Barely two weeks after the Republican primary debate hosted by CNBC in Colorado, Fox Business Network (FBN) welcomed the 2016 GOP candidates to Milwaukee to discuss the economy. Co-hosted by the Wall Street Journal, the evening was split into a 7 p.m. undercard debate and the main event at 9 p.m.
At 7 p.m. Trish Regan and Sandra Smith, both of FBN, & WSJ’s Washington Bureau Chief Gerald Seib led Governor Chris Christie (NJ), former governor Mike Huckabee (AR), Governor Bobby Jindal (LA), and former senator Rick Santorum (PA) in an hour of back-and-forth.
Republican presidential candidates pose during a photo opportunity before the debate held by Fox Business Network for the top 2016 candidates in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 10, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young.
The 9 p.m. event was moderated by FBN anchors Maria Bartiromo and Neil Cavuto and WSJ Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker. The eight candidates were selected on the basis of having scored 2.5% or higher on average in four recent national polls. They included: Ben Carson; Donald Trump; Senator Marco Rubio (FL); Senator Ted Cruz (TX); former governor Jeb Bush (FL); Carly Fiorina; Governor John Kasich (OH); and Senator Rand Paul (KY).
Some takeaways from AEI scholars, from the Political Corner to Economics, Poverty Studies, and Foreign and Defense Policy:
The winner of the prime time debate: Marco Rubio. His answers were delivered fluently and struck a chord with the Republican electorate. He was also, as Napoleon said he wanted his generals to be, lucky: he wasn’t called on to talk about immigration, an issue on which he is arguably out of sync with the base, nor was he called on to respond to Ted Cruz’s attacks on sugar subsidies, which he supports. His foreign policy answers were strong and well-informed. On many issues he was in line with Jeb Bush, but his responses were more dramatic and fluent, while Bush seemed to stammer a bit in presenting carefully planned and well crafted responses.
Also strong was Ted Cruz who made several very strong interventions, and Carly Fiorina who came on strong in the second hour. Rand Paul made a pitch for what his critics call his isolationist policies, but I think it was an effort in a losing cause—and probably has been ever since ISIS started beheading Americans 15 months ago. Ben Carson handled with aplomb the press attempts to destroy his credibility and also showed finesse on some substantive issues. Donald Trump can scarcely be said to have dominated, but he got his points in effectively from time to time.
John Kasich evidently angered the audience and dial groups with his frequent interruptions, and he oscillated from chiding conservatives to presenting his own brand of conservatives pretty persuasively. But on banking, doesn’t he know that depositors’ money in failed banks is protected by the FDIC?
The undercard debate was dominated by Chris Christie, which kept referring to the need to defeat Hillary Clinton. To my mind, he was successful in fending off the contrary argument advanced by Bobby Jindal, against electing a “big government conservative.” Jindal’s plaints that congressional Republicans had failed to keep promises to stop Obama policies blithely ignored the fact that the Constitution gives the president a veto. Rick Santorum from time to time made the point that nuclear family breakdown has hurt many Americans and prevented them from rising—a valid point, supported by statistics—but his explanations of how to reverse that trend were less convincing. He gave off an air of nostalgia, recounting how he had helped pass welfare reform in the Senate nearly 20 years ago. His recounting of the change in the culture of the Veterans Administration was genuinely interesting. There was also a mellow and nostalgic tone to much of Mike Huckabee’s responses; he seems to enjoy still being in the race.
More than the other candidates on the stage tonight, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush took the debate to Hillary Clinton on specific issues. Christie was the strongest candidate in the undercard debate, using humor and engaging in some sharp exchanges with Bobby Jindal, whose own bombastic style seems less attractive with each debate.
Jeb Bush was much stronger than in previous debates, but his reticence hurts him in these free for alls. He showed his policy chops in many areas, something we have seen before. The front runners in recent polls, Trump and Carson, probably didn’t gain ground. Given the controversies of the past week Carson was probably well served by staying in the background for most of the debate. His closing statement was moving. There didn’t seem to be a clear winner, although Rubio’s eloquence continues to impress. Every candidate had strong moments.
It was also nice to hear our AEI emeritus colleague Michael Novak mentioned by John Kasich.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz know how to debate, and so they won Tuesday night. Beyond their rhetorical skills, they know how to tap into the conservative psyche.
Rubio channels Ronald Reagan’s optimistic demeanor, but has moved beyond Reagan’s policy specifics. Cruz hits the conservative hot buttons well, and has improved his debating style.
Going forward, it’s easy to see this becoming a two man race. If Jeb continues to struggle, and Carson and Trump fade as Herman Cain did four years ago, this could come down to Rubio versus Cruz.
Governor Kasich said that greed is not good. He also said that capitalism is a great force for good in the world. I agree on both counts.
Eight debaters is certainly better than 11 but it is still too many. It means that moderators have to struggle to keep time limits and, as we have seen in other debates, fail. The most dismaying element of this debate on economic policy is that none of the candidates appear to have read, much less absorbed, the innovative ideas and clear thinking of Michael Strain, Jim Pethokoukis, Kevin Hassett or other reform-minded conservative economists and economic thinkers. Instead, they all promoted ideas that appealed to the antediluvian base.
Looking at it strictly from the perspective of debate points aimed at the activist primary and caucus audience, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump did well. Rand Paul had by far his best debate. Ben Carson proved shaky on economic policy and foreign-policy, but likely did nothing to deter his existing supporters. For Jeb Bush and John Kasich espousing commonsense mainstream views on financial matters, that probably left them out of step with a more radical and populous Republican base. Carly Fiorina did not do much to help her cause. My guess is that Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Carson will be clear leaders, distancing themselves from the others. I do have a new slogan for Marco Rubio: We need a president who can weld us together.
The GOP debate showed a real difference of opinion between libertarians like Rand Paul and conservatives such as Marco Rubio when it comes to defense spending and tax relief for American families.
We have had enough of these debates now that some patterns are falling into place. Rubio, Fiorina, and Cruz are consistently good performers. Carson is always low-key, and sometimes chooses to dampen everyone else’s mood too — for example, using his closing statement to tell us how many Americans had died of drug addiction during the debate. Trump uses a fairly restricted vocabulary, but shows a fair amount of knowledge when a policy question intersects with his biography. Rand Paul and John Kasich are irritable, and don’t do much to hide it.
Jeb Bush was the candidate with the most at stake in tonight’s debate. If he had done as badly as he did at CNBC, the calls for him to leave the race would have become deafening. He did not have a great comeback tonight, but he held his own. Sometimes he did better than that: His answer on energy was a better general-election message on that subject than any of the other candidates offered, and he was more focused than anyone else on making the case against Hillary Clinton. The question now is whether that will be enough to reassure his donors–and start winning over some voters.
In many ways, GOP debate number four felt very different from prior debates. The questions were better, eight candidates on stage was somewhat more manageable, and the candidates were less hostile to the moderators. But the performances seemed the same with only a few memorable moments. Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina performed similarly to past debates, but their routines are starting to feel stale and too rehearsed. Rubio was much stronger when he went off script after being challenged by Rand Paul on his spending proposals, including his defense of families and military spending. He needs to do more of that in these debates to continue his ascension.
The stand out of the night might just be Dr. Carson. Even though he still faces a number of challenges, it’s becoming clear why he is doing well in the polls. He responds with authenticity and talks frequently about his concern for people, including the middle-class and the poor, in a way that doesn’t feel forced. Bush was also much stronger this debate, with more genuine responses than past performances and a clear grasp of the issues facing us today. But overall, few policy specifics were discussed, including how to realistically get the economy going again so more people can work and earn their own success. I would appreciate a forum where those ideas can truly be debated.
Actually, Mr. Trump, someone has read the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It has flaws but it is certaintly not terrible.
Governor Kasich, the TPP has to work economically. Trying to justify a free trade agreement on security grounds immediately suggests it is not a good free trade agreement.
Senator Paul, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) grants the president authority only if he meets Congressional guidelines. What foreign government is going to let us play good cop (the president) and bad cop (Congress)?
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1ODlcHB
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment