “that Cruz is just pretending to be a hard-core conservative to sneak past the base in the primaries. In reality, they believe, he supports pragmatic, pro-business policies like (as they see it) comprehensive immigration reform — and will out himself as such once he’s running in a general election campaign. “ I guess those running for the presidency will be using tactics to get the Nomination but may change tack during a Presidential Campaign? If you were a betting man (you may be) who would you put money on to win the Republican Nomination? Who in your opinion would be best in terms of Foreign policy and what that would mean for us and Europe?

    • Thanks Paul. I agree about all this posturing. I’ve been saying it all along. It’s what I think people have to accept and understand about the Republican race. Candidates have to appeal to the right of a party that is already of the right. Not to excuse Trump or Cruz but I wouldn’t expect either to carry on the anti-Muslim rhetoric once they seal the nomination. It is internal Republican politics. Ugly, nasty, brutal but not actually real.

      I don’t necessarily think Cruz won the debate, though, I admit, by 4am, my judgment might have been a bit out of whack. I do think he managed to beat Rubio and that was the only real shift of the evening. I don’t think anybody won the debate.

      I know who didn’t win: Bush and Christie and, before this race started, I thought Christie had a shot. He’s been one of those guys who you grow less sure about the more you see. I thought Carson was (oddly) the best on the night (having visited refugee camps gave him authority the others lacked) but he is fading. The fact people didn’t attack him perhaps is a sign that the others don’t see him as a threat. Frankly, a nice guy but too strange.

      The Bush / Trump dynamic is interesting. The Bush family know how to win elections and the fact Bush is still going after Trump suggests that’s where the money fear the vote is going. Probably too late for Jeb to turn it around and the more I think about his glasses I wonder if he has sight issues. If he was reading from an autocue, it might explain his poor prepared statements.

      Fiorina might be my own blind spot. I really dislike her but it probably says more about me. She has that corporate vibe which winds me up the wrong way. I’ve worked for/been sacked by too many people like her in my life. Fake, patronizing, possibly dangerous. No humanity.

      The only one who ‘feels’ right is Rubio but I think it’s too early. Moderate and son of immigrants would help in the main fight but hinders him among Republicans. He’s impressed me in what is very weak field but I think he’d impress me even in a good field. Long term bet for President but not this time.

      Cruz ticks the right boxes but my gut says ‘no’. I don’t like him myself and that’s my main test. I always try to find something to like in a person and, in his case, I can’t find it. Can’t really explain it except I find him a bit creepy. A bit too snake oil salesman, if that makes sense. On that score: interesting article here at the Washington Post.

      If I had to bet now I’d bet Trump. I have another article ready to publish which explains why. It’s not just that he’s leading or that he’s in front for a long time. I think he connects with people in a way that the media fail to understand. Ignore all the rhetoric and xenophobia. He has humour and I tend to put my money where the laughs are. It’s not just that people like laughs but people like people. Trump is about connecting with people. Obama had it. Clinton had it (in excess). Reagan had it too. George W had it, though the media didn’t understand it. Even Hillary is learning to get it. Think about it. Why is Trump leading? Can’t be his policies because he has none. It must be his character and that’s not something that’s going to change between now and Iowa.

  2. Thanks for the reply David and I look forward to your next article then on why you think Trump will win the Nomination .In this country due to the Media coverage I would guess most people would struggle to mention another Republican candidate other than Trump or maybe one other. How does this coverage paly out in the States? Does Trump hog most of the headlines there and if so is this a clever campaign to hijack the race so the other candidates are almost invisible or is it just the way the media works focussing on extremes and those who make the best headlines?

    • Wish I knew! I read the American press as much as I can (damn more exciting than our British politics, especially here in the NW of England) and there is more coverage in the printed press of the other candidates. I watch more American political talk shows than I do UK shows and they do tend to focus on Trump and, paradoxically, give him the exposure he needs. That said, their mainstream political debate is much more rigorous than ours. We have Andrew Neil’s show and not much else. Increasingly in the US, the candidates are all using the chat show circuit to boost their campaigns. Hilary is even doing sketch comedy (she did Jimmy Fallon and SNL) and I think it’s even helping her overcome that her icy demeanor she sometimes has.

  3. Thanks David I am also in the North West. I have a question on another Topic Europe. Is there anywhere on this forum that people can ask questions? if not, not to worry

    • Well, this isn’t a forum but there’s no reason you can’t ask it. I could always write it up as a talking point and see if we can’t get a debate going. Or, alternatively, write it yourself and send it in.

  4. ok David now there is a challenge .I will do something over the weekend and send it in .Thanks very much

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.

Your email address will not be published.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.