What I found most interesting about the Fox News Republican debate in Des Moines was Marco Rubio’s strategy to try to leverage upward his current third place position in the Iowa polls, where he runs in double digits, well behind Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, but perceptibly ahead of the others who are in single digits. Rubio used question after question to respond in religious language, in a state where 57 percent of caucus-goers in 2012 described themselves as evangelical Protestants. And again and again he launched strong attacks on Hillary Clinton, an attempt to make the argument, without explicitly saying so, that he would be the strongest Republican nominee in the general election, a proposition that is supported, but only weakly, by current polling but which I think is part of an inchoate feeling that because of his fluency and likability that he would be a strong nominee. Rubio needs an unambiguous third place in Iowa (or better) to get a bump in New Hampshire that would send him above the statistical tie where he is now in New Hampshire polling with Cruz, John Kasich and Jeb Bush.
Fox anchor Megyn Kelly, cited by Donald Trump as his reason for avoiding the debate, put both Rubio and Ted Cruz on the spot on immigration by showing videotapes of them speaking about the issue in the years before 2010 and 2013 (including Cruz speaking to Princeton’s charismatic conservative professor Robert George). The tapes showed that they had changed position. Cruz responded with arguments which were intellectually coherent; Rubio without saying so — and in the face of contradiction by Jeb Bush — admitted he had changed his view and, looking ahead, assured voters that he would not support legalization of illegals until it was assured that he border was secured and enforcement was effective. Cruz’s description of his legislative strategy, in contrast, was adept but perhaps a bit arcane; more convincing was his multiple reminders that he is endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions and Iowa Congressman Steve King.
Fox commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Jeb Bush put in the strongest performance. Perhaps so: he hazed Rubio sharply on his changes of position on immigration, he spoke articulately on the elaborate position papers he has presented, he set out intellectually serious positions on foreign policy. But I suspect Bush’s policy positions on some issues, notably immigration, were not assets with Republican voters and his insistence that he could beat Hillary Clinton were (although perhaps wrongly) not at this point credible.
What was the effect of Donald Trump’s absence? My gut instinct is that it hurt, not helped him; but like so many other commentators, I’m no longer confident of any prediction that Trump has hurt himself. Trump was attacked, sometimes explicitly and sometime implicitly, but it is undeniable that his influence was felt. On immigration, particularly; I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru that immigration has become a litmus test issue for Republicans, and that they must (as Rubio and Cruz both assured us they did) not support citizenship or even legalization for illegal immigrants until the border is sealed and enforcement within the country strengthened.
John Kasich had, in my opinion, a couple of good moments, notably when he defended his Medicaid program by talking about how he with special attention to those suffering from mental illness and drug addiction (opioid addiction is a problem in depressed parts of Ohio). Chris Christie made the point that governors are held accountable and senators engage in legislator-speak — an intellectually defensible argument, but one which I think doesn’t move votes this cycle. Rand Paul made dignified defenses of his views, which don’t seem to be political winners this year.
My bottom line, one which I note is not shared by some post-debate commentators, is that this was a strong debate for Marco Rubio and, on this I sense more consensus, not a disastrous debate for anyone though not a helpful one for the guy who was invited but didn’t show up. But Iowa caucus-goers have a knack for upsetting prognostications.
