The First GOP Debate: The Trump Show

So, the first GOP debate is done and my gut feeling that ten candidates in one debate would not end up benefiting any of them much seems to be accurate. There were a few breakout moments but no one got enough time (except Trump) to really make a case to be President of the United States.

That said, I think two things have become obvious about Fox's personal slant on this primary. They do not want Trump or Paul to be the Presidential Candidate. They tried to take both down with opposing tactics. In Trump's case, he was given far more time than anyone else to speak. I think Fox was hoping he'd hang himself on his own noose. In my opinion, he did. He might be surging in a Drudge Poll, but that doesn't mean much. People will soon start to get tired of his mean-spirited blathering.

In Paul's case, they didn't give him much time. He had to make his few minutes count. He did, but unfortunately (and I think on purpose), his questions were relegated to gay marriage and foreign policy, which are issues that we can all reasonably agree hurt his electability, the former because it turns off independent voters and the latter because it turns off the GOP base.

On the whole, however, Fox did ask very decent questions. As with all debates, I wish they would have pushed the candidates harder to answer them, but they did try. It was about as good as one can expect from a 10 person debate. That is, until they got to the ridiculous 'God' question. But more on that later.

In any event, let's look at the candidates' performances individually last night:

Trump: At this point, if you want this guy in charge of the nukes, you shouldn't be voting. I get his appeal in some ways. He's anti-PC and non-establishment. He says whatever the fuck he pleases and in a culture of hypersensitivity, that can be attractive. But he's also a dipshit. It's one thing to be right and aggressively anti-PC. It's another thing to be wrong and then use ad hominem attacks on those who point it out. His entire approach last night was to shout nonsense and then name-call whoever called him out. It's childish. I seriously began to wonder how this man became a successful businessman. His 'intel' on every topic seems to stem from backroom gossip at a board meeting.

Most disturbing, because it's about the only matter of policy he even discussed, is his seeming open support for crony Capitalism. He admits that he buys influence with his donations and proudly so. I'm not sure if he's saying that once in office he would fight the very system he's been rigging for years, but that's a dubious prediction at best. His message is clear: I only care about me. We get it, dude.

Bush: Jeb did what he had to do. He stayed above the fray, out of controversy, and continued to tout his record as Governor of Florida, which actually is a pretty impressive record. He remained dignified and calm and, I think, did about the best you can expect from a sort of uninspiring candidate. He non-answered the question about Common Core falling into the 'well, you should leave it up to the states to decide' even as Rubio pointed out that the Federal Government will soon make it nearly impossible to refuse. He did actually answer the question about donating to Planned Parenthood (inadvertently) very well. This issue isn't super important to me, except insofar as I don't think PP is a sacred cow and that there are many better options for accessibly women's health. Overall, not bad. He came of as genuine and well intentioned.

Walker: An 'okay' performance. There were no real land mines he stepped into but he also didn't break out with once exception. His zinger about Hillary Clinton's emails was on point. There was only one real issue that I, personally, need clarification on. He danced around it, not really answering, but the moderators brought to my attention that he refused to support a bill that would allow abortion in the case of the life of the mother. The vast majority of Americans, even pro-life Americans, understand that when the mother's life is in danger, terminating is reasonable. If he's this far in the giggle weeds on abortion, it might not exclude him from being an okay President (we currently have a President with equally extreme views on abortion but just in the other direction), but it does call into question his rational abilities.

Carson: Zzzzzzzzzz. Carson was a bit of a snoozefest. I hate to say that because he seems like a really nice guy and I'd probably enjoy talking to him one-on-one, but he doesn't shine in a debate setting at all. Most of his answers were delivered with a tone that made you want to go to sleep and I don't think he found his footing until the very end with his closing remarks which were endearing and funny. Most likely, those were prepared beforehand, and it gave him time to practice delivery.

Rubio: If we are awarding winners, I think Rubio won this debate. He was likable, charismatic, attacked without being combative, and stayed on message. He's another one I need clarification on the abortion issue about, but for different reasons. He's supported a rape/incest exemption on abortion bans, but when questioned he claimed that was not true. Is he just base pandering?

Some of his best moments were when he was interacting with other candidates, which actually is a very good sign. He went toe-to-toe with Jeb Bush over Common Core and came out the winner, in my opinion. He pressed the former Governor on the concept that the Federal Government never lets anything be 'voluntary' after a certain point. And though, he could have hit the point harder, he put Trump in his place about 'Mexican' immigrants, pointing out to the blowhard businessman that most illegal immigrants are not even coming from Mexico, but from many places all over Central America.  Rubio has been well practiced and he only helped his campaign last night.

Huckabee: It's not secret I'm not a Huckabee fan. On social issues he clearly illustrated why. That said, Huckabee actually did shine on foreign policy to some extent. While I don't think he made it clear that he was a foreign policy expert, he did have a fantastic and true zinger for President Obama: “Ronald Reagan said ‘trust, but verify.’ President Obama is ‘trust, but vilify.’ He trusts our enemies and vilifies everyone who disagrees with him. And the reason we disagree with him has nothing to do with party." He is, of course, right and that line will resonate with the base. Still, he'll never get past the social issues about which he openly and enthusiastically bloviates.

Paul: Given the least amount of time, he actually did make good use of what he had. In an epic sparring match with Big Gov Chris Christie, he shined, in my opinion, but of course the pro-NSA crowd thought Christie won the exchange. You decide. That said, I'd vote for Paul's sassy eye rolling any day. I know that for many of the base, Paul will come off as 'disrespectful'. But let's be honest, wasn't Christie just using the 9/11 dead to make cheap shots? It was a well deserved eye-roll.

Paul floundered a bit on gay marriage saying he doesn't want his guns or his marriage registered in Washington. Okay, but he still got married, didn't he? If he was that worried about it, he could have not gotten married. Also, Washington doesn't register marriages, but whatever.

He came back strong, though. When discussing foreign aid he hit the nail on the head, though I'm sure the GOP base will not appreciate it. Essentially, he pointed out that we cannot continue to fund other countries (including our enemies) with a Chinese Credit Card. He is, of course, right. "We do not project power from bankruptcy court."

Cruz: No big mistakes, but he was forgettable, which isn't good when you are polling in the single digits.

Christie: Again, Christie and NSA supporters will disagree but I found him combative, angry, and too eager to invoke 9/11 for political purposes. He never really answered Paul's point that one should get a warrant to tap records, but then again, I think he's hoping to tap into the 'security' vote of the base so better not to get into specifics.

He wasn't given much time either, but what he did have wasn't necessarily bad. Though I think he lost the exchange with Paul, it was memorable and at least coherent.

Kasich: An obvious crowd favorite, he fed off the crowd and delivered a pretty good performance. He shined on rehabbing criminals and the economy.

I'd like to make a point about the last question of the debate. In what seems to be a sick joke from Salon or MSNBC, the last question of the debate (which seemed to be abandoned midway through the rambling weird answers) was about whether God has spoken to the candidates about their campaigns. I mean, you'd think this was an SNL sketch. It was weird, creepy, and plays on all the criticisms people have of the GOP. That they are a bunch of religious nuts. I don't want your faith to be part of your policy making, so why would I want you admitting God speaks to you about your campaign? Bad bad bad bad idea, Fox. It might make the GOP base giddy, but it will only make Independents question why they should vote for any of these people.

And there you have it, folks. Who do you think won?

First GOP Debate. What you need to know...

So, the election is in like five years but here comes the FIRST of probably a billion GOP Presidential Debates. Personally, given there are about as many GOP candidates as there are Tributes in any given Hunger Games, I'm all for a Panem-style battle to the death, but whatever. I shall attempt to be your guide through the strange, sometimes insightful, often times confusing road between Candidates that are basically the same. Let the games begin!

Donald Trump

THE GOOD: Yes, there are SOME good things about Donald Trump. For one, he's run a successful business. And running a successful business makes you about 100 times more qualified to run a country than being a Senator, in general terms. He obviously knows how to manage money, and create wealth. These are qualities anyone should be looking for in a candidate. He's not quite the dipshit he makes himself sound like, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
THE BAD: Well, for one I don't even think he wants to be President. I think he wants to hear himself talk. And speaking of talking, the things he says are ridiculous. His stance on immigration is basically, if you cannot start a business straight out of the gate, you aren't wanted. Imagine if his own immigrant ancestors were given the same strict code before immigrating? He criticized a former POW when he didn't even serve in any military ever. The man has no shame, and because of it, he cannot possibly understand that his little musings, while interesting to him, make most of us want to punch his stupid face. We can do better.

Jeb Bush
THE GOOD: He's run a state pretty well. He's also pragmatic and not entirely married to the GOP talking points. He can compromise. He believes in tax cuts. All very good qualities for a candidate. Blah blah blah...
THE BAD: However, his compromising has found him wrong on a number of issues, like Common Core Education. Like his brother, he does believe there is a 'formula' for effective teaching. There is not, and trying to make one only creates bigger problems. He spends a lot of money, also like his bother (I love W as a person, but the dude had a spending problem). Cutting taxes is all well and good, but if you think you can continue to spend at the rate we do, you are going to have a big ass problem. He's an establishment candidate that will find himself floundering in the middle, standing up for nothing but not offending many. So, par for the course.

Scott Walker
THE GOOD: He's a union busting, risk taker. He has overseen economic growth in a state that had been stagnant after years of Democratic bad policies. He's not so charismatic, but he does have reasonable points to make and will also support lower taxes and less regulation, which is just common sense at this point. If your candidate is still telling you that regulation isn't the same thing as playing favorites he/she is lying to you.
THE BAD: Spending. It's always spending. Few of the GOP candidates have any real plan to cut spending in an impactful way. Gay marriage and Abortion are also issues about which Walker seems to take a hard right approach. One of these days the GOP is going to realize that gay people can be conservatives too...i'm still waiting for it.

Ben Carson
THE GOOD: Clearly smart and will be a very good speaker on the topic of Obamacare, which he's intimately familiar. He's very quotable and will definitely be a populist favorite.
THE BAD: He's too uninformed about too many issues. He's got some common sense opinions, but when push comes to shove, he cannot hold his own against people who know all the facts and figures. Also, he thinks prison turns people gay, so one wonders how he got through medical school.


Mike Huckabee
THE GOOD: I can't even. Don't make me.
THE BAD: Too many to list. Please don't make me pretend this dude has a chance. His voice makes me want to punch baby seals in the face.

Ted Cruz
THE GOOD: Despite media branding, Cruz actually has some very good ideas in certain areas, like government spending, taxes, deregulation, Obamacare, etc. And no, he isn't the inventor of shutting down the government. most Democrats were big fans of shutting down the government to get their way...you know, before they were against it.
THE BAD: His approach is ass-backward, however. He gets so caught up in the principle that he grandstands on issues where he knows he will lose. Not only that, he knows it will make him look foolish, or he has to. He's too anti-establishment to the point where you wonder if he's fighting for his ideals or just to fight. He's also a social righty and regardless of whether it's fair or not, perception is part of the game. He is not perceived well by Independents.

Marco Rubio

THE GOOD: He's one of the only candidates with a common sensical approach to immigration (Rand Paul being the other). I might not agree with the fine print, but he doesn't think you can just build a wall and hope for the best, so that's a start. Economically he's pretty sound with the exception of his plans for military spending. He does have some charisma, though, and is very likable. Which, dear fucking GOD, the GOP needs about now.
THE BAD: He still won't cut as much as he should. And his military budget talk is troubling because he doesn't even seem to know how it's all allocated in the first place. You don't win wars, nor do you protect America by throwing money at the military. It's all about how that money is spent.


Rand Paul
THE GOOD: My personal favorite of the GOP candidates. He is talking about things that Republicans often avoid talking about. He's the only candidate (including Clinton) making a point of dealing with the criminal justice system that handicaps people from success. He wants to end the Drug War, drastically cut Federal spending and power. He cares about cutting military presence in the world without taking a drastic approach. Also, he's the only GOP candidate even remotely tackling Corporate Welfare. Overall, he's probably the best GOP candidate they've had in a long time, but certainly not without flaws.
THE BAD: He's also insistent on ardently opposing gay marriage, though it contradicts his more libertarian views. He also takes a strong stance against abortion, though that is an issue about which reasonably people can disagree.


Chris Christie
THE GOOD: So hard to come up with good things...Hmmm...Let's see. He's not as horribly awfully bad as the Democrat the COULD have ended up Governor of New Jersey?
THE BAD: Where would I begin? He thinks marijuana is addictive and wants to punish states that legalize it as President? He thinks spending is awesome, we should do more of it? He isn't even remotely small government at all? I mean, the list is endless.

John Kasich
THE GOOD: He has a great economic record. You will seem him focus on this in the debate because it is actually something to be rather proud of.
THE BAD: He's a law and order kind of guy who is also socially right, though not quite as extremely as some of his competitors. He's like the stable, vanilla ice cream in the back of the fridge that you know is there but you don't really want it. Still, it's better than eating the freezer burned 10 year old rocket pop right next to it.