Eleventh Republican Debate

The latest Republican debate was as exciting as the last one. This time it was Cruz's chance to shine. Rubio still got off the bet line of the night, worrying about Trump breaking into yoga because he was so flexible. It was also extempore, not a pre-planned sound bite. Rubio is obviously a bright guy with a really good sense of humour. He was not nearly as aggressive as last time—no doubt his own polls tell him it is not helping him for all it may hurt Trump. This gave Cruz the chance to take centre stage. He adopted a prosecutorial manner, which may work better for him.

Kasich also did well. He reversed his disturbing answer on religious freedom from last debate. Someone must have sat him down and pointed out what was really at stake. Still, that he seems to have been ill-informed on the issue suggests that he is not the serious Christian he says he is.

I cannot imagine how anyone continues to support Trump. He was awful. His insults, his avoidance of positions and his waffling were too obvious, and to clearly pointed to by the other candidates and the moderators. He was playing the voters for suckers, and surely the voters in general should see this by now. I think it may still take time, maybe two weeks, for it all to sink in, but I suspect this dragon is finally slain.

Tenth Republican Debate

The winner of the debate

Do I really have anything usefu lto say about the latest Republican debate? Maybe not. Rubio's win was so clear everyone agrees on it. It has finally been posted on YouTube, and I have finally had a chance to see it. I get CNN, but the original debate wsas in the early hours of the morning local time. It was the most fun to watch of any debate I have ever seen. It may be a classic in future.

Rubio is a good looking, yourng guy who smiles a lot. He looks like a puppy who wants to be loved; that night he put away any concerns that he might not be tough enough for president. Trump is essentially a clown, and the best weapon against him is ridicule. Rubio has hit upon this, and his blows were telling. Trump looked like a blustering fool.

Why has nobody done this before? Why does it happen only now, at the eleventh hour? My guess is that everyone was afraid of Trump's very personal insults.

Cruz had the second-best night, and landed a number of good blows on Trump as well. It will not do him any good, though, probably, because Rubio was better. Rubio looked as if he were having fun. Normally, I would consider his blows too low, too personal, but it is a matter of fighting fire with fire. Trump gets personal immediately. Trump was repetitious, had few real answers, and some of his positions looked silly. Rubio slaughtered him on Obamacare; Cruz slaughtered him on not releasing his tax returns. Rubio was great in accusing Trump of repeating himself; it defused a criticism of himself while skewering Trump, who really does repeat himself constantly, unlike Rubio, and Trump made himself look a stiff by apparently not getting the joke. It was masterful and memorable. Trump's responses were, as usual, but more often since he was under such strong attack, mostly just to insult anyone who challenged him. It was so transparent, it was funny. I cannot imagine why anyone has supported Trump all along, but surely now that he has been revealed as the unserious candidate he is, it will no longer be cool to admit you support or ever supported Trump. It suggests you are a sucker. I really cannot see why his support does not collapse now. But I've said that before, and been wrong.

Points to Rubio for knowing, and saying, that South Korea at least is shouldering the burden of its own defense, and not freeloading on the US.

Kasich was pushing hard, but the polls make him an irrelevancy. I did not get him on keeping health costs down by paying more for low prices. Seems like a simple contradiction in terms. Nobody called him on it; it is in nobody's interest to waste time arguing with Kasich, because he is not going anywhere. He also lost me on religious liberty, insisting that religious institutions have the right to freedom of conscience. He was too careful to always say religious institutions. By inference, it appears that he does not believe individuals have the same right in their daily lives. This implies a radical diminution of conscience rights. He also ignored the fact that requiring business proprietors to sell to anyone who asks for their services or goods is a violation of freedom of association. And he falsifies the issue. Nobody is refusing to serve gays; the problem is catering gay weddings.

The moderators seemed pretty bad, but to be fair, they had a very tough job. The candidates were talking over each other, insulting one another and thereby requiring an unscheduled response, and speaking out of turn. Wolf Blitzer should be shot for shutting down Ted Cruz twice. Dana Bash also talked over Rubio's best line, about Trump's repetitions, but Rubio wisely was too impolite to listen. It would have been a shame if the line had been lost or not heard, for the sake of both history and entertainment value. The Hispanic moderator, Maria Arraras, was an embarrassment; all her questions were about specifically Hispanic concerns. First, they were a kind of ideological, self-imposed ghetto; they implied that Hispanics were not fully Americans, but a special interest group. Second, thry solicited pandering; this was demeaning. Third, the questions were of little interest to the audience at large. She even, inanely, called for a wall along the Canadian border, in the name of fairness, if a wall was going to be built along the Mexican one. This deserves ridicule.

Told Ya So

The first legitimate poll coming out after the recent US Republican candidates' debate seems to confirm my own impressions regarding winners and losers. Carly Fiorina is the big winner, and now ties Trump. Rand Paul is the big loser, Jeb Bush also down significantly.

Secretariat Laps the Field

Fiorina won it, going away. Two bright but fleeting moments will live in history: her passionate denunciation of Planned Parenthood, and her response to Trump's comments on her looks. Between them, they should end the Donald Trump surge and replace it with a Carly Fiorina surge. I hereby predict that now.

The rules have changed. Debates like this matter more than they used to. The viewership was through the roof.

With both these answers, Fiorina managed to convey real sincerity. As Bill Clinton might have said, sincerity is the most important thing in politics: if you can fake that, you've got it made. But that's not all. At the same time, she looked in her exchange with Trump as though she easily had the mighty Donald's neck in a collar. He looked small and she looked big. That impression will linger.

She also won the exchange with Trump over their respective business careers. You could see his face redden.

In his exchanges with Jeb Bush, on the other hand, I think Trump came off on top. Bush asking Trump to apologize to his wife was lame. It was a predictable politics as usual “gotcha” attempt, cementing the image of Bush as a tired pol of the old school, and it foolishly led into Trump's strength, that of resisting political correctness and defying politics as usual, by allowing him the delicious opportunity to refuse. Again, in their elbowing over casino gambling in Florida, all Bush had was “he said/she said,” but Trump seemed to own him with the comment “More energy tonight. I like that!”

Ben Carson helped himself, I think, by refusing to condemn Trump when the moderators were practically demanding it of him, on the vaccination issue. He handled it with brilliant tact, cementing his image as a non-politician and a nice guy. He has, in this, a lot in common with Ronald Reagan, and it might work very well for him as president. Of course, far from being a non-politician, he was really being politically astute. There is a real constituency out there of parents wanting the right to refuse vaccines. Double win for Carson.

Kasich came across as openly moderate. This may be smart. Everyone else in the field is thundering toward the right fence. By conventional wisdom, this ought to leave a good bit of running room toward the centre, even if this is a relative minority of Republicans. We shall see.

Christie scored by cutting in on Trump and Fiorina to turn the talk away from their records and to the current issues. The problem was, it was cutting in. It was not his place nor his turn. It may not help, given the prior suspicion that Christie is a bit of a bully.

Rubio came across very well, but without the crucial memorable sound bite. The same was so for Huckabee, and Cruz. Just the luck of the draw, and of the questions asked.

The biggest loser on stage was over on the left. Rand Paul again looked like a pipsqueak. His worst moment was his choice of code name, “Justice Never Sleeps.” Too grandiose and self-important by several orders of magnitude. His most memorable moment was Trump's elegant put down of his appearance. He actually looks like a frightened rodent, but this is so evident that Trump did not need to say so.

Walker also looked a bit worse by the end of the evening. His unprovoked, non sequitor attack on Trump as “an apprentice” was another example of hackneyed political operating. It was tone deaf to popular culture, too, because it got the premise of a popular TV show backwards. That can't help Walker with those seeking someone more like themselves. You can't rely on your Harley for that common touch forever.

The worst performers in the debate were the moderators. Almost exclusively, their questions, rather than seeking substance from the candidates, tried to set up personal spats. Or they were pure irrelevancies, the sort of thing you might expect of “Tiger Beat” magazine. What do you think your secret service code name should be? What woman should be on the ten dollar bill?

Really?

None of those stiffs should have a job tomorrow.

But as for Carly Fiorina, she is genuinely beginning to look presidential.

American President

Bernie Sanders on the original Hollywood Squares.

I am as unhappy as anyone with the format of this evening's US Republican debate: with, that is, the exclusion of seven viable candidates. This presumably serves the interests of Fox News Network, or perhaps those of the Republican Party, who want to winnow the field quickly. It does not serve the voters, or American democracy.

Polls change like the weather; standing in recent polls is not a valid indicator of who is a viable candidate. Especially so early in the race, when few are paying much attention yet, and much that the polls measure is mere name recognition. Polls come with a margin of error, and all of those excluded are excluded for polling differences within that margin of error. Not only does this make the selection arbitrary; it promotes an unscientific attitude towards polls. In any case, the thing is circular: if you are not already sufficiently popular, the format prevents you from becoming popular. You might as well take the current poll leader, and declare him the nominee; as if the entire campaigning process serves no purpose.

And look at who is being excluded. Rick Perry, the longest serving governor ever of the second largest state. George Pataki, the man who defeated Mario Cuomo to become three-term governor of New York, a position once held by Nelson Rockefeller, Al Smith, and both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. Bobby Jindal, whose name has been widely mentioned for both president and vice president for over eight years. Carly Fiorina, who, whatever might be said about her lack of political background, has been probably the most articulate spokesperson for the party thus far in the campaign. Rick Santorum, runner-up in the last go-round. Lindsey Graham, a three-term senator from an early primary state, a foreign policy expert in a cycle in which US foreign policy seems to be in ruins. And some guy named Jim Gilmore, only a former governor of Virginia. Just like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe.

I understand the problem with time constraints. Still, Fox is already allocating time for everyone: the top ten at nine, the bottom seven at five pm. They apparently just don't want to waste prime time on the lesser lights. Okay, so why not just start the whole thing at nine, give the candidates the chance to choose when they will field their first question based on their initial poll numbers, and let the whole thing run later into the night?

I have also heard the objection that that many candidates will not fit comfortably into one camera angle. I cannot believe this is important to anyone, but if it is, the matter is solved, someone has suggested, by setting them up in two dimensions, as in Hollywood Squares.

But there is an even better option. Fox is seeing a problem where they should see an opportunity. What is hotter than reality television? Ask Donald Trump. What could be more profitable than a reality show in which the participants are largely already celebrities, and downright eager to appear for free?

So make a series out of it. Have the candidates compete in groups of four or five, on the same weeknight over successive weeks. After each debate, let a panel of pundits pronounce, then have the audience vote for the winner electronically, as they do on American Idol. Then host a blockbuster final.

Rinse and repeat.

That's Debatable

Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960.

In both Canada and the US, we are about to hear the first candidate debates of the current elections. My great regret, as a political junkie, is that the Canadian and US debates are scheduled, as usual, for the same time. This is done, of course, because were it not so, few in Canada would be watching. They would just switch to some American network for the regular programming.

They are not, of course, really “debates.” There is no topic. Nobody expects to hear a new argument; there is little opportunity to build one. In their debates in 2004, I think John Kerry clearly bested George Bush in terms of debating points. Yet Bush “won,” largely by ignoring any semblance of debate and repeating familiar points. The same thing happened in the Canadian leaders' debates in 2008. Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe all piled on Stephen Harper. Harper mostly just sat there and smiled, making his own case, responding to nothing. By debate rules, he lost badly. Yet polls said he won the debate, and he won the election. The others seemed angry; people admired Harper for taking it all calmly.

So these are not so much “debates” as joint press conferences, or, better, beauty contests. We watch and listen not to be persuaded by argument, but for blunders or zingers. It's kind of like watching a stock car race: we're mostly looking for a crack-up. One might see this as unkind and unworthy. Or one might see this as trying to discern something about the candidates' characters.

This was obvious from the very first famous televised candidates' debate, Kennedy-Nixon, in 1960. On points, most agree, Nixon at least held his own. But in political terms, Nixon lost badly, so badly that he refused ever to debate anyone again. His problem was that Kennedy looked relaxed and natural, whereas he looked stiff and uncomfortable.

And so it has been ever since.

The gaffe I remember best personally was Gerald Ford's insistence, against Carter in 1976, that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination. Ford confirmed the suspicion that he was in way over his head as President, that he was in the end a local pol with no wider vision than the next Rotary Club luncheon. It was not that Carter or Ford had made any kind of coherent point here; just a revelation of Ford's insufficiency.

In Canada, perhaps the best remembered score in debate is Mulroney's “you had a choice, sir. You could have said no” against Turner in 1984. But this was not argument; it was a simple negation of Turner's immediately prior statement that he “had no choice” (in making a batch of political appointments immediately on becoming prime minister. His larger claim was that this was part of a deal made with his predecessor, Trudeau). Again, this was not debate, not even a point scored by Mulroney, but a self-inflicted wound. It was the claim to have no control that killed Turner; Mulroney merely echoed the obvious. What kind of leader was this, who started out by refusing to take responsibility?

Tuner nailed himself again, at least in my opinion, on his second go-round with Mulroney in 1988, with the phrase most people remember from that debate: “I happen to think that you've sold us out” (speaking of free trade). To me, at least, that phrase, “happen to think,” implied either a misunderstanding of what thought actually entailed, or a lack of principle. As if political positions, in Turner's mind, could honourably be put on or taken off at whim, without any larger body of thought behind them. This was the more striking, to me, because opposition to free trade went against bedrock liberal principles; and Turner was leader of the Liberal Party. I'm not sure anyone but I noticed; but it made it impossible for me to vote for him.

Another famous line from a debate is Lloyd Bentsen's against Dan Quayle in 1988: “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” But in fact, this was not an argument at all, and was, as Quayle responded at the time, “uncalled for.” First, it was ad hominem, and second, it was non sequitor. Quayle had not said he was like John Kennedy in any sense but his relative lack of experience. It worked, because it suggested Quayle was both inexperienced and callow.

Michael Dukakis blundered badly during the same campaign by taking a debate to actually be a debate. Asked if he would change his mind on opposing the death penalty if someone raped and killed his wife Kitty, he answered, properly, that his position opposing capital punishment was perfectly consistent. But the answer made him come across to the audience as a soulless suit.

Then there's Rick Perry's “oops” in the 2012 Republican debates. Obviously, no debate points scored. Ron Paul, at the next podium, even tried to help jog Perry's memory. It was the kind of memory freeze anyone could have. But it destroyed Perry's hyper-macho image. James Bond is not supposed to slip on the soap.

Reagan's “I paid for this microphone” in 1980 erased the suspicion that he was just too easygoing to be effective as president. His “I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him” was a response to a moderator's question, not to anything raised by Walter Mondale. And, of course, it involved no argument.

Ali vs. Liston, 1965.

Then there's Stockdale's “Why am I here?” in the 1992 VP debates. Okay, that had no legitimate point or purpose, since he had no chance of becoming VP anyway. It was just an awesome car crash.

So what does this mean? First, it is not unreasonable that we judge our candidates this way. Issues come and go over the course of four years. We have other ways of learning our politicians' stands. It makes sense instead to try to grasp their character. If there turns out to be a big disparity between their public and their private character, this is of limited importance. As a leader primarily of people who will only ever see them on TV, their public character is more relevant than their private persona anyway to their ability to lead.

At the same time, these “debates” run the risk of seriously debasing the popular idea of what a debate is or should be. This is important, because the ability to debate properly is a sine qua non of democracy.