GOP Debate Impressions The candidates shine on entitlements despite the moderators.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-debate-impressions-1446091913
The Republican presidential campaign is still in its early innings, and a good thing too. This means that Wednesday’s unsatisfying debate is likely to be forgotten by most voters long before they cast a vote. With that said, some impressions.
• Wasn’t the Republican Party supposed to pick moderators who had some acquaintance with Republicans? We have many friends at CNBC, but the three debate moderators lost control of the proceedings from the start and never regained it. There is no surer applause line at a GOP debate than to attack the media, and the moderators walked into the trap with tendentious questions based on liberal talking points.
• Jeb Bush should fire whoever advised him to go after Marco Rubio on the trivia of his Senate absenteeism. The attack was clearly planned because Mr. Bush did it even after Mr. Rubio had received applause for rebutting a hostile question on the subject from a moderator. Mr. Rubio counterpunched and easily won the round. Mr. Bush’s proposals for economic growth are the most thorough and thoughtful in the field, but he is oddly inept at debating. He should have spent his precious time making the case against Hillary Clinton and for his agenda.
• Chris Christie had a good night, especially with his forthrightness on reforming entitlements. He put it in populist terms by explaining there is nothing in the trust funds but IOUs and that “the government has lied to you and stolen from you.”
The general level of candor on entitlements from nearly all of the candidates was also a welcome sign for reform. Rand Paul said the age for receiving benefits had to be changed, and Messrs. Christie and Bush were honest in saying that benefits will have to be means-tested. This issue will be a sharp contrast with Hillary Clinton no matter who is the nominee, and GOP voters should look closely at who is most effective at making the reform case.
• The night went better for the professional politicians than for the “outsiders.” Carly Fiorina did her now-familiar riff that she’d be the best opponent for Hillary Clinton, but her lack of specificity is becoming notable—and a liability. Donald Trump seemed more subdued but also far too general. We love Larry Kudlow as much as anyone, but Mr. Trump will need better arguments for his tax cut than that appeal to CNBC authority. Mr. Trump keeps giving the impression that he’s not doing much homework, though we were glad to see he is walking back his previous hostility to legal immigration.
• Ben Carson has been climbing in the polls on his biography and likability, and the latter was on display. He shrewdly parried a trap question on gay rights at Costco, where he was on the board, by pointing out you can oppose same-sex marriage while treating people equally as individuals. His weakness continues to be his ability to communicate his positions on major issues like Medicare, and until he does better, many Republicans will wonder how he’d fare against Hillary.
Messrs. Rubio and Christie and Ted Cruz are the best debaters in the field, but debating is not the only test of leadership. Maybe the moderators in the next debate will know enough about Republicans to force the candidates to explain their policy differences.
Comments are closed.
