Post-debate morning after
Last night reminded me how much I hate debates.
Hate, hate, hate.
It’s not really a subset of the fact that I hate political speeches. Speeches are different; they tend to be a big snooze unless the person is Churchill or Lincoln. Debates are much more fast-paced (although of course they have their dull stretches), and feature arguments. My problem with them is not that I dislike arguments, it’s that the arguments in political debates—especially ones that are not really debates, but more like competing sound bites—are shallow and often won by the better and more convincing liar.
I don’t like it. It makes me tense. Last night was no exception.
When did we start this stupid process of debate after debate after debate before the nominations and even before the primaries? I well remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates, which were a big deal at the time. But they really were more like actual debates, featuring two opponents who were their parties’ nominees. To the best of my recollection (and I assume they’re online and I could go back and watch, but probably won’t) they were sober and mostly-substantive affairs, and the candidates were dignified and serious. But today’s public would probably not be entertained enough by such a thing.
I’ve found that Ace and I are in agreement about a lot of things in last night’s debate, so since he’s already done the heavy lifting I’ll just quote him:
1. Ted Cruz won in three different ways:
First, he won on debate points. This matters the least, but it’s still important. Especially just to deny this win to Rubio.
Second, and this is big, he stood up to the Big Bad Bully Alpha Male Trump and won. Other people have stood up to Trump — and have come out looking foolish and diminished. Cruz prevailed.
Even when people say he lost on the “NY Values” exchange (an assessment I don’t share), he then lost while doing the actually important thing, appearing to be an in-command alpha sparring with another alpha.
Third, he appeared more human and likable…He also kept his good spirits in every single argument, which I don’t think anyone else did.
2. Trump kind of won just by not appearing to be a maniac.
…Trump’s goal is not to win in these things, nor to even appear informed. His goal is just to not be so outclassed, or so uninformed, as to disqualify himself. He often flirts with exactly this, but “mostly false” is, for Trump, a victory. “Mostly false” means “slightly true” and that’s good enough for him.
This was his best performance, meaning it was pretty weak, but again, he’s not playing to win, he’s playing just to not be disqualified in terms of complete incompetency and unsuitability.
He prevailed there… kinda narrowly, but he did.
3. Marco Rubio actually was angry — no joking, he actually was trying to appear angry to “channel” the base’s anger, I suppose…
I don’t think he did that well. He did okay. But it’s critical to keep in mind the sales pitch of Marco Rubio: That this is a once-in-a-generation natural political talent; that he is so informed and so persuasive when he speaks that he brings people to tears, like Obama; that no matter how much you oppose Rubio’s support for amnesty and college Kangaroo rape courts, you must vote for him anyway, because he’s such an amazing candidate as far as performance and charisma that he’s our only real shot at beating Hillary.
So here’s the problem: When Ted Cruz, and maybe even Chris Christie and even Donald Trump kind of beat you, you can’t offer yourself up as that once-in-a-generation talent, now can you?
His gun answer was good…
Overall — a fine performance, but a fine performance isn’t enough for him. He’s been sold as exceptional. “Fine” doesn’t cover the rent, Marco.
Ace goes on to criticize Christie. I disagree with him—I like Christie better than he does—but I think that Christie probably is out of it as a candidate, so I’m sticking to the current Big Three above. I would add, though, that I don’t think Rubio’s anger put off a lot of people. I think he was probably going for gravitas to balance out the accusation that he’s too young and a lightweight, and I think he succeeded, and was particularly good on the gun issue.
That said, have I told you that I really really hate debates?
But what do you think about debates, Neo?
Neo, why would any conservative even consider supporting a candidate that favors amnesty (or whatever he’s calling it this week)? Is Rubio that pretty, or sexy to you, or such a fabulous orator, with such a compelling storyline, to make you forget what illegals eventually getting the vote would do to the conservative movement and its principles?
Especially with a House that will be run by RINOs who also favor amnesty, and no matter which party runs the Senate in 2017, their leadership will also favor amnesty.
This is the capitalists selling the goddamn rope to the Communists. Rubio is the Manchurian candidate, Nixon-goes-to-China useful idiot the left always seems to dig up somehow.
Unless you really think that conservatives can siphon off enough blacks and Hispanics to defeat amnesty against the combined might of the Executive branch, both houses of Congress, the race-hustlers, the MSM, the Chamber of Commerce, plus all the unions, the bureaucracies, the entertainment/cultural juggernauts and half the judicial branch at all levels.
If you do, why not just vote for Hillary so we don’t prolong the agony?
geokstr:
What makes you think I favor Rubio?
Or that I think he’s pretty, sexy, fabulous orator, or any of the charges you’re making?
Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
And I took the liberty of editing out your last sentence. Warning for language.
I can see the GOP rallying behind Trump over Cruz because they think they’ll be able to “advise” Trump.
Wooly Bully:
I ♥ them, obviously.
I do not want Rubio as the nominee, I am in Texas and helped get Cruz elected, I want Cruz. However, I thought Rubio had his best night of the debates. Not that he won, just that he had a very good night, for him.
“I’m sticking to the current Big Three above.”
Actually, you can make that the Big Two. Rubio isn’t going to the show.
The GOP’s ineptitude continues to surprise. If one really wants registered, GOP voters to choose their favorite candidate, why not have them sit together at a table and discuss their proposed policies. With the number of candidates we started with have several tables and mix the candidates randomly. Different topics on different days; Economics, Foreign Affairs, Domestic Affairs…
Moderator: “Mr. Carson. In 10 minutes can you give us the particulars of your tax plan?” “Mr. Bush, can you do the same?” And on through the field. O.K., does anyone want a few minutes to critique something you heard in one of your peer’s plans, or specify how and why yours differs?”
I’m blogged out from writing about it at threedonia, but I thought Cruz’ “New York values” statement was foolish. Trump spiked it back over the net and it made Trump look good and now the Cruz campaign has to waste a day convincing journalists he doesn’t hate New York or New Yorkers. Google, “Cruz New York Values” to get an idea of the breadth and depth of press on that single subject.
Cruz had an otherwise good debate but all low information voters will remember is he hates New Yorkers.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Most low information voters (particularly ones on the right) also hate New Yorkers.
It’s all about the Iowa and South Carolina primaries with Cruz. In other words, it’s Pander City time. He seemed quite comfortable with NY values when he attended that fundraiser in Manhattan not so long ago.
The wonderful thing: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio understand Dems and media in a way which Romney and McCain never have and never will. Arguably, in a way in which George HW, Dole, and George W never have and never will. Aaaand … here it comes… “You’d have to go back to Reagan….”
Reagan undersrood the ground upon which the battle was conducted. Thus, Reagan understood victory. Cruz, Trump, Rubio are the same. Wonderful to watch.
It is also wonderful that Cruz and Rubio believe in small government, and are talented at explicating its value. I’m happy with these candidates
I was very unhappy in 2008 and 2012.
This is a generalization, but from flyover country the term NYC values rings many bells. OWS, islamophobia, BLM (the other one), hoplophobia, abortion until just prior to the water breaking, LBGT trumps all (pun intended), multi-cultural progressive values trump (pun intended) Western Civilization, conservatives are bible thumping machine gun toting Neanderthals, we are all inbred hicks in flyover country and the south…..
I could go on but perhaps the list is sufficient to let any ‘progressives’ in NYC understand what I think about NYC values. In case its not, I will be, as a generlization, state NYC has no decent, liberty loving, patriotic values. That is painting with a broad brush but if the donald can do it so can I.
“Last night reminded me how much I hate debates.
Hate, hate, hate.”
More evidence that you are smart — and patriotic.
(I may have hated them even longer than you have, since I have long thought they make it harder to choose the best candidate, rationally.)
Ann,
You have admitted you are in the tank for Rubio and see trump in a positive light; and you keep bringing up this Rubio and trump talking point about Cruz. Its not playing well in Iowa, we’ve been bombard with this propaganda for the last 90 days. Keep yakkity yaking and drive more voters away from Rubio and trump. Thank you.
I see Trump in a positive light? Big surprise to me. I think he’s appalling. And Cruz’s meeting in NYC is not a campaign dreamed-up “talking point” but, rather, a fact which points out something not entirely trustworthy about Cruz.
Excuse me Ann if I have you mixed up with someone else gushing with praise for trump and an ice skating rink in NYC. But is my aging brain incorrect in remembering you’re a Rubio fan? And, again, we Iowans understood the context of your talking point.
Is Cruz as pure as the snow in Antarctica? Of course not, he is a politician. Is Marco more pure? Say 1% or perhaps 3%? Note, I am not anti-Rubio, although I have a few doubts about his conservative credentials just like you have about Cruz. But that does not cause me to smear Rubio; as you seek to smear Cruz.
parker, 6:04 pm — “This is a generalization, but from flyover country the term NYC values rings many bells.” [then, an extended list of examples follows]
I think parker and I and most of us who spend time here know exactly what Cruz had in mind. There is a certain cultural (omni)presence, a zeitgeist if you will (or maybe you won’t), that is such that I (at least) recognize *exactly* where Cruz is coming from.
It’s the reverse image of what President Hopenchange had in mind when he referred to denizens of what some think of as The Bible Belt, as clinging to their guns and religion. In both cases, it’s not true of each and every person living there, but there’s this cultural overlay, and everyone living there gets marinated in it, sometimes involuntarily. It’s the atmosphere they get to breathe. It’s everywhere.
Cruz was 100 percent on target, but it’s a different question as to whether his rant was *politic*. Rufus T. Firefly (5:07 pm) hit the nail on the head: “I thought Cruz’ ‘New York values’ statement was foolish. Trump spiked it back over the net and it made Trump look good and now the Cruz campaign has to waste a day convincing journalists he doesn’t hate New York . . . .”
Some things are better left unsaid, at least until a good time and place appears.
parker,
You’re correct that I’m a Rubio fan.
I take exception to your accusing me of seeking to “smear” Cruz. A smear is based on a lie; I’ve not told any lies about Cruz.
Cruz was correct about NY values, and Trump’s response was to bullsh*t the audience with emotional blackmail:
“9/11 happened and lots of people died. Don’t you feel bad that you just made fun of NY, hater?”
None of which explains how de Blasio got elected.
NY is liberal, and maybe always has been. It will be liberal long after we’re dead, and EVERYBODY knows it.
I just love it.
We have a genuine Constitutional scholar in Ted Cruz. A guy who has argued one or more cases before SCOTUS.
Not an affirmative action phony POTUS who shucks and jives before foreign tyrants, who thinks decisive military action is taking out one ISIS pickup truck at a time and insists on calling it ISIL.
Even with Kasich and Bush on the platform, the GOP is presenting the best face to America since Ronaldus Magnus.
The 2nd tier (Fiorina, Santorum, Huckabee, in that order) is terrific also.
We are on the road to recovery.
Ann,
Not to pick a fight, but to pick a fight, what about Rubio as a card carrying member of the gang of 8? I understand how he got caught up as a new senator in the old boy game of rope a dope. I am willing to cut him some slack, unlike you concerning Cruz. Wear your hypocrisy badge proudly.
Cruz is right about New York, at least the Big Apple. It’s impolitic to say, but I think it’s fair to note.
Also, it keeps him in the news cycle. It’s like Trump’s trolling; make a big, grand statement to annoy enough people, and boom, free media coverage. It’s not likely to sway anyone on the fence to vote for him, and anyone taking offense wouldn’t be voting for him anyway.
*FINALLY*, someone who’ll stand his ground intelligently,
rather than whimper and grovel before the cultural lords.
“I apologize to all the pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment New Yorkers who were told by Gov. Cuomo that they have no place in New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
— Sen. Ted Cruz
“I apologize to all the cops and firefighters and 9/11 heroes who had no choice but to stand and turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio because Mayor de Blasio over and over again stands with the looters and criminals rather than the brave men and women.”
— Sen. Ted Cruz
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Ted-Cruz-Apology-New-York-Values-Not-Really-Apology-365485581.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-issues-apology-yorkers-liberal-politicians-york/story?id=36325123
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/15/ted-cruz-apologizes-to-new-yorkers-again-and-again/
Ann, that attempted hit piece by Politico was a big NothingBurger.
They admit, several paragraphs down, that he DID NOT contradict what he’d said elsewhere. In fact, he said this:
So why are you calling attention to it?
Anyone on that stage, including Trump, would be vastly preferable to any of the Marxist goons the Left is proposing.
Big question: is the body politic about to get a big (overdue) lesson in the evils of socialism? That case hasn’t been made in so long that the Left is now brazenly championing the Marxist cause.
“The goal of socialism is Communism.” –Vladimir Lenin
Matt_SE Says:
January 15th, 2016 at 11:59 pm
Cruz was correct about NY values, and Trump’s response was to bullsh*t the audience with emotional blackmail:
“9/11 happened and lots of people died. Don’t you feel bad that you just made fun of NY, hater?”
None of which explains how de Blasio got elected.
NY is liberal, and maybe always has been. It will be liberal long after we’re dead, and EVERYBODY knows it.
&&&&&&&
New York was the LAST bastion of the British after the Revolutionary War.
It’s ALWAYS had the strongest economic ties to Britain — by way of its port.
And one could argue that New Yorkers are less classically liberal than they are classically royalist. ( elitist, etc. )
You see New York elitism — royalism — in its various governors over the years.
More than most would admit, the welfare state was invented in Prussia.
So you can see that the terms have been warped by the word smiths over the generations.
More than most would admit, the welfare state was invented in Prussia.
The welfare system is the same thing as absolute monarchy or even aristocracy. The Prussian logistics may have developed the transport capabilities for it, but the concept itself was already present in medieval patronage systems. In the culture it self, this idea that every worker and serf owed their existence and daily bread to some patron.
I was really impressed how Cruz put in his right place this arrogant, clownish bully Trump. Excellent temper and dignified self-assurance! He will make a great President who can just as easy put in place foreign bullies, too, like Putin or Khomeini.
Yamarsakar, welfare state is much older than Prussia and medieval monarchies. It was in full swing in ancient Athens and in Roman empire, from which this slogan “bread and circuses” originated.
My wife put the radio on where I could hear it and just a small excerpt listening to Trump say some seriously dumb things about trade with China got my stress levels up.
Is there any evidence at all that the skill set that results in success at these superficial sound bite TV performances has any correlation with some collection of skills that might govern well?
I’m just saying…that in my life experience I have learned that the guy who talks fast and well often is not the one who can follow through successfully to manage people, or who can make wise choices over time to get something done.
Yamarsakar, welfare state is much older than Prussia and medieval monarchies. It was in full swing in ancient Athens and in Roman empire, from which this slogan “bread and circuses” originated.
Distracting the public is not the same as controlling the public by having a leash on their life. The very reason why they used bread and circuses is because they Did Not Control the Mob. It wasn’t sufficient.
Welfare is about control, and a lot of it.
“So why are you calling attention to it?”
Let me guess, that is a rhetorical question? Alas, Ann seems to be another one of ‘those’. She assumes but does not dirty her fingernails to scratch below the surface if her agenda is served. 97% on the left and many on the right fall into this mold.
I see Trump in a positive light? Big surprise to me. I think he’s appalling.
The thing about people who like to obey Authority is that it doesn’t matter to them whether they like or dislike that Authority. All that matters to them is that they will Obey.
A group think like national healthcare, operates in similar lines.