Republican Fisticuffs: A Summary of the Debate

Oh, what a blissful introduction to the 2016 campaign season last night was! There were so many candidates on stage that you could only keep a few of them on your mind at any given point and when a forgotten member of the cadre spoke up, it was like a hidden present found on Christmas morning. Aside from the genuinely bizarre statements proffered by Donald Trump, and I'll have more thoughts on him in a moment, I was incredibly impressed with the quality of responses given by the candidates last night. I went into this debate with the specter of Rick Perry hovering in my mind. Will we have another candidate who forgets point three of his three point plan? Geez. But no! While I don't agree with all of the positions taken by the candidates, I was incredibly impressed with how reasonable and well spoken they were. The last two Republican primary cycles have largely been a lesson in buffoonery, but after last night I am optimistic that a new day has dawned.

So, in case you missed it, here is a summary of my favorite responses of the evening. Enjoy!

Ted Cruz

Prior to the debate, I had all but written Ted Cruz off. His reputation in the Senate is one that is divisive and argumentative and his campaign doesn't seem to have any traction. However, every single one of his responses last night were spot on. He was clear, compelling, and established himself as a contender in this election. In a response to a question regarding the relationship between Russia and Iran, Cruz demonstrated thorough knowledge of foreign affairs and even invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan. Not bad Ted, not bad.

Ben Carson

Every single answer Ben Carson gave was brilliant. Every. Single. One. He alone was the candidate who thoughtfully and thoroughly answered the question asked. Unfortunately for Carson, he isn't charismatic. He speaks slowly and deliberately, and while that allows him to answer well, it doesn't engage the audience. I could pick any one of his answers to display here, but I will end with his answer to how he would help race relations in the United States. It is a beautiful response.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio was excellent last night. In fact, I might say that Rubio walked away the winner from last night's debate. He looked fresh and youthful and his responses were informed and well-spoken. His best answer came in his response to a question about his stance on abortion.

Rand Paul

Rand's closing remarks were perfect. He closed with, "I'm a different kind of Republican" and he's right. He demonstrated that over and over again in the debate. It is clear that Rand Paul has a rigid ideological framework that guides his decision-making and honestly, I find that incredibly attractive in a candidate. That framework gives the voter confidence that they can accurately guess how their candidate/politician will respond to any given situation. Rand Paul used his closing statement to make a thoroughly convincing argument that he should be the party's nominee.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush didn't stand out last night. Overall, his responses weren't awful, but they weren't inspiring either. He was a forgettable component of last night's debate, but that may not be a bad thing. Of all the candidates, he came into the debate with the most credibility and had the most to lose from a bad debate. He didn't stumble. He didn't say anything compelling either. However, I am going to credit him with the best debate answer of the night. When responding to a question asking whether he called Donald Trump a "clown," his response was a textbook example of a pivot response. He quickly responded to the question and then used it as a platform to reiterate his campaign talking points. Brilliant. 

Donald Trump

I was prepared for cringe inducing statements from "The Donald" and he didn't disappoint. There were so many times when I was completely befuddled by his lack of focus. Make no mistake, Donald Trump is brilliant. He is clearly a strategist on par with Bobby Fisher and his entire campaign up until this point proves that. Donald Trump is a man of strong feelings, but last night demonstrated that he has not molded those strong feelings into reasoned arguments and inspiring plans of action. Last night left me wondering, "does he really think that he can win the presidency, or is this an elaborate, and expensive, attempt to direct the national conversation?" If he thinks he can win the presidency, he may not be as brilliant as I have given him credit for. If he is trying desperately to mold the debate, then he is brilliant and more. Donald Trump's Republican credentials may be dubious, but his ability to shape this primary season has been shockingly powerful. People clearly like blunt honesty and Mr. Trump has given that to them in hefty doses. I can't find a video that I consider Trump's best, instead I am posting a video that I think was his worst. Megyn Kelly asked Trump when he became a Republican and his response was not reassuring.

If subsequent debates are anything as compelling as last night's event, then this is going to be a great campaign season.

And there you have it...

Mitt Romney is not running for president in 2016. As I wipe away a tear (purely for sentimental reasons) I am forced to wonder if Damon Linker at The Week is correct: will Jeb Bush be the Republican nominee in 2016?

These are serious topics to ponder my friends. 

 That was a joke.

Sort of.

Mitt Romney: "I'm not running" in 2016- Politico
It's Over: Jeb Bush will be the GOP nominee in 2016- The Week

Memories with Mitt

I supported Mitt Romney for President.

I supported him when he dominated President Obama during the first presidential debate.

I supported him when he gave his bold and controversial speech at the NAACP.

And yes, I supported him when he introduced Paul Ryan as "the next President of the United States." A cringe inducing moment indeed.

In fact, it appears that a lot of people still support Mitt Romney. 

In a recent polling of New Hampshire voters, 25% answered that they were most likely to support Mitt Romney for president in 2016. Rand Paul and Chris Christie came in 2nd and 3rd with 18% and 17% support, respectively.

And it seems that this support is not limited solely to Republicans. In November, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that were the election held in November 2013, instead of November 2012, Mitt Romney would become president.

The numbers are quite interesting. In 2012, President Obama had an 11 point lead over Romney with women voters. In 2013, that lead diminished to 1%. Among young voters, President Obama's lead dropped from 18 points to 2.

Of course, these numbers don't mean a whole lot. The presidential election isn't being held this year and people are being asked a hypothetical question. What these numbers do show is that votes can change and voter's opinions can change.

I've spent the past year reflecting on the 2012 election and considering 2016. The Republican party failed Mitt Romney in 2012 and in order for us to meet with success in 2016, we have to be aware of our failures and move forward.

Ways We Failed Mitt

1. We bought into the lie that a candidate can and should have it all.

This is a larger problem within the Republican party as a whole. The Tea Party was enormously powerful in 2010 and it still has enormous power in the House of Representatives. Their power, however,  hasn't brought about change, it has brought about stagnation and fear. They've become the bullies of the Republican party and their attitude has impaired our ability to be pragmatic. Not every Republican looks the same and the Tea Party has acted in a way that demands conformity, or else. Conform, or we'll oust you in the next election. Conform, or we'll threaten to pull your funding. Conformity, not compromise has become the order of the day, and it is ruining our ability to win elections.

Ideology is great and is a necessity in politics, but to believe that one candidate will have a perfect ideology is bogus and to punish a candidate because he doesn't share every point of your ideology is fool-hardy and short-sighted.  

In regards to Mitt's candidacy, of course he was a flawed candidate, but so was Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich. Mitt took a lot of flak during the primaries for his evolving positions on political issues and the Republican party as a whole could never put those issues behind them and support a man who, at the end of the day, was incredibly qualified to be our nominee. If we as a party can't unify around a candidate, then we are sunk because, contrary to what MSNBC would have us believe, there is a lot of diversity in the Republican party. We've criticized the President and Democrats in Congress for refusing to compromise, but on this issue we're hypocrites. We demand compromise from our political opponents, we should also demand compromise from our allies.

2. We lost sight of the objective.

By demanding perfection, we diminished the reality that the goal is the White House. The goal is conservative Supreme Court nominees. The goal is a chance to reduce the deficit, pay down the debt, and better the lives of Americans by supporting businesses that put people back to work.

The old adage "don't miss the forest for the trees" is appropriate in this instance. In 2012, we became so focused on individual differences and discrepancies between ideologies and opinions, that we lost focus on the larger goal and the benefits that would come from attaining that goal.

3. We became irrational and illogical.

The basic tenets of federalism are the bread and butter of the larger Republican mindset. We love small government and we specifically love a small federal government. Our constant response to the over-reaching that comes out of Washington is "let the states decide!" Why then, did we castigate the former governor of Massachusetts for implementing a state-wide strategy to reform health care? He didn't push this idea on the nation and he did it with the support of his constituents. Isn't that what we want from government? Local solutions to local problems.

Why then, did we penalize a man for addressing the needs and wants of his constituents in a way that conforms to the larger Republican ideology of federalism? We castigated Romney as a fraud and a traitor, but he was modeling one of the principles that Republicans hold dear. It was irrational to think that just because the Democrats stated that ObamaCare was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan, that RomneyCare was something to be ashamed of. This was a knee-jerk reaction fueled by an anti-Obama sentiment that was so gripping it robbed us of the ability to be thoughtful and objective.

Looking to 2016

The Republican party is a fractured party that is being held hostage by the tension between the need for change and the status-quo. There are real problems that need to be addressed and, one way or another, some group is going to be left out. After considering the bitter defeat of 2012, I genuinely believe that in order for the GOP to survive, we have to learn to coalesce around our nominees. Let's fight it out in the primaries and support the candidate that we most agree with. When the fighting is done however, we need to learn to compromise and focus. It's the only path that leads us to the White House.


And yes, I am planning on watching Mitt's documentary this weekend. Watching and weeping for what might have been.

______________________________________

Sources and Recommended Reading

President Romney? Yes, If the Election Were Held Today
Mitt Romney is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner
7 Things We Learned from Mitt Romney's Sundance Doc
Despite Some Red Flags, 8 in 10 People Satisfied with Healthcare in Mass.
RomneyCare Facts and Falsehoods