I’m telling you, when we enter the final primary stretch, the last men standing are going to be the first-term Cuban senators — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. (And while that’s now certified conventional wisdom I suggested it more than a month ago.)
Watching the debates, you can see them honing their respective acts. Rubio is the sunny optimist who wants to be the face of the GOP’s future. Cruz is the indignant voice of the angry conservative base. Both are practiced, polished and smooth.
Perversely, my favorite moment of the debate might have been Rubio’s answer to a question about Hillary Clinton’s qualifications: “That’s a great question. And let me begin by answering it.” He laughed, a humanizing moment that gave the impression that he was in on the joke. Then he smoothly pivoted to a classic Rubio America-is-wonderful-but-something-has-gone-wrong-but-we-will-give-everyone-hope-again spiel.
Cruz is the outraged prosecutor making his case against liberalism and big government — even if he failed to name all five federal agencies that he wants to eliminate.
[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]
His debate skills were on display not simply for the (mostly) fully developed sound-bites he recited through the debate but also in a terrific exchange he had with Ohio Gov. John Kasich over bailing out the banks. Cruz had said that in the event of another financial catastrophe he would “absolutely not” bail them out. Kasich landed a blow on Cruz on the difference between an executive and a legislator (or philosopher, as he implied), saying that executives find a way to get things done rather than just philosophizing while innocent, hard-working families lost their life savings.
But Cruz trapped Kasich in the real-world implications of his argument. Would he bail out the banks? No, Kasich tried to argue, he would help the hard-working people, not those who could afford to take a hit. Bailing out banks or government choosing winners and losers — neither sits well with GOP primary voters and Kasich got booed. Point Cruz.
Kasich tried several times to be the feisty adult in the room during the evening, but it was generally against party orthodoxy — no, you can’t deport 11 million people, he argued, that’s “a silly argument. It is not an adult argument. It makes no sense.” It may make no sense but it’s a popular position among Republican primary voters and people don’t like being told that they’re silly.
It seems unlikely that Kasich did much if anything to either slow the Rubio momentum or spur his own. The same can be said of Jeb! Bush, who finally seemed intent on expressing the exclamation point in his campaign logo. He had more energy and polish than he has had in previous debates (after the third Republican debate he talked about how he’s not a performer … then went out and hired a performance coach) but he did little that will be remembered.
On the Cruz side — the conventional insurgents, or people who have political experience but style themselves as outsiders — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul showed up with greater focus and verve tonight, but he was most forceful in areas that will not play well with the GOP, especially foreign and military policy. He blasted Rubio for being a “liberal” on military spending — that ramping it up would be irresponsible — and incredibly no one bothered with the obvious follow up: Was Ronald Reagan liberal on military spending?
[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump]
The moderators clearly learned their lessons from the CNBC debate, avoiding making themselves the story. After devoting the first segment entirely to economic policy (the supposed theme of both this debate and the last one), they frequently wandered into other policy areas, whether foreign policy, Ben Carson’s credibility or immigration. And honestly that was fine. Much of the economic policy tended to be long strolls through fields of flowery platitudes with each candidate explaining why their economic plan — cut taxes and roll back regulations — is different than everyone else’s (which would cut regulations and roll back taxes) and will prompt incredible (literally: not credible) economic growth. (Secret ingredient: Harnessing unicorn power.)
A weird dynamic has developed in the Republican presidential debates where the people leading in the polls — former reality TV star Donald Trump and pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson — tend to fade. As XM radio talk show host Michael Smerconish put it on Twitter, “If you hadnt paid attention to race, and just watched this tonight, you’d have no idea that Trump and Carson are frontrunners.” Carson was largely missing from the debate and when he did speak his measured, meandering answers didn’t do very much to instill confidence in his grasp of policy, whether in economics or foreign affairs (where China is, he suggested, involved in Syria). Trump, meanwhile, has toned his act down, and isn’t a dominating figure.
And perhaps that’s the advantage of being a nontraditional candidate — your appeal is not pegged to things like debate performances.
But at the same time it says something that neither front-runner was the target of sustained attacks. Carly Fiorina had a presumably prepared volley against Trump (and he in turn complained about her interrupting too much, which does nothing to help his sexist image) but for the most part the other candidates ignored the two front-runners. It’s a pretty strong indication that, as more candidates drop out or are demoted to the JV debate and as the months before the real voting begins dwindle, the conventional politicians still don’t think that Trump and Carson are going to last.
More from U.S. News
Editorial Cartoons on Barack Obama
Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump
Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio Hone Their Acts in Fox Business Network GOP Debate originally appeared on usnews.com
