It’s not always that you get a consensus on who was the winner in a multi-candidate debate, but there seems to be a consensus — in which I share — that Carly Fiorina was the clear winner of the second-tier Republican presidential debate at Cleveland. She came through with the best single line, and one that took a sharp dig against Donald Trump, “I didn’t get a call from Bill Clinton” before she entered the race.
She managed to highlight her resume and to argue a principled case for conservatism against “progressivism.” She cited specifics in arguing that the Obama administration hasn’t heeded warnings about home-grown Islamist attacks. On foreign policy, she made the case that when America does not lead, the result is danger and tragedy. And once again she made a strong case against Hillary Clinton in a way which no male candidate seems entirely comfortable doing. Does she move up into the first tier in the polls? Is she an increasingly plausible nominee for vice president? I suspect the answers to both questions are yes.
How did other candidates do? In alphabetical order:
Jim Gilmore: His demeanor was not quite as forceful as he needed, and he spoke for less time than any of the candidates. His response on litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees seemed muddled and his call for a Middle Eastern NATO seems highly unrealistic.
Lindsey Graham: He made it plain that he is running to prod his party and his country to take a more active military role in the Middle East and also to push for bipartisan entitlement reform. He seemed pessimistic — perhaps because the chances of achieving either goal look dim. His recounting of his family history resulted in a huge spike of interest on Google, but probably didn’t help his candidacy.
Bobby Jindal: He spoke rapidly and articulately, but in ways that made him hard to follow. He tends to elide quickly between one argument and another, leaving many listeners puzzled about what comes in between. He made the case for his record in Louisiana, but didn’t explain why his job approval there is well under 50 percent.
George Pataki: I thought his answers were intellectually coherent, well informed, fashioned carefully to make the case for his candidacy (though I am not sure all could survive fact-checking). His performance strengthened my conclusion a long time ago that he’s a very smart man.
Rick Perry: His opening statement, for which he had plenty of time to prepare, was weak. He was much stronger on controlling the border and on foreign policy, though he didn’t get much of a chance to demonstrate the expertise he’s built up on that and shown elsewhere. His statement that he would rather have Fiorina negotiate with Iran than John Kerry was a graceful tribute — and also testimony to her strong performance.
Rick Santorum: He’s really into repeating the message from his 2012 campaign. And he went off on tangents that are not politically profitable for him or, I think, for the Republican party. Example: comparing the same-sex marriage Supreme Court decision with Dred Scott. His recounting of his father’s delayed immigration from Italy was moving, but doesn’t relate easily to the issues of today.
