Some passing observations on the Republican debate in Las Vegas:
Status quo
This was a status quo debate. It’s hard to imagine that anything that took place on the stage at the Venetian will reshuffle the Republican race in a fundamental way. None of the second and third tier candidates – Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul – did anything to suggest that he or she will climb to the next tier. And none of the frontrunners – Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson – did anything to torpedo his candidacy.
Cruz v. Rubio on the NSA and national security
Cruz and Rubio picked up the debate they’ve been having from a distance on national security and engaged in some of the most substantive and intense back-and-forth of the entire night. Rubio hit Cruz for his support of the USA Freedom Act, which ended bulk data collection by the NSA, and criticized Cruz’s votes against all recent versions of the National Defense Authorization Acts in favor of Rand Paul’s budget. Cruz, for his part, accused Rubio of supporting Obama/Clinton policies in the Middle East and defended his vote for the USA Freedom Act by suggesting that the law enhanced the government’s ability to track would-be terrorists.
There’s some dispute in the intelligence community about whether or how the elimination of the NSA’s metadata program will leave the U.S. more vulnerable attacks, but very few national security experts outside of the Obama administration argue that it actually makes us more secure. On his website and in speeches, Cruz has cited Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as a supporter of the reforms – an odd choice for a vociferous critic of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism efforts. Cruz didn’t do that in the debate, and instead referred to a Facebook post by talk radio host Mark Levin. It was a smart move – he’s seeking the approval of Republican primary voters, not reporters who might find Clapper’s view authoritative.
I think Rubio is right on the merits and his view is probably more in line with where Republican primary voters are, particularly given the rising anxiety about terrorism after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. I’d give the exchange to Rubio on points, but it’s hard to see Cruz losing much support as a result.
Eyes glazing over
After Rand Paul echoed Cruz’s criticism of Rubio, albeit in a less sophisticated and more ham-handed way, moderator Dana Bash attempted to bring Chris Christie into the conversation. Christie, who is running on his executive experience, eagerly jumped in by mocking the previous exchange. “Listen, I want to talk to the audience at home for a second. If your eyes are glazing over like mine, this is what it’s like to be on the floor of the United States Senate.”
It’s not hard to understand why Christie would criticize Congress, given the abysmal approval ratings of the institution and those who serve there. But in this case it was a discordant note. The debate over the NSA and other counterterrorism measures is a worthy one and despite the sometimes-overheated campaign rhetoric, the Rubio-Cruz exchange elucidated the two different approaches.
It’s unclear just how effective this chief executive argument is in any case. Rick Perry used it. He’s out. Bobby Jindal used it. He’s out. Scott Walker used it. He’s out. John Kasich uses it. He’s at 2.3 percent nationally.
Cruz v. Rubio on immigration
The other heated exchange between Cruz and Rubio came on immigration. Like their dispute on national security, their immigration debate in Las Vegas continued a running exchange they’ve had in the media over the past several weeks. Dana Bash asked Rubio about his work on the Gang of Eight. Rubio didn’t answer directly the first time, but after Bash pressed him he responded:
Cruz, asked how his position differs from Rubio, gave a near-perfect answer. First, he noted that he ultimately opposed the “Gang of Eight” legislation, like Senator Jeff Sessions and, notably, Iowa Representative Steve King. He followed by connecting immigration with national security more broadly, as he often does, and ended with a funny hat tip to Donald Trump, whose position on immigration has certainly helped propel him to the front of the Republican field. Said Cruz: “And I tell you, if I’m elected president, we will secure the border. We will triple the border patrol. We will build a wall that works and I’ll get Donald Trump to pay for it.”
That final line works on several levels. It suggests to voters that Cruz and Trump share views on immigration; it gently pokes fun of one of Trump’s famous lines about the wall; and, with Cruz suggesting he can make Trump pay for it, it places Cruz above Trump by suggesting he’d be the one making those decisions as president.
But Cruz’s strength was short-lived. Rubio pressed Cruz on his claims that the two men differed significantly on immigration and, specifically, on whether Cruz supported – and would support – some form of legalization in the future.
It should not be a hard question. But Cruz has supported legal status for illegal immigrants in the past and he’s gone out of his way to avoid ruling out doing so again. Perhaps that’s why he chose such a legalistic answer to Rubio’s direct question – “I do not intend to support legalization.”
How will this play? That’s unclear. On the specific question of legalization, Cruz was on the defensive and his lawyerly answer on what he’d do in the future was a moment of irresolution that isn’t consistent with his attempt to portray himself as a hardliner on immigration. But it may be the case that this is a debate Cruz wins simply by having it. For the purposes of many viewers at home, the takeaway may be as simple as Cruz would have them believe: Rubio supported the Gang of Eight bill and Cruz opposed it. Maybe it’s a debate Cruz wins simply because it’s taking place.
Trump on (relatively) good behavior
The Vegas debate was easily the best so far for frontrunner Donald Trump. Yes, Trump’s grasp of national security issues is elementary and on occasion his ignorance was on full display. Yes, saying this was his best debate is a little like choosing the best menu item at Golden Corral. And, yes, of course we’re grading on a curve.
Trump had moments of frustration – complaining for nearly a minute that the questions seemed designed to stoke fights with Jeb Bush and then becoming visibly angry with Bush in one of those fights. But there were no major outbursts of the kind we’ve grown accustomed to seeing from Trump. He called Ben Carson one of the finest men he’s known despite having recently criticized him as “pathological.” And he made nice with Ted Cruz after calling him a “maniac” over the weekend. The fact that Trump isn’t a major story coming out of this debate means its unlikely that his position in the field changes much.
Too little, too late?
The debate Tuesday may well have been Jeb Bush’s best performance, too. In general, Bush’s answers were substantively better than they’d been in previous debates, and perhaps as important, he was far less hesitating and far more commanding in his delivery of those answers.
But he’s at 4 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. In national polls taken in December, he has come in at 3, 4, 3, 7, 3 and 5. In New Hampshire, where he’s focusing his comeback efforts, he’s a 7 percent.
This was a better performance, even a strong performance. It wasn’t a breakout performance.
Variations of evil
It was a Republican national security debate and Rand Paul’s views are probably closer to those of Barack Obama than they are to any of the candidates on the stage with him in Las Vegas.
While several candidates expressed doubts about changing regimes in the region, it’s clear that the Paulian non-interventionist moment so long-predicted in the establishment media for years has never really materialized. So he had a difficult challenge from the outset. And he made the least of it.
Paul complained as he often does about the neoconservatives and military adventurism, but when Dana Bash twice asked him directly why he blames the hawks in his own party for the rise of ISIS, Paul basically punted.
One of the strangest moments of the debate came when Wolf Blitzer asked Paul about the Iraq War. “Senator Paul, was getting rid of Saddam Hussein a pretty good deal?”
Paul responded: “These are the fundamental questions of our time, these foreign policy questions, whether or not regime change is a good idea or a bad idea. I don’t think because I think the regime change was a bad idea it means that Hussein was necessarily a good idea. There is often variations of evil on both sides of the war.”
Variations of evil on both sides of the Iraq War? The charitable interpretation of that comment is that while it came in response to a question about the Iraq War and immediately after another comment about the Iraq War – that Paul meant it generically, and didn’t mean to suggest that those who favored the Iraq War, or fought on the American side, were somehow evil. On the other hand, Paul routinely blames hawks for things like the rise of ISIS and has suggested that Dick Cheney supported the Iraq War to enrich his friends at Halliburton. So who knows?
Best answer of the night
Wolf Blitzer asked Rubio about the Sunni ground troops that form the heart of many Republican plans to defeat ISIS. They’re not doing much fighting now, Blitzer noted before asking: “What makes you think they are willing to fight on the ground if they’re not even willing to fight from the air?”
In response, Rubio gave a brief and devastating critique of Obama policy failures before explaining the challenge in a succinct and comprehensive way.
Winners/Losers
So who won? The lack of a big moment probably means Trump is the de facto winner. Both Rubio and Cruz debated effectively, with Rubio showing his mastery of the subject matter and Cruz demonstrating his keen political instincts. Jeb Bush could probably be counted as a winner, though it’s not clear that it matters beyond one night.
The losers? Christie was less effective than he has been in previous debates. Fiorina, too. Kasich was a non-factor. Carson was soporific. And Rand Paul was a non-interventionist libertarian in a Republican debate that took place at a time of heightened anxiety about terrorism.
