I purposely avoided the food fight I
expected at the kiddie table. Apparently I am not the only one. All
the pundits commented on the empty room in which this so called
debate took place. The pundits also reminded me of how easy it is to
impress them. Many of them were actually touting the performance of
Carly Fiorina! Apparently this former business women, who was forced
to resign her position as CEO of Hewlett Packard, opened up her ALEC
talking points book, then beat the Benghazi and Hillary e-mail drums
while dumping on Planned Parenthood. Judging by the highlights shown
and the interview she gave afterwards, her performance was a one
person band act that made me proud of my fellow Californians for
rejecting Ms. Fiorina in favor of Senator Boxer in 2010. If her act
was the most impressive thing taking place at the kiddie table I am
glad I did not subject myself to the entire ordeal.
I ate an early dinner rather than
watching that first debate. Then I set a glass of water and some
anti-nausea medication on the end table next to me, just in case the
bullshit factor triggered my gag reflex, and I tuned in to what was
supposed to be the adult debate. Although I was not naive enough
think that the Greedy Old Plutocrats would treat us to the lowlife
drollery of 2011, I did expect the less than august cast of
characters to provide at least a few entertaining lowlights. I have
to admit that I was a bit disappointed in that regard. Part of what
made the Republican debates of 2011-2012 so revealing and so
embarrassing was the reaction of audiences who represented the
Republican base or, as I would say, the base Republicans. This time
the Republicans and Fox made an effort to prevent reprehensible spectacles such as
the audience cheering when the number of people executed by Texas was
announced or booing a decorated soldier because he talked about being
gay.
Surprisingly, at least to me, Fox News
actually handled the debates with a degree of competence I did not
know they possessed. As Jeremy Peters wrote in New York Times, “This
was an opportunity [for Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Bret Baier]
to demonstrate that their network is not, as its critics have
charged, a blindly loyal propaganda division of the Republican Party,
that Fox journalists can be as unsparing toward conservatives as they
are with liberals, and that they can eviscerate with equal
opportunity if they choose." Not that this diminished to any great extent the role Fox still
plays as the right wing, Republican, propaganda tool.
I do not think I have to tell you the
Republican establishment really wants to get rid of that loose Trump
cannon, and Donald Trump was asked some questions he certainly
considered harsh:
Hand up; Fire at will! The Donald
raised his hand when Bret Baier asked for a show of hands from anyone
here “..who
is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee
of the Republican Party and pledge to not run an independent campaign
against that person?” Showing his hand brought some boos and
criticisms framed as follow up questions. Megan Kelly added to
Trump's discomfort by asking him when he become a Republican, and she
followed up by generally questioning his bona fides in regard to the
issues important to the Republican base. In fact, I think Megyn
Kelly's questions were the most damaging to Trump. I particularly
liked it when she asked him about calling women he did not like “fat,
pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” I think her questions
regarding his derogatory comments about women were particularly
devastating at a time when Republicans are being rightly accused of
conducting a war on women. The next most damaging were Chris
Wallace's questions and exchanges with Trump over Trump's
bankruptcies. Mr. Trump defended the bankruptcies as good business
decisions that merely took advantage of the bankruptcy laws. But Mr.
Wallace described “how lenders to Mr. Trump’s company had lost
more than $1 billion and 1,100 people had been laid off “ during
Trumps latest Bankruptcy. I cannot tell you how Republicans react to
such things, but I can tell you independents and Democrats take a dim
view of you screwing your employees and your creditors. Can you say
out of touch?
Much
to the credit of the moderators, Trump was not the only one who was
asked difficult questions. Chris Christie was asked about New
Jersey's downgraded credit rating, and Scott Walker was asked about
his extreme position on abortions. Most of the candidates were also
asked questions about immigration. What bothered me is that none of
the candidates had the moral courage to confront Trump about his
absurd accusation that the Mexican Government is sending its
criminals across the border. This lack of moral courage also extends
to John Kasich and Jeb Bush, even though both of those gentlemen
tried to make nice with Hispanic voters.
Now
I have to comment on the pundits again. In spite of the drama the
pundits want to stir up to draw an audience, I do not think there are
winners to such debates. Most people will say the winner was the
candidate they favored going into the debate. So there are only
losers who tripped all over them selves or candidates who did well
enough to please their supporters. The Democratic pundits thought
Kasich and Rubio did well. But here is the problem: none of the
candidates had to answer questions about racial issues, voter
suppression, or economic policies. If Marco Rubio had to answer
economic policy questions he would have to reveal once more that he
wants to take us into the future with the failed policies of the
past, and Kasich is not much better. I might add here that none of
the Republican candidates can widen the Republican base and still win
the primary elections. Stay tuned in there is more to follow!
No comments:
Post a Comment