With all the post-debate analysis blanketing social media
this morning I think the takeaway from the Fox News Republican presidential
debate that is most accurate is this:  It
was entertaining, but irrelevant.

That’s the view of Janell Ross of The Washington Post
blog, “The Fix,” who rightly points out that a debate that should have focused on 2017 (what will you do as president?) left us knowing not much more than was
already known about these candidates.

Between 10 men and countless issues – jobs, the economy,
Iran, ISIS, global terrorism, climate change, income inequality, taxes, wage
issues, campaign financing, foreign trade, Russian aggression, immigration,
race relations, healthcare reform, energy, environmental protection, gun
control –- one would think that two hours of discussion would produce something
more concrete.

Of course, the excessive number of commercials (was this
record-setting for a presidential debate?) didn’t help. And the fact-checkers
have found that many of the statements made that included detail were inaccurate
or misleading, as is often the case in these types of political showdowns.

Here’s some of Ross’ observations about the much-anticipated
Cleveland event:

“The so-called “Happy Hour” forum for the lesser
candidates kind of spilled the secret more than three hours before the debate
began. There was a lot of talk, just a little jazz, but not much in the way of
campaign-altering substance.

“And it seems that with the exception of a few moments
during the main event — when Ohio Gov. John Kasich offered a robust
defense of his decision to expand Medicaid and a moderate position on same-sex
marriage, that civil liberties face-off between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), and when Jeb Bush offered some defense of Common Core
and turned, awkwardly, to look Trump in the eye during a uniquely Trump litany
on immigration — that’s what we all got later in the evening, too.

“… There was an awful lot proffered in the main debate
that could have and has been said before. There was not much in the way of
policy specifics, big or new ideas. And there certainly wasn’t a move towards
the kind of data and detail that debate experts said would be the key to
besting Trump — or, at least, rattling him.”

I would point out that one thing we did learn is that a
number of these candidates were more than willing to chime in during the final
Fox question about divine inspiration, claiming that God encouraged them to run
or God is a Republican or some such nonsense.

You can read fact-checks about the candidates’ statements here, here and here. 
 

 

Recent Posts: