Osler's Razor

I actually thought Lindsay Graham was impressive--very genuine and capable of nuance and a sense of perspective-- at least among the group of four he was with, although I tired of his fear-mongering about ISIS ("They're coming here to get us if we don't get them" . . .) He just seemed the smartest and most experienced of the four (Pataki, Santorum, and I don't even remember the fourth). I remembered Lindsay Graham as I was watching the big group.

In the main debate, Carly Fiorina showed incredible poise and presence, and seriousness. I'd never vote for her, but she did have some specific plans and ideas. Chris Christie and Rand Paul had a really interesting exchange about marijuana laws and state vs federal enforcement. If I were a Republican I'd vote for Rand Paul among all of them . . . my libertarian streak.

It was fascinating; I hadn't watched the previous debate or paid much attention to any of them until tonight.

I think you're right about them all waiting for Trump to implode before they drop out.

 

Amy - the fourth was Bobby Jindal and him not being memorable speaks volumes.

I watched both debates and Lindsay was the most impressive at the kids table. He is probably trying to make a case that he would make a good VP. The rest at the kids table should pack it up - especially Santorum and his ranting about the Supreme Court.

Fortunately I did not follow the Rolling Stone Debate Drinking Game guide that IPLawGuy shared on FB. I would be in a alcohol coma this morning.

In the main event...
I think someone on Trump's staff slipped him some downers so he would behave. Carly was by far the top of the group last night, followed by Chris Christie (anger management sessions must be working) and Jeb Bush. A lot of people really like Rubio on the wrap ups I have read - I just don't get it but then I lived in Florida when he was in the State Legislature and we viewed sending him to Congress as a way to get him out of the state. He just came across as angry to me. And for the life of me I don't see the upsides of Scott Walker.

All of them had a plan last night and a message they wanted to get across and for the most part they seemed to stay on their talking points and not do anything outrageous.
 

Interesting-- two largely complimentary (and well-stated) posts by Democrats about the Republican debate.
 

Carly Fiorina scared the living daylights out of my wife and me. Many considered her the winner. That is even scarier but is understandable in our screwed up nation. Donald and Carly present themselves as winners because they knew when to get off the ships that they were sinking. They both have left countless folks pounding the pavements in their wake. They mask their failures with false bravado. We are still recovering from our last leader with the same character flaw.
Carly Fiorina wants America to be the biggest monster on the block, a monster so large that we don't have to talk to the other monsters like Putin and Assad. Last night she stated that she would never,ever talk to Putin other than through shows of force. She would as president sent our fleet out and send our soldiers into Germany (Germany would like that). The tragedy of Syria with millions of citizens bombed out of their homes was not in her thoughts, she created an answer that relied on the threat of force and more death. A show of force doesn't scare anyone anymore. Fighting is the only job available in Syria right now. She is scary to think so.

This morning in the NY Times there was an article discussing the desperation of Putin at this time. He is in trouble economically and needs political cover. He could hold an answer to the quagmire that is Syria. The administration will take advantage of both Assad and Putin's weakness and will engage in talks. Syria is toast right now. There is not nor has there been a moderate partner for us to back. Assad wants to hold talks with the rebels to first combine forces to defeat ISIL and then hold talks. He would ask both Russia and the US to back this effort. Obama, Putin and even Netanyahu will be traveling and negotiating in order to create a path to resolve this tragic mess. There have never been good options and no one in either of our political parties has provided a long term solution. Delivering arms to the region has always proved disastrous.

The combatants, the moderators and much of America seem to be occupying an alternative world where bad ideas don't affect real people. This group of candidates are being judged almost exclusively on their toughness and their conservative correctness. We sure could use in these complex times someone who is smart and flexible, traits that I didn't see on that stage. Nuance wasn't required.
 

The Twitter feed was the best.
 

A great deal of this was petty nonsense and pandering rather than discussing their records and plans for the future. Of course, take that with a grain of salt since I am a Democrat. I thought Kasich, Christie,and Bush sounded like they knew what it takes to be president and they are the only three that I am afraid of in the general election. Maybe Rubio might have a remote chance, but if any of the others win the nomination, the GOP is doomed.
 

Even Bernie tweeted it up.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders
 

At this point the only factor that will wean out the lower tier candidates is money...or the lack thereof. So long as donors (or personal checkbooks) will pay for planes, buses and hotel rooms, the campaigns will continue.

I gotta think, however, that the money for Pataki, Santorum and Jindal is going to dry up quick. And if I were Walker's team, I'd be worried. He just has not captured anyone's attention.

Neither Ted Cruz nor Rand Paul seem to have figured out how to expand their core of fervent supporters, but so long as they have that core, they will stay in this thing.

This was Ben Carson's big opportunity to supplant Trump as the leading outsider, albeit the sane one. But Carly Fiorina jumped the line and made that leap instead.

Who won? The answer to that question is in the conservative press, not the NYT or CNN, Washington Post. Seems like most of them liked Fiorina, Rubio and surprisingly Christie and Bush. But I just don't see JEB! catching fire. I also don't understand Rubio's appeal. He seems "fake" to me. But I don't fit the profile of the typical GOP primary voter anymore. Christie seems to have figured out, for now, how to look tough without being mean. And he will need to pay off Rand Paul for setting the pick.

I still think the guy to watch is Kasich. He continued his"reasonable man" approach. And since Bush can't seen to lock up the declining, but still sizable "moderate" GOP voter constituency, Kasich has a lot of potential.
 

Oh and Huckabee. Unless he saved a lot of money while he was on TV as a game show host... I mean talk show host, he's going nowhere. I guess he can appeal to the Christian Conservative right to pay for his expenses, but unless he can pull a rabbit from a hat, he should be relegated to the kids table next time.

Maybe promote Graham and demote Huckabee and Walker. I'd also drop Paul and Cruz, but that's just my view that they are not going to be able to broaden their support. It would be interesting to see how Christie does without a foil.
 

Just because I thought Carly Fiorina was the strongest on stage last night does not mean I think she would be the right person for the job. I am abundantly aware that she drove HP into the ground to a point they still are clinging to their life line years later. She failed as a CEO so electing her Commander and Chief????

Likewise with Trump and his well timed business bankruptcies. He is in the business of exploitation of people and gaming the system to the advantage of his own wallet. Perhaps we should respect him for getting away with it for so long. Tampa still has unfinished footing along their river from one of his many failed projects.

Ultimately most of these candidates are out there in the race to get their personal messages out and if I were voting Republican I would be hard pressed to vote for any of them.


 

To Mr. Osler's point, I was frightened by Carly Fiorina's rhetoric, too. I was examining my own reaction to her even as I watched: I was both attracted to her (as an emerging major female candidate, one with a brain unlike the likes of Sarah Palin) and scared by her .. . .To me, last night she showed a ruthlessness that would not serve this country well.

I was sympathetic to John Kasich, as he has significant experience and old-school working-across-the aisle credentials. I think if he does survive, he'll have to hone and tighten his message to appeal to all Republicans. In last night's "cage match" (as NPR called it), I would imagine to some Republicans Kasich came across as too old-school, too moderate.
 

Total failure on the climate change topic. My expectations didn't set a high bar, but the candidates who did respond -- Rubio, Walker, and Christie -- managed to scoot significantly under that bar.
 

For every sentence a politician speaks, I have 5 questions about what they really mean. Then I have to watch the people who SHOULD be asking these questions reading from a script that was pre-approved by the speaker. It's just bad soap opera.
 

I agree with Roger. Although I stand by my previous description of modern televised debates as most analogous to a political reality show, scripted and designed for entertainment rather than actual revelation or enlightenment or education or reality.

RE Bobby Jindal: I am often struck by how often one can hear horrible things about local politicians on their home turf. I think it would have been very easy to find lots of anecdotal evidence that Rick Perry was very unpopular in Texas over the past 15 years--but he kept winning those elections. I remember hearing several Arkansans telling me how hated Bill Clinton was in the Natural State in 1992 (although he had been reelected gov umpteen times). I recall encountering an Englishman in Southern California who assured me John Major was absolutely detested in England just weeks before a historic triumph. So it goes.

On the other hand, even though twice popularly elected Jindal was rehired with 60+ percent in the first round open election (so handily that there was no need for a second round), I too hear horrible things about Jindal from Louisiana conservatives. Shrug. Regardless, he is clearly not catching fire on the national scene and remains an extreme long shot for president in 2016. Having said that, I admire Jindal on a lot of levels. He is certainly a great intellect and master of policy.
 

Where we are right now? Not anywhere really.

Trump continues to speak in riddles. It is getting tiresome. As I have said forever, at some point we are going to get tired of him, and he is going to get tired of us, and we are going to scratch our head and find it hard to remember exactly what all the fuss was about. We are getting closer to that point.

Dr. Ben Carson is a great American. He is right to observe that America was well-served during the period when doctors and educators and planters and merchants contributed to government--rather than an exclusive all-lawyers club. However, making the leap from the top of his field as a brain surgeon to POTUS in one fell swoop so far seems a feat beyond his amazing capacity.

Carly has a gift. Like Rubio, Fiorina is articulate and inspiring in stressful situations. Unlike Trump and Carson, Fiorina seems capable of mastering policy and the language of politics. She is the biggest surprise of this election, and she has a bright future in the GOP. Getting the nomination is still unlikely (although not impossible), but she is definitely on the VP shortlist and, barring that, will very likely land an important post in the next administration. Same goes for Rubio (except that he remains in the small group with a very inviting path to the nomination).

Mark was right about Scott Walker. He is not translating on the national stage.

Christie is a qualified and knowledgeable version of the bombastic Trump. One would thing that he should be able to make more of that in this cycle than he has so far. He continues to have potential.

Ted Cruz is actively seeking the Trump coalition. This is a brilliant strategy, which should keep in the mix deep into the spring of 2016.

John Kasich is wonderful. Successful OHIO!!!! governor. Has a good claim to being in charge the last time the USA seemed like it cared about fiscal probity. He is definitely a contender. His biggest problem? See the Razorite comments above. He is the person Democrats always say is the sane voice on the Republican crazy farm. That person always has a hard time in the primaries. But Kasich is definitely a contender.

Jeb! is a serious contender. He is in the race for the long haul. He is not a great debater, but he has all the makings of a very good president (temperament, executive experience as a successful gov of an important state, affability, humanity, etc.). But he also has a lot of obstacles. The name is a killer. Immigration and common core are probably insurmountable. But he has brains and grit and money. He too will be there for the long haul.

So, it all comes down to two brackets (not an original idea): the Establishment Bracket (Bush, Kasich, Walker, Christie, and Rubio) and the Insurgent Bracket (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz). One candidate will emerge from each of those two brackets as the final two. If GOP primary history is a true indicator, the establishment candidate will pull away and win the nomination down the stretch (although there are always exceptions; the voodoo economics guy sometimes beats the country club Republican guy). But mostly the establishment guy (think Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, etc.) usually has the infrastructure and deep resources to wear down the insurgent.

If I had to bet right now, I might pick Rubio and Cruz in the final two--which would be great for the party as Rubio would triumph, and he is probably the only establishment choice that the insurgent wing could fully support. And also a general election candidate that has the potential of going plus-50 in the popular vote.

We'll see. The only thing I ever say about politics that I know to be 100-percent correct is my long-stated caveat that "nobody knows anything."
 

WF-- interesting scenario! I agree with your assessment of the candidates, too. I wonder, though, about the fluidity of the two camps. Isn't there a chance the final two would be Fiorina and Carson?
 

Ha! Great point. And funny you should mention that as I almost included a word about potential "bracket jumpers" (but I worried that I was already too long and self-indulgent). I think your scenario is certainly plausible. I think Fiorina has the potential to be a bracket jumper (maybe "transcender" is more accurate). I also think Walker has already tried to be a bracket transcender with his appeal to insurgents aka true-blue conservatives and failed somewhat. Before he is done he may abandon the establishment completely and go full-on insurgent or even vice versa.

Carson is something of a transcender--but, as I said before, I think he runs out of gas long before the nitty gritty super serious narrowing down. My caveat to that is if he gets in a room and learns policy. Obviously at some point he learned every blood vessel and organ and disease and all that minutiae a doctor must learn. So, he has the capacity to master a lot of this material in a short time. The question is whether he has the desire. That would be a lot to ask--but I am not the one who asked him to run for president; he volunteered for that. Part of the price for serious consideration is doing the prep. We'll see.

However, my guess is that in the end there will be a very serious, very qualified, politically seasoned establishment candidate as one of the final choices. And while that could be Fiorina, if you squint your eyes just right--I think the odds are against it.
 

I agree. Traveling through Dallas, I got the Morning News and read a great piece by Baylor grad Sharon Grigsby, pointing out that Fiorina's Planned Parenthood story was pretty much not true.
 

Hi Mark. I read the Sharon Grigsby opinion piece. Allow me to submit an alternative opinion column from Mollie Hemingway, the unabashedly pro-life, Catholic conservative columnist from The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/17/watch-the-video-planned-parenthood-and-its-media-allies-deny-exists/

For the record, I like Hemingway. As stated above, she makes no bones about her biases and her advocacy, but she is also very sharp and thoughtful and generally intellectually honest. More importantly, Hemingway offers up eight minutes of the actual video that Fiorina was clearly referencing. While I think you can safely say Fiorina either exaggerated or conflated some of the testimony and images, the video is, nevertheless, extremely powerful on its face. After watching the eight minute clip, I judge the argument that it does not exist as much more disingenuous than the Fiorina embroidered characterization of the clearly existent video. Whether the video is fabricated is another question on which we might have more answers, if these videos were getting more examination in the mainstream media.

On the whole, of course, the defenders of Planned Parenthood are certainly right regarding their main contention: this is not about selling fetal body parts; rather, the whole campaign is designed to make America take a second look at our pro-choice culture and reconsider whether the clear individual self interest of women (and many men) to terminate pregnancies still trumps society's interest in protecting this form of life. I have always been super ambivalent on this issue (and always horrified by the stridently certain warriors on both ends of the debate), but I do have a sense that it is time to have an honest national discussion on the ethics and morality of our pro-choice culture.
 

Addendum: And Mark I am well aware of your courage in posing some of these unwelcome questions within your cohort.
 

UPDATE on the Fiorina, Planned Parenthood Kerfuffle. As you probably know, most of the op-eds (and even most of the the actual reporting) asserting the non-existence of the video Fiorina referenced (which I posted above) were based on a Vox article by Sarah Kliff, who was cited in the Griggs opinion piece and many other columns and articles as an authority because of her assertion that she (Kliff) had watched every video and could verify that the video Fiorina saw (and represented fairly accurately in my view) did not exist.

Sarah Kliff is not backing down exactly--but she is offering a larger more rational analysis: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9351657/fiorina-planned-parenthood-response (at least in between the lines).

Even more noteworthy, Kilff offers a powerful understanding of the issue in the latter part of the article (brilliant in my view because it parallels my own view--"she must be brilliant because she agrees with me"). Ha!

"But the real divide here isn't about what Fiorina saw. It's about abortion. Planned Parenthood workers are comfortable with fetal tissue research because they are comfortable with abortion — they don't believe a first-trimester fetus to be a living, feeling human being, and so they see the donation of fetal tissue for medical research to be an obvious, unalloyed good. Abortion rights supporters can watch the videos and still believe in a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

"'Women know about blood," Rebecca Traister writes in New York Magazine. "We know about discharge. We know about babies, and many of us also love them, their little feet and hands and eyelashes. And, yes, we know that those bitty features develop while the fetus is inside us.'

"Their critics oppose abortion — they believe abortion to be murder and fetal tissue research to be a form of desecration. They point to the images of a fetus in a video and say, it doesn't matter if that footage is from a Planned Parenthood clinic. The fact that such developed fetuses could be ones terminated in one of their facilities is reason enough for disgust. Where you fall on the Planned Parenthood videos really reflects where you fall on the fundamental questions of abortion."