The March 3 GOP Debate: Mixed Results

One thing for sure, FOX News certainly knows how to put on a show. The production values, and the showmanship are light years ahead of what we see from any other network in the world. The FOX on-air personages are all attractive, witty, and well-informed; all the shows have excellent camera work; the latest high tech is in use; in sum, no expense spared. Murdoch needs to be congratulated for saving the TV news industry. I think we can consider Rupert Murdoch the news industry's Sir John Monash.

OK, now that I have made my pitch for a job at FOX, let me turn to the debate.

The one big thing I did not like at all, not one bit, was how obvious it was that it was "Get Trump!" night. The questions, including lots of the "gotcha" variety, were geared to trip up and embarrass him. The moderators argued with Trump, and had graphics all set to go to contradict his major talking points. No other candidate got that treatment. In general, I think Trump handled most of it well, although he stumbled--unnecessarily--on a couple issues (more on that).

So who "won" the debate? Kasich, I think, did very well, and confirmed in my mind that he is bidding for the slot of Trump's VP. He gave good, solid answers, refused to attack anybody, and refused to participate, most notably, in the moderators' efforts to get him to slam Trump. One (snarky?) observation about Kasich: his answers were good and his vision solid if we were in 1988. He has not caught onto the anger in the country and the falling public confidence that government can solve problems. For his part, Trump also avoided attacking Kasich. Something's up, I think. Other than that, I don't think anybody really won this debate. Cruz and Rubio did fine, but broke no new ground, and I doubt they convinced many if any who were undecided. Rubio had the funniest line, his crack about yoga, but in general the debate was rather sour and humorless.

Trump took some hits, no doubt about it. Cruz, Rubio, and, as noted above, the moderators came after Trump, especially his business record, bringing up the story of Trump University and the law suits involved there, his use of H-1B workers in his hotels in Florida, and his line of clothing made in Mexico and China. They also raised the issue of his "off-the-record" comments to the NYT re immigration, his previous opposition to "assault weapons," and his donations to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton. Trump seemed flustered at times and did not give good answers to some of these attacks. I don't know the story of Trump University and won't touch that one, but certainly on some of the other issues he could have noted that years of progressive policies have it made it essential for businessmen to donate to all political parties, and made it very difficult to open and operate businesses in the US: in other words one must make rational decisions within an irrational system. Instead, he seemed ill-prepared and came off looking like what his opponents sought to make him look like: a shifty somewhat slimy businessman. I thought he did OK on the "assault" weapon ban issue, noting simply "I changed my mind." His mentioning of the need to be "flexible," a reasonable position, might have hurt him with some of his supporters who saw him as an uncompromising, Rock of Gibraltar bulwark against the flood of migrants. We'll see what the post-debate polls say.

For me the big loser was Mitt Romney, whose prior-day attack on Trump went barely noticed. The whole point of that attack, and of those of the extreme "Stop Trump" movement, was badly undermined by the debate's last question, to wit, "Will all of you support the GOP nominee, even if it is Donald Trump?" All answered yes, with both Rubio and Cruz elaborating on what a disaster it would be to have Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the White House.

And that's what I know . . .