Three Quick Observations About Last Night’s Debate

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

41 Responses

  1. nevermoor says:

    He’d have a much harder time finding those points (though not impossible, I suppose) in the other party’s debates.

    No democratic candidate is making any claim anywhere near as nutty as the “sane” GOP candidates promising 4% growth (Jeb!) and revenue-neutral $12T tax cuts (Rubio)Report

  2. Michelle says:

    Well, we agree on one thing, Tod. Kasich was last night’s saving grace. But, to me, there is a GOP philosophy, such as it is, which boils down to (1) cut taxes in ways that favor the wealthy, (2) gut government regulations, and (3) more money for the war machine and more wars. Reagan redux but without the charm.

    And the Fox moderators sucked. They couldn’t even be bothered to ask the obvious follow-up question for fear some candidate’s wittle feewings might get hurt. Debates are all about talking points. It’s the moderator’s job to delve a little deeper.

    My main take away from last night’s debacle–don’t watch without a strong drink at hand.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Michelle says:

      Four years ago it seemed like only a few candidates had flat-tax proposals, which hovered around 18-20% or so, and they only wanted to eliminate maybe 3 Federal Agencies/Depts. This time around everyone seems to be proposing a flat-tax in the 10-15% range and they want to eliminate up to 5 Agencies.

      Next time around they’re all gonna campaign on a 0% flat-tax plan and eliminating the entirety of government. Except Kasich.Report

    • James K in reply to Michelle says:


      But based on Tod’s commentary, plenty of the candidates were in favour of introducing new regulations. It seems like the GOP’s values don’t involve small government, but rather saying the words “small government”. It’s like lip service is all they have.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to James K says:

        It would be nice if we could have a viable small-government party instead of a choice between the shameless big-government party and the big-government party in denial.Report

        • Damon in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          Yeah, that’s what I’ve been telling those fund raisers who used to call me. They eventually stopped. There are only minor differences between the parties-they are all statists.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Damon says:

            Although the combination of a Democratic president and Republican Congress has worked out kind of okay during the Clinton and Obama administrations. I guess two wrongs do make a right. Or a lesser wrong, anyway.Report

            • trizzlor in reply to Brandon Berg says:

              I think it’s more like the GOP puts pressure on the Democrats to get things to balance, but no one puts pressure on the GOP to do so. Unfortunately the narrative that “tax and spend on welfare” is not more irresponsible than “borrow and spend on tax cuts” never took off, and Ds don’t have the street cred to push back on the issue.Report

    • Will H. in reply to Michelle says:

      I have wondered for a number of years why one party doesn’t just suggest that all income below $50,000 be free from taxation.
      It would definitely alleviate the need for government programs for many, which feeds directly in to the Republican line.
      Additionally, it resolves the issue of dividing the middle class against the poor to prevent effective coalition building.

      A 10% flat tax is all about making the poor schmuck making $8000/yr pay a much greater portion of their income in taxes, ensuring dependence on government programs for their very livelihood.
      Wage slavery at the governmental level.Report

  3. Morat20 says:

    There was SOME agreement that “American wages are too darn high” which does not seem like a winning concept to me, but….I wasn’t gonna vote GOP anyways.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Morat20 says:

      Trump’s idea of Making America Great Again requires slashing American incomes.Report

      • Francis in reply to Stillwater says:

        Per the GOP: We can afford — and must have — the world’s most powerful, most modern, military. We cannot afford to pay an EITC that generates a living wage for people who work full time.

        We will, notably, at no time document and compare those two numbers.

        (That no one pointed out the contradiction between making america great again and increasing poverty seems a missed opportunity.)Report

      • El Muneco in reply to Stillwater says:

        Back when America was great, American workers had smaller incomes
        We want America to be great
        American workers should have smaller incomesReport

        • Morat20 in reply to El Muneco says:

          Also the Gold Standard.

          Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. And it’s spreading. I watched a coworker’s response on Keystone — “Obama’s not letting us move our own oil!”.

          He literally had no idea it was Canadian oil. (He certainly didn’t know that, really, the pipeline could have been built along existing right of ways but some idiot drew a straight line that intersected tribal lands AND aquifers, and the original people screaming were state’s — not the Feds. He also then went on to point out a train that wrecked, spilling oil, before being buried with numbers on the relative safety of trains versus pipelines for oil transport — trains win easily, for very obvious reasons. Like, you know, the difference between a guy dropping a jug of water and your water main bursting.)Report

          • Kolohe in reply to Morat20 says:

            ” trains win easily, for very obvious reasons. ”

            That’s not what a cursory search of the internet says. It seems that while pipelines have a bigger risk for large spills, they they have a much smaller risk for going big bada boom and causing immediate human casualties.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to Kolohe says:

              Trains wreck more often than pipelines burst (although at least in America, if you take a hard look at train wrecks what you often see is rotting infrastructure, which does not make me happy about pipeline infrastructure). But when pipelines burst, they spill far more oil.Report

              • Kolohe in reply to Morat20 says:

                But that generally doesn’t kill any people. We can buy dish soap to clean up the wildlife, but you can’t go to Costco to buy someone a new dad or brother.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Kolohe says:

                “Generally” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting there. Especially since a quick perusal here has an awful lot of deaths and injuries.

                And that’s direct deaths, not second or third order effects from oil getting into the water table.

                And then there’s costs….to be blunt, we don’t consider a human life infinitely valuable when it comes to any other tradeoff decision, so why should we single out oil transport?Report

  4. Stillwater says:

    When Jeb Bush dodged the entire bailout crisis by making the absurd promise that, if he were elected, America would never again have another financial crisis ever

    “Promise me you’ll never die.”
    “You know I can’t promise that.”
    “Promise me you’ll never die and I’ll make love to you right now.”
    “I promise I’ll never die.”

    Also, something about a permanent 4% growth rate…Report

  5. Burt Likko says:

    Well, Kasich was already the Republican I liked best before the debate. Now he’s proven that he really is the only grownup in the room.

    Which, of course, is precisely the reason why he will not garner even a single delegate.Report

  6. trizzlor says:

    >>During the CNBC debate, the moderators actually tried to do what Josh proposes. But rather than illuminate the situation, it gave the weaker and less honest candidates cover.

    Yeah, I can’t agree with this enough. Maybe there was a time when moderators could pin a candidate down with a tough question in a way that was revealing (the Kitty Dukakis question? though that really was a stinker). But at this point a “hot seat” question just gives the debaters another way out of answering it.

    >>I think people who care enough to watch a debate can, quite likely, actually dress themselves in the morning on their very own, without help from their parents, just like a big kid.

    But here I’ll push back. There are many instances where the candidates say things that have no internal consistency but which have the appearance of truth. I’ll use myself as an example in that Jeb Bush’s promise of 4% growth, or Ted Cruz’s claim that growth was better under the gold standard did not immediately set off red alarms in my head – even though I now realize that they are howlers. And I consider myself a person who can usually get dressed in the morning. Worse, none of the other candidates are motivated to point out these inconsistencies, since many of them have campaigns built on the same hokum. That leaves only the moderator to point out what ideas I should be suspicious of.

    The good thing is that eventually one of these people will also have to run in the general election, and at that point there will be a Democrat to pounce on this stuff. But do you honestly think that our politics is best served by candidates spending a year selling bullshit in the primary before they get called out on it?Report

    • North in reply to trizzlor says:

      Well it depends. When Gore used to (in his wooden way) point out that George W’s tax proposals didn’t add up Bush would put on his giant grin and drawl “you’re usin funny math” and hand-wave it away. Once there’s a Democratic candidate on the stage saying “You’re proposing to cut taxes by a third of revenue, but you’ve ruled 80% of spending off limits and promised spending increases on some portions of it, so you’re either going to blow up the deficit or you’re lying” they’ll just paste on a grin and invoke fuzzy math.Report

  7. notme says:

    trizzlor: The good thing is that eventually one of these people will also have to run in the general election, and at that point there will be a Democrat to pounce on this stuff. But do you honestly think that our politics is best served by candidates spending a year selling bullshit in the primary before they get called out on it?

    It worked well for Obama, criticizing Bush’s policies in the WOT and civil liberties and then continuing most of those same policies.Report

    • trizzlor in reply to notme says:

      Sure, there’s the traditional bullshit of lying about the future. I’m talking about factual claims that are *currently* known to be false, but which no one on the stage is interested in disputing. Or the only people who are interested are people the voters loathe – like Kasich or Paul.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to trizzlor says:

        When Jack Kennedy used the phony Missile Gap to beat Nixon, the incentive to lie convincingly in a debate became overwhelming.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to trizzlor says:

        The ongoing story in the GOP is not so much the intent of a candidate to lie, as the disinterest in the truth — a disinterest that seems to be shared by candidates and voters alike.

        (Insert obligatory BSDI example here.)

        To pick one example — imposing a no-fly zone over Syria sounds like a robust, assertive, likley-to-be-effective, and nearly cost-free policy. Bingo. There’s your solution. Governor Kasich showing up and saying, “So that means you’re going to shoot a Russian jet with a Russian pilot out of the sky” demonstrates that there is a massive cost to the policy, to wit, courting a direct overt war with Russia. And thus aggression, for its own sake, suddenly looks unwise.

        The bulk of the guys and the one gal on that stage simply aren’t interested in exploring that policy. It’s box to check off: How to be aggressive in Syria. No-fly zone. Check. Okay, next, trade with the EU: it should be fair and those Euros cheat. Check. And so on. That’s why they haven’t thought it through — they feel no incentive to think it through. All that matters is winning the election.

        The realities of implementing a policy proposal (which may alternatively be called “governing”) simply are not interesting. Governing doesn’t gain us/me votes. Looking robust and strong and aggressive and decisive does. So I’ll do what it takes, say what it takes, to look robust and strong and aggressive and decisive. I’ll figure out what I’m actually going to do about Syria once I’m in office, or more realistically, I’ll appoint someone to figure out what to do about Syria once I’m in office (which will therefore probably be pretty much more of the same thing the last guy was doing, whether that was a good idea or not).Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Burt Likko says:

          the disinterest in the truth — a disinterest that seems to be shared by candidates and voters alike.

          I think that’s a good point. I mean, it’s sorta trivially obvious on the one hand, but also like a really good, and even explanatory (to some extent) account of conservative politics on the other.

          I think Colbert was right that at this moment in time, reality has a liberal bias. And that’s because reality is complex and currently conservatives seem allergic to recognizing, admitting, and most importantly accepting that the world around them is a complicated place. That’s my two cents anyway.Report

          • Morat20 in reply to Stillwater says:

            I think the problem is that there are no conservatives anymore (most have become Democrats). What you have are radicals and reactionaries and revolutionaries.

            Roll back government 150 years isn’t ‘conservative’. Randomly threatening war with everyone isn’t ‘conservative’. There’s no sense of caution, of not fixing what ain’t broke, of keeping the best of what works.

            There’s a screaming desperation to upset the status quo, to return not to a state of 10 or 20 or even 40 years ago — but a century or more back.

            Giant, huge, leaping change. That’s not conservative in any sense.

            They don’t have plans because what you have is more akin to revolution. Come the day of Victory, my brothers, all things shall improve! Details are for later. There’s a bright and glorious new world in the offing, grasp it and jump!

            They’ll work out the details after they’ve hung all the traitors, purged the filth, and completed the revolution.Report

        • Mo in reply to Burt Likko says:

          @burt-likko Ted Cruz threw out some whoppers that the Fox Business folks should have been able to call out pretty easily. The Fed raised rates after the 2008 crisis hit? There were no booms or busts when we were on the gold standard? I felt like I was taking crazy pills.Report

          • Morat20 in reply to Mo says:

            Goldbugs are just an odd group of people. You’d think people so dedicated to historical economies would, you know, know about the economic history of the time.Report

        • trizzlor in reply to Burt Likko says:

          It’s hard for me to believe that all of these accomplished people are choosing to run through a crappy primary to get a crappy job and yet don’t have an interest in governance. Whether you like them or not, I think it’s pretty clear that Clinton, Obama, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, etc. are (a) either interested in policy generally or at least in a specific policy focus and (b) still say a lot of dumb stuff to get votes. It’s just the way that campaigns are run now are all about being being risk averse. So the point of the campaign is not to go talk to people, discuss your views, and reach some greater truth & understanding. It’s to focus group a stump speech and then insert it into as many media ears as possible. And everybody rewards this attitude. The media rewards it by focusing on goofs and savviness: I’ve read multiple journalists saying that Rubio’s greatest skill is that he knows how to answer questions with pre-written parts of his stump – and then those same journalists crown him the debate champion. The candidates reward it by focusing their attacks on stylistic differences where they’re much less likely to goof up or lose voters who decide they actually *do* like the other guy’s plan. And the voters reward it because they see that everyone else does. At this point, it’s irresponsible for a candidate to run as a wonk when the system is clearly not geared for that.Report

  8. trizzlor says:

    One pretty awesome example of Tod’s point about the neutral moderators: During the debate Carson had a typically meandering answer on the middle east where he claimed that China is involved in Syria and that we should re-invade Iraq. People thought it was pretty weird. Today, his business manager doubled down and said that Carson has some secret intelligence that shows China is involved. I think it’s going to sink him, or at least open him to more attacks from the right-wing media. And it’s something that was really only possible because the moderator asked an extremely simple and dispassionate question.Report

    • If he’s right, but he was speaking based on intelligence that’s still secret, isn’t that kind of a problem too? I mean, there are legal theories under which the laws about mishandling classified information apply to Republicans too.Report