FIRST & Final Thoughts On the Week That Was…Post Debate Edition
FIRST Well, Tuesday night’s debate was surely quite different from the previous one on CNBC, wasn’t it?
The primary voters actually heard the candidates articulate their vision for the fiscal future of the country instead defending off attacks from the moderators.
The good?
Both Donald Trump and Ben Carson said they would not raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, Ted Cruz laid out in detail his 10% flat tax that sounds like a real winner to us, Carly Fiorina once again jabbed Hillary and crony capitalism while rightfully promoting zero-base budgeting, Marco Rubio pointed out how welders make more money than philosophers and that only in the United States can millions of people have an opportunity to become the next millionaires, and Rand Paul fought hard for fiscal conservatism and says the real war on income inequality resides in the cities and states run by Democrats.
The bad?
John Kasich, from beginning to end, was just awful. Wrong on bailing out the banks, wrong on immigration, wrong on not having core beliefs. He needs to drop out.
Jeb Bush may have showed a little more energy during this debate but doubling down on his amnesty position just reconfirmed in the minds of the primary voters why they have written him off.
Let’s take a look at each candidate’s performance.
Donald Trump – As we mentioned in our pre-debate blog on Tuesday, Trump has mellowed out since the first debate back in August in Cleveland. Other than a quick exchange with Ohio Governor John Kasich over immigration, there were very little fireworks between the business mogul and the other candidates on stage. He spoke passionately about taking care of our veterans, particularly those who fought in the Iraq War. Mr. Trump’s long-sustained placement in the polls has much to do with this immigration stance. During the debate, he brought historical (though some question the accuracy) substance to his deportation policy when describing how President Dwight E. Eisenhower (“everybody likes Ike”) removed illegals from the country back in the 1950s. If Ike could do it, certainly the greatest self-proclaimed negotiator running for president in 2016 can do it as well, right? Overall, we thought Trump’s performance was decent but we still need to hear more specific policy proposals and ideas from him for us to feel confident in his ability to carry out the duties as commander-in chief.
Ben Carson – The mild-mannered candidate is extremely likable and you can’t help but root for him. But like Mr. Trump, the “most scrutinized candidate” in recent years needs to be more specific on his policies and articulate them with force. His response to the question of sending 50 special operations troops into Syria was extremely vague. Dr. Carson did, however, offer up a closing statement that was one for the ages:
“In the two hours of this debate, five people have died from drug-related deaths, $100 million has been added to our national debt, 200 babies have been killed by abortionists, and two veterans have taken their lives out of despair. This is a narrative that we can change. Not we the Democrats, not we the Republicans, but we the people of America, because there is something special about this nation and we must embrace it and be proud of it and never give it away for the sake of political correctness.”
These words are one of the reasons why so many conservatives have embraced Dr. Carson and have such high hopes for him as his poll numbers indicate. Can he sustain them?
Marco Rubio – After four debates, Sen. Rubio is the clear winner, at least among the pundits. Being on the dais is second-nature to the Florida senator. He had a quick toe-to-toe with Senator Rand Paul about being a fiscal conservative when Paul questioned Rubio, “how is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You cannot be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs that you’re not going to pay for.” Rubio responded sharply, “we can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe” while adding that Paul is a “committed isolationist”. The audience cheered Rubio’s response and many were left to wonder how Paul can possibly recover from taking such an isolationist stance inside a party that adores Ronald Reagan and his defense spending while also facing the ongoing threat of Islamist terrorism. Not once during these debates, however, has Sen. Rubio been asked about his biggest liability by either the moderators or his competitors, his “Gang of Eight” membership. One has to wonder if and when he will have to offer up more than an apology and explain why he was a figurehead for passing amnesty legislation in the Senate.
Ted Cruz – Another great night for the Texas senator with a collection of passion, articulation, and of course, humor. His immigration quip about how the media’s narrative would change if bankers, lawyers, and journalists were crossing the border and “driving down wages” was yet another example of why he is a master at these debates. It was pointed and absolutely correct. Cruz reminds us of what Newt Gingrich did during the 2012 debates. He stood up to the media and the moderators and rallied the audience onto the side of the candidates, while rarely getting into pie-throwing contests with his fellow competitors. Mr. Cruz has it all going for him: the conservative grassroots campaign, the articulation of his policies, never failing to mention Ronald Reagan, and taking the fight to both the Republican establishment as well as to the Democrats led by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Will it translate into higher poll numbers? With Trump and Carson remaining steady, Cruz, alongside Rubio, will probably see a slight bump in the polls at the other conservative candidates’ (Huckabee, Paul, Fiorina) expense. It is shaping up to be a four man race.
Jeb Bush – Immigration is the issue of the 2016 presidential election cycle among conservative primary voters. See Donald Trump’s poll numbers. Supporting amnesty is the quickest way to being forced to write your “suspending my campaign” speech. And while Mr. Bush did have his best performance on Tuesday, he really needed to steal the show and help calm the nerves of the establishment and its big donors. He failed. The writing is clearly on the wall for Jeb and the sooner he realizes it, the better. For his sake.
Carly Fiorina – With a solid performance yet again with millions of primary voters watching, will she see her poll numbers shoot back up? We shall find out in the coming weeks, but at some point, Ms. Fiorina needs to catapult back up into top-tier conversation that Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz are now dominating.
John Kasich – Obnoxious, whiney, impatient, bewildered, and wrong. Those are just a few of the words to describe the Ohio governor’s performance on Tuesday night. The establishment moderate exudes an angry temperament at the voter’s preferred conservative and anti-establishment sentiment. He pushed hard for amnesty and looked foolish when debating Ted Cruz on whether to bail out the big banks. Kasich, despite being a banker at Lehman Bros., seemed to forget that the FDIC insures the people’s money up to $250,000. The cold hard truth is that when he speaks, we cringe.
Rand Paul – Of the four debates, this was his best performance because he was more vocal and active. He challenged Senator Rubio on being a fiscal conservative, though in the end, he might have ultimately damaged an already flailing campaign with primary voters with his support of being an isolationist. The Kentucky senator mentioned the “penny plan” during the debate which would take out one penny of every dollar that the government spends. It may seem so minute but it actually would save $7.5 trillion over 10 years. That sounds like a good deal to us. Sen. Paul had one of the better series of lines of the night, and all of the debates, when talking about income inequality when he pointed out that income is more unequal between individuals who live in cities, states and countries run by Democrats. Paul’s chances for securing the nomination are extremely long at this point. Despite being a leader for our constitution, the reality is that Paul is on an island to himself inside the Republican Party when it comes to foreign policy. The American people would prefer the U.S. be the aggressor to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.
The next debate is over a month away. What, if anything, will change before then? We expect very little. But as we get into the holiday season and with the first ballots being cast in less than 90 days, this much we do know: Trump isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon; Carson can withstand the attacks; Rubio is so far avoiding the biggest liability he faces; Cruz shines every time out; and finally, if the Republican Party embraces amnesty, Hillary Clinton will be elected as the next president.
Final It’s been a while since we have heard or read anything about Mitt Romney, but leave it to The Washington Post to eagerly find elites in the Republican establishment who once again are floating the idea of drafting the failed 2012 presidential nominee into the 2016 race to wrestle back control of the Republican Party from the likes of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Senator Ted Cruz.
Though Romney has shown no interest in changing his mind about entering into the field, that hasn’t stopped them from trying once again.
With the deepest presidential field in decades, the ruling class, with no doubt full support from their fat cat donors, is huddling behind closed doors to create a strategy for Mr. Romney to enter late into this race and secure the nomination at the convention.
Republican presidential nominees have lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections and one doesn’t have to dig too deep in figuring out why this is the case. Those five nominees (Romney, McCain, Bush 43, Dole, Bush 41) were all members of the moderate establishment.
Lessons are never learned.
The Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party continues to live on today.
