MILWAUKEE — The prime-time debate between eight top Republican presidential candidates had few memorable moments and did little to re-order the race. But Fox Business breathed new life into the undercard debate with the inclusion of Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee. And in that debate, a particularly contentious series of confrontations initiated by another undercard candidate, Bobby Jindal, made for the evening’s most revealing discussion, on the division between strongly conservative GOP voters and so-called big-government Republicans.
Jindal’s combative strategy could also, in the next few days, shed light on how aggressive a low-polling candidate can be and benefit — or suffer — politically.
Jindal took as his cue an answer by Christie about what he, Christie, would do to reduce the size of government. Christie listed a few things, but added that while it’s fine to talk about what Republicans would do, the GOP’s primary focus should be on Hillary Clinton. “She is the real adversary tonight and we’d better stay focused as Republicans on her,” Christie said.
It was an entirely commonplace and non-controversial observation at a Republican gathering, but Jindal pounced as if Christie had suddenly announced he was becoming a Democrat. “Look, I absolutely agree we’ve got to beat Hillary Clinton,” Jindal said. “But just sending any Republican is not good enough. We’ve had a Republican majority in the Senate and the House — what has changed?”
Jindal argued that he was the only one on stage who has actually reduced the size of government. He attacked Christie’s record on spending in New Jersey and said, “If politicians say they’re going to be conservative, they say they’re going to cut spending but they don’t do it, why should we send them to DC? … If we send another big-government Republican to the White House, we will not do enough to fix what is wrong in this country.”
Christie didn’t take the bait. “I have great respect for Bobby’s record in Louisiana,” he said. “I think he’s been a wonderful governor …” And besides, what the candidates should be talking about, Christie repeated, is Clinton and “what’s going to happen to this country if we have another four years of Barack Obama’s policies.”
Jindal was undeterred. “Records matter,” he told Christie, tearing into the New Jersey governor’s history on entitlement spending for low-income Americans. “We need a conservative, not a big-government Republican in DC.”
A visibly irritated Christie batted away Jindal again. “I complimented Bobby — imagine how much time he’d want if I actually criticized him,” Christie said.
But that did nothing to stop Jindal, who was still spoiling for a fight. “Look, we all agree Hillary Clinton is bad,” Jindal said. “We all agree we need to beat her. But let’s not pretend that out-of-control government spending is only a Democratic issue. This is a bipartisan issue, and just sending another big government Republican to DC is not good enough.”
And there was still more. “Look, I appreciate Chris’s nice compliments to me. And, Chris, you look to me very well, I love [Christie’s wife] Mary Pat, but this isn’t about me and Chris. This is about the country.”
And finally: “Chris, look, I’ll give you your ribbon for participation, and a juice box, but in the real world, it’s about results.”
Jindal turned the debate into one serious provocation after another. But Christie steadfastly declined to engage.
More than a few observers felt Jindal had pushed too hard. But one experienced GOP hand, Alex Castellanos, saw a deliberate strategy in Jindal’s approach. “Turns out all @BobbyJindal needed to get big was a big opponent,” Castellanos, who is not affiliated with any campaign, said. “Thank you @GovChristie. Best day of Jindal campaign yet.”
In an email exchange later, Castellanos explained that Jindal, who is putting all his chips on Iowa and trying to win that state’s most conservative voters, was targeting his message to that state while Christie, who is betting on doing well in more moderate New Hampshire, was pursuing an equally specific strategy.
“Having Christie in the undercard debate gave Jindal an opportunity to be the underdog against the big dog, polarize conservatives against moderates, and pit Iowa conservatives against New Hampshire independents,” Castellanos wrote. “Good for both men.”
After the debate, I asked Jindal whether he believes it is possible to be too aggressive in a debate, and if he worried his repeated challenges to Christie might turn off voters. The answer: No. “I think [voters] are tired of Republicans who go along to get along,” Jindal said. “Look, it’s easy to give platitudes. It’s easy to say hey, we all hate Hillary Clinton — not hate her personally, but we dislike her policies — but this election is about more than that.”
Jindal’s top strategist, Curt Anderson, argued that an angry electorate will see Jindal’s point. “Have you talked to primary voters this year?” Anderson asked in the post-debate spin room. “You can’t be as angry as these people are. You just can’t. Now, you can offend the delicate sensibilities of the DC press corps, of course, but in terms of being too aggressive on fighting for smaller government and the things we believe in, I don’t think that’s possible.”
As for the Christie camp, senior aide Mike DuHaime said Christie expected a behind-in-the-polls and increasingly desperate Jindal to come at him. “We weren’t surprised,” DuHaime said. “It’s the end of the road. He needs to do something. So … we anticipated that.”
How will it play out? In the end, Jindal’s words may resonate with conservatives who are deeply disappointed by the performance of Republican officeholders. There is a huge divide between the most conservative GOP voters and their moderate counterparts, and it appears Jindal sees that as his chance to finally establish a foothold in the race.
