I wasn't going to write about the February 6 GOP debate in New Hampshire as I am running out of things to say about these events, but . . . since I am experiencing writer's block on a piece I started on Ronald Reagan, might as well throw out some random thoughts.
The winner?
I will agree partially with the conventional wisdom: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie "won" the debate portion of the debate. He is smart, tough, quick, plain-spoken, experienced, and articulate; he knows how to throw a verbal punch. It was the Christie we previously have seen in his successful battles with the public sector unions in New Jersey. His main target, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, seemed caught off guard by the ferocity of the Christie assault.
The normally smooth and imperturable Rubio looked at a loss as Christie attacked the one-term senator on having a thin legislative record, his shifting stance on immigration, on never having held an executive office, and on his repeating well-scripted lines. Rubio tried to defend himself by repeating well-scripted lines, and Christie caught him out on it. Was it "fair"? Who said you have to be "fair"? That aside, maybe some of Christie's stuff wasn't fair, but Rubio should have pointed out which and why; he didn't do it. Rubio showed himself still a little green. Christie, himself, of course, also is guilty of repeating lines, "When I was a prosecutor after 9/11 . . .." I say "of course" because after this many debates, all the candidates are repeating themselves. OK, so Christie "won" the debate portion of the debate, but did it do him any good? I don't know. I don't believe the polls and I am not in New Hampshire, so I don't know. Perhaps he has kept his candidacy alive, and, perhaps, he derailed the Rubio "locomotive" which the press had been busy fueling.
I think, however, that the winner overall of the night was Donald Trump. Texas Senator Ted Cruz continued flat and not very interesting. Bush came alive a bit, but it might be too late for him; the others did not, in my view, register much. Trump the apparent front-runner might not have hit any home runs, but he also made no big errors. Nobody really nailed him, even when he said some amateurish things on dealing with China and North Korea, and gave a fragmented exposition on health care. Nobody managed to kill the king or even wound him.
I am not going to discuss the pathetic Democratic party debate between Crooked Clinton and Soviet Socialist Sanders. Beyond the pale . . .
Maybe Carly won by not being there.
ReplyDeleteRubio should have followed Trump's lead from the last debate and passed on this one. He did about as well as Custer did at the Little Big Horn.
DeleteThat's true. Maybe next time around the Republicans can give us a choice between a felon and a communist. It sure seems to work for the Dems.
DeleteThe debates have become a farce; useless for anything other name calling and ambush.
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea is China's pet Pit Bull and people are responsible for what their dogs do.
ReplyDeleteThis is weird. I am asked if I am not a robot. Does this mean Rubio is banned from commenting here?
ReplyDeleteTrump showed real class in the way he helped Ben Carson out at the debate after Carson missed his entrance call due to the noise.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgeslpPZnk
I'm mildly surprised that Jeb's corpse is still taking part. And who is Ohio Governor mumble mumble?
ReplyDeleteMy New Hampshire source says what happens here won't matter much.
ReplyDeleteRead this in the Miami Herald. Made me laugh:
ReplyDeleteThe big loser in the debate, according to the pundits, was Marco Rubio, who got this one talking point lodged in his throat and kept saying it over and over, unable to stop himself, until finally Dr. Ben Carson gave him the Heimlich maneuver, sending the talking point flopping onto the stage, where Chris Christie stomped on it.
Somebody on another blog had a better response from Rubio, if he had had the wit to use it. He could have said, "Asked and answered, Mr Prosecutor. Asked and Answered."
ReplyDelete