RUTHFULLY YOURS

Des Moines, Iowa — Fox News’s Megyn Kelly called him “the elephant not in the room.” And yet, improbably, Donald Trump seemed somehow to emerge victorious from the last GOP presidential debate before Monday’s Iowa caucuses.

The Republican front-runner, who, citing Kelly’s alleged bias as a moderator, announced at the last minute that he would skip the debate to hold a dueling event nearby, left political onlookers confused and bemused once again. As seven of his Republican challengers duked it out for Fox’s cameras, it was he who dominated Google and Twitter searches across the country. While his closest competitors in Iowa, Texas senator Ted Cruz and Florida senator Marco Rubio, endured painful moments at the hands of their fellow candidates, Kelly, and her colleagues, Trump, through his absence, floated above it all.

A stone’s throw away from the Iowa Events Center, where the rest of the leading candidates spent two hours beating one another up, Trump was joined at his own event, a fundraiser for veterans, by the two previous winners of the Iowa caucuses, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Their presence alongside the brash real-estate mogul, who is locked in a dead heat with Cruz four days from the caucuses, was a visible testament to their desire to deny the Texas senator a victory here, where his campaign has devoted so much time and energy, and where a loss will be considered an enormous setback.

As my colleague Jonah Goldberg notes, the Left and some of the Right has long been waiting for a “conservative crack-up,” first predicted by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. of The American Spectator . . . a generation ago. I am a middle-aged man with more grey in my beard than I would really like to see in the morning, but I was a high-school boy when Mr. Tyrell wrote that book.

These crack-ups are an awful long time coming.

If you spend very much time reading the Left’s advocacy journalism — as I do, for my sins — then you are accustomed to seeing headlines about the pending destruction of the Republican party and the conservative movement. It has been nearly 15 years since John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira heralded “The Emerging Democratic Majority” in their celebrated book by that title. Articles titled “The End of the Republican Party” or similar are found almost daily not only in moonbat online journals such as Salon but in the New York Times.

This isn’t new. The failure to convict Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial was welcomed by Democrats as the end of the Republican party, as a sign of its “disarray” — they are fond of that word, for some reason — and its debilitating internal contradictions. Clinton’s election had been similarly greeted, as was Barack Obama’s. The eventual unpopularity of the Iraq war among the fickle and childish American electorate was supposed to have made the GOP a pariah for a generation. The Donald is not the first trump sounding the conservative apocalypse.

After all that, where is the Republican party, and the conservative movement, in actuality?

Something did surprise me though — and it was Frank Luntz’s focus group. I have never seen them so unanimous in their reaction. Almost all of them seemed to think Rubio had won the debate and the vast majority said they had decided to switch their votes to the Florida senator. Virtually all of them thought he could defeat Hillary Clinton.

I don’t blame Donald Trump for passing on the seventh Republican debate Thursday night. It was pretty boring, even for a political junkie like me, though I did enjoy Rubio’s one-liner about Bernie Sanders running for president of Sweden. (Frankly, I think even the terminally PC Swedes might not even be able to handle Bernie in the end the way things are headed.)

I heard some of the spin-room pundits nattering on about how serious the debate was, ostensibly because of the absence of Donald, as compared to the previous encounters. I didn’t see it. Fox had promised new and interesting questions but they weren’t much (except perhaps from some minor video assist). It felt to me like everything had been “asked and answered” before, maybe several times before. And I found it hard to sit through all that spin-room blather about who did or didn’t win the debate. Did Jeb rise above his low expectations? Yawn.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: During the debate I was simultaneously streaming Trumps’ veterans’ benefit on my computer, turning the volume up and down on each as I went, so I may have missed some key minutes. The benefit was intermittently entertaining and it was heartening to see them raise so much money for disabled vets.)

The essential difficulty of these debates is the distinctions between the candidates are so narrow that mostly they seem manufactured, even between the so-called insiders and outsiders. In actuality, the only real outsider in the Republican field is Dr. Carson. Trump has been wheeling-and-dealing with politicians for decades, Cruz is a senator, and Fiorina is an ex-CEO of a major corporation who has spent years negotiating with politicians and jetting around the world for major foundations. During Thursday’s debate, the only ones with substantive policy differences were Rand Paul and possibly Kasich, who sometimes appears to been running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Maybe he should, because all they have at the moment is a semi-felon and that “Swedish” president.

Marco Rubio is suddenly everywhere in Iowa. He’s campaigning alongside Joni Ernst, the state’s popular senator. He’s in the headlines of the Des Moines Register and Sioux City Journal, both of which endorsed him. He’s playing to standing-room-only crowds, jamming in three or four events a day.

That is a change for the Florida senator—and a carefully planned one. Of all the Republican candidates, none is playing a more complex (or longer) game than Mr. Rubio. Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are following the conventional route of betting that big early victories will lock in the nomination. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich are using another classic approach—putting all their chips on one state, hoping to jump-start a move.

Mr. Rubio by contrast is flouting the usual rules, playing everywhere at once and nowhere on top. It’s the Wait Them Out strategy. The plan hinges on edgy calculations and big risks. Yet given the unusual nature of this primary cycle, the approach may prove as plausible as any other.

The first of those Rubio calculations is that he has the ability to finish strong in Iowa. The Rubio team has bided its time in the state, convinced that it is possible to peak too soon. And Iowa voters do tend to be last-minute deciders. Rick Santorum, a few weeks from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, was averaging about 7%; he finished with nearly 25% of the vote. Newt Gingrich, by contrast, saw his numbers tank in the homestretch.

Donald Trump missed Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, and a funny thing happened: A serious conversation broke out.

The conversation was, among other things, about what it would take to ensure American security in a time of Islamic State terrorism, what it means to be a conservative in the mixed-up environment of 2016 and, most heatedly, about what to do with illegal immigrants.

The seven candidates who did show up argued with one another, pointedly and occasionally angrily but rarely on personal terms. Significant differences emerged, which is what is supposed to happen in debates.

The last Republican presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses focused on many issues from immigration to Putin. Watch the highlights in two minutes. Photo: Getty

The consensus second-ranking contender, Sen. Ted Cruz, had to explain why there was no inconsistency between his votes against defense budgets and his fiery rhetoric about sending waves of American bombers to attack Islamic State forces in Syria and Iraq.

Sen. Marco Rubio tried to sound the toughest notes on fighting extremists. At one point he said Islamic State forces “want to trigger an apocalyptic Armageddon showdown” and “need to be defeated militarily, and that will take overwhelming U.S. force.”

The Hillary Clinton apparat has never obeyed Marquess of Queensberry political rules, and they’re most vicious when cornered. So perhaps it reveals something about the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified material on her personal email server that her enforcers are now assailing the integrity of the investigators.

The latest target is David Seide, who serves as counselor and acting senior adviser to State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. A decade ago as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Mr. Seide was tangentially involved in the prosecution of David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton’s New York Senate campaign in 2000, who was acquitted at trial.

“You have a guy who used his former position to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into Mrs. Clinton that amounted to nothing, who then continues that work in the State Department. That has fingerprints on it that are just too visible and just lead to all sorts of questions,” Steve Israel told Politico for a Jan. 25 hit and run.

The wired-in New York House Democrat is a Clintonista in good standing, and Mr. Israel went on to speculate: “It actually seems to be a pattern emerging. This is the second known high-ranking official in the IG office with a glaring conflict of interest.” Emilia DeSanto, the deputy IG at State, is a former aide to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

A spokesman for the IG denied any conflict, noting that Mr. Rosen was indicted by a different federal prosecutor after Mr. Seide left the government. Mr. Seide did investigate the same 2000 Brentwood gala and fundraiser whose alleged campaign-finance violations led to the Rosen charges, and he won a conviction against a separate Clinton donor, who helped bankroll the event, for stock-price manipulation.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz both have been described as “insurgency” candidates, but it is important to ask: Insurgents on behalf of what, exactly? An excellent example of what this means in real terms is the question of ethanol, the useless gasoline additive that the federal government inflicts on American consumers at the behest of corn growers, processors, and related special interests.

Ethanol is, inevitably, dear to many hearts in corn-producing Iowa, which makes it a tender subject for presidential candidates of both parties facing the early test of the Iowa caucus. It presents a test of principle. One of the basic problems of American governance is the interaction of what is known in political-economy terms as “concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.” A manufacturing tax credit that subsidizes Starbucks as a “manufacturer” to the extent that it puts beans into bags doesn’t mean very much to the average taxpayer or member of Congress, but it may mean a lot to Starbucks. Special-interest groups will fight very hard for their perks, and no one has as strong an incentive to fight against them.

RELATED: Refusing to Kiss King Corn’s Ring in Iowa

The ethanol program is pure corporate welfare. It is marketed as an environmental initiative to the Left and a hedge against filthy “foreign oil” to the Right, but it is simply a mandate, a federal rule that says gasoline producers must buy ethanol and mix it into their product. It’s nice to have a marketing department with nuclear weapons and an IRS, so the corn-juice guys are very defensive about their mandate.

To stand against the ethanol mandate in Iowa is a test of political character.

In April 2009, Katrina Pierson was a disappointed Obama voter and, she emphasized, “just a mom,” when she made her first foray into politics: a seven-minute speech at the Dallas Tea Party Tax Day Rally. “No president is going to change your life circumstances,” she reminded the crowd. “No government, no friends, no family, but most certainly no president is going to change your life circumstances.”

How things change.

In November, Donald Trump handpicked Pierson, a Texas tea-party activist, conservative pundit, and erstwhile Republican candidate for Congress, to be his national spokesperson, assigning her a seemingly superhuman task. In fact, it has proven an inspired choice. In Pierson, Trump found someone whose relationship to conservatism, and to the truth, is as elastic as his own.

Start with Pierson’s professional history. Ironically, it was as a volunteer for Ted Cruz’s insurgent campaign for a Senate seat in Texas that Pierson first found the national spotlight, becoming a regular guest on cable news (including and especially Fox News). A review of appearances from Pierson’s early political career reveals no particular trenchancy, but certainly a dose of that inimitable and inborn quality: “media savvy.”

Perhaps that is what she brought to the Cruz campaign, since the actual work she did remains a point of contention among the Cruz faithful. An activist involved in both Cruz’s senatorial and presidential campaigns told Politico, “My 8-year-old did more work for Ted than she ever thought about doing,” and Cruz insiders added that the senator never considered bringing Pierson in on his national efforts. (He did describe her as an “utterly fearless principled conservative” when she launched an unsuccessful primary bid against Texas congressman Pete Sessions in 2013.)

In any event, Pierson became a prominent Cruz supporter and even appeared on stage with him the evening of his general-election victory. And she continued to support Cruz long after Election Night: In January 2015, Pierson introduced him at a tea-party event in South Carolina, and in March she told Megyn Kelly that Cruz was “a walking testament to immigrants who have fled their countries to seek freedom and achieved the American dream.”

But since joining the Trump campaign, Pierson has been eager to suggest that it is Cruz himself who is the immigrant. “There’s a ton of voters who are a little uncomfortable voting for someone outside of the country,” she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, insinuating that Cruz’s birth makes him ineligible for the presidency. Oddly, Pierson had no such concerns when she was campaigning for him — or when, in March 2015, just after Cruz’s presidential announcement and shortly after her comments on The Kelly File, she wrote on Facebook: “Repeating your wishes as facts isn’t going to make them so. Ted Cruz is a natural citizen by BIRTH and is eligible to be President,” adding: “For those constantly citing otherwise is plain whiney and the most unintelligent way to prop up your choice. So, your candidate is just going to have to bring it in the debates. Good luck!”

Earlier this week, Senator Ben Sasse launched a barrage of questioning tweets at Donald Trump. Most dealt with policy. Unsurprisingly, the tweet that got personal is getting most of the attention: Low blow? Only if you think voters shouldn’t consider character and personal integrity when evaluating a president. Here’s what Sasse is talking about: Trump engaged in a highly publicized affair with actress Marla Maples while he was married to his first wife, Ivana Trump, and has written about having relationships with married women. “If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller,” Trump wrote in his book “The Art of the Comeback.”

Trump also wrote in “Think Big and Kick Ass” that he’s been with married women: “Beautiful, famous, successful, married — I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names.” I don’t think affairs — by themselves — disqualify a person from the presidency, but the combination of infidelity and boastfulness is particularly damaging.

Indeed this kind of braggadocio is more reminiscent of professional wrestlers or third-world strongmen than an American president. I’m reminded (with apologies to Jonah for borrowing one of his favorite references) of the Congolese dictator Joseph Desiré-Mobutu, who changed his name to Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa za Banga, meaning “the all-powerful warrior who because of his endurance and inflexible will to win will go from conquest to conquest leaving fire in his wake.” Perhaps for Trump we could find the equivalent translation for “the all-dealmaking mogul who because of his wealth and will to win goes from conquest to conquest leaving divorce in his wake.” I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

Is Donald Trump the sharia of American politics? I’m having trouble finding much daylight between Islamic law’s repressive blasphemy standards and the mogul’s thin-skinned sense of privilege.

None of us wants to be insulted or smeared. But sharia forbids not only ridicule or slander against Islam; it bans any examination that casts Islam in an unflattering light. Worse, truth is not a defense: Even if one’s questions are based on undeniable past actions or verbatim quotes from scripture, tough questioning is considered blasphemous. Retribution, moreover, is often completely out of proportion to the scale of the perceived “offense.”

How is Trump different?

They say politics ain’t beanbag: People in and around it eventually get slammed by opponents and other critics. But to Trump, the mildest criticisms are “vicious” attacks.

Let’s take the exchange last summer with Megyn Kelly that prompted Trump to whine that he was unfairly treated and to heap abuse on Ms. Kelly in the aftermath. (Before I go on, note that I support Mr. Trump’s rival Ted Cruz, and that I am on friendly terms with Megyn Kelly, on whose program I periodically appear.)

Given the limited time, the slew of candidates to engage, and the grave problems faced by the country, could Kelly have made a better choice than to grill Trump on his derogatory remarks about women? As they say in the debate biz, that’s debatable. But the questions she asked were hardly irrelevant.

Presidential temperament is often a decisive electoral consideration. Furthermore, the “war on women” meme is a bread-and-butter Democratic attack: regrettably effective against Republicans in the last presidential election and certain to be reprised if Hillary Clinton is the Dems’ nominee. How do we gauge Trump as a prospective nominee if we don’t get a sense of what ammo can be fired at him and how he is apt to handle it?