View on the News

Round six: The bloviating and the walking dead

By Christopher Curran
Posted 1/20/16

In the movie “The Sixth Sense,” Bruce Willis’ character Dr. Malcolm Crowe walks around blind to the fact that he has met his demise. Similarly, many of the candidates for the Republican …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the News

Round six: The bloviating and the walking dead

Posted

In the movie “The Sixth Sense,” Bruce Willis’ character Dr. Malcolm Crowe walks around blind to the fact that he has met his demise. Similarly, many of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are seemingly unaware that their quests for the White House are equally lifeless, while others who are still contending had ratcheted up their rhetoric to a level of helium-filled blimps.

Last week, the Fox Business channel conducted two debates. A lower-tier debate was held for three candidates who are polling so infinitesimally that the margin of error renders them in the negative. And a higher tier debate was conducted for the three frontrunners and the remaining desperate candidates who are jockeying for a higher polling position. This sixth debate of the primary season told the tale of who is viable, who is pressing hard for legitimacy, and who is the walking dead.

The process of winnowing down from the ungainly original number of 17 declared candidates has been painstaking. Names like Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki had heralded their viewpoints while chasing campaign finance-fueling recognition that had never materialized. The remaining lagging competitors are playing beat the clock as the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are merely a scant number of weeks away.

Thus, round six, this last Fox Business channel debate, was crucial for low-polling candidates to attempt to somehow distinguish themselves on policy, record, and character in a last-ditch effort to finish at least in the top three in the country’s first two contests. Should they not succeed in achieving win, place, or show, they will be forced to join the other Republican horses already put out to pasture in this race.

In “The Sixth Sense,” the catch phrase “I see dead people” was engrained in our sensibilities and in cinematic history. The same can be said of the participants in the lower-tier debate. On a stage where Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took umbrage to the stigma of participating and refused to take his podium, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and businesswoman Carly Fiorina tried to make the most of their discounted standing.

Huckabee harped on his proposed flat tax, which would theoretically eliminate all types of taxation except for taxes on anything consumed by the public. This preposterous and untenable idea has been showcased before by independent candidate for president John Anderson in 1980, and was examined by financial and tax experts at the time as impossible to be implemented.

While the former Arkansas governor was concentrating on taxes, Santorum was trying to restore morality by stating a Santorum presidency would somehow, perhaps by a process of osmosis, reunite families and personify American family values. Simply, Santorum believes he can change social mores by executive order.

Not surprisingly, Fiorina continued her attack on the presumed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton. Fiorina has consistently berated her previously in all five preceding debates. She painted herself as the only political antidote to Clinton’s prospective nomination. Also, she exhibited tough talk regarding Middle Eastern adversaries who supposedly would cower if she were in the Oval Office.

None of these three aspirants seem to realize that at this point, there is absolutely no chance that they can win. Their poll numbers are so far afield statistically, they would need months of vibrant campaigning to rise to competitive stature. They are dead politically, and have not come to grips with reality. Essentially, Rand Paul was right in this instance. There was no real reason for the lower-tier debate at this point, so close to the primaries.

On the big stage, the three leading candidates – businessman Donald Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio – thrust and parried throughout the forum. The remaining four competitors – brain surgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – vied for the elusive spotlight.

Trump tried to evoke emotion when he referred to the American sailors who were held in custody by Iran for a day for straying into Iranian waters. By depicting the sailors in a submissive arrest position, he riled the audience and asserted how this would not have happened if he were at the helm.

Also, Trump was pressed by moderators as to whether or not he would place his astronomical and varied assets in a blind trust should he be elected. He simply said all control would be ceded to his children, which allayed the fears of many who did not want the presidency used for personal gain.

Furthermore, Trump spoke against “corporate inversion,” which is the practice of companies merging with other foreign concerns to establish corporate residency in a more tax favorable country.

When confronted with the issue of trade with the Pacific Rim, Trump once again castigated the trade deals that the United States had cut in the past. He called the U.S. negotiators “hacks” in regard to the agreements forged. Additionally, he instructed about China currency value manipulation and the possibility of imposing tariffs in the future to galvanize American manufacturing job growth.

Also, he added some positive social commentary about the recent demeaning of American law enforcement and his intolerance of the condition. All in all, this was Trump’s best performance thus far. He has progressed as a candidate and is now speaking more to the Republican center than the far right fringe. Whether that will translate into a general election win, should he be nominated, remains a question.

Current second-place polling candidate Cruz was so verbose in his ideas and in defense of his character that he was obviously a man on a mission. He defended his misfiling of documents regarding a loan against assets that he and his wife took out to finance his Senate campaign with aplomb.

He spoke patriotically about our misguided foreign policy and took issue with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her liberal decisions from the bench. This dramatic presentation sold well to the GOP audience.

Possibly injurious to his current rising in the polls is his citizenship status. The United States constitution states that in order to become president, one must be native born and 35 years old. Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Trump and the moderators pressed him on this issue, and he attempted to counter with a jab about Trump’s Scottish-born mother. Trump pointed out he was born in New York, and the issue of Cruz’s eligibility is still in question.

Despite Cruz’s assertion that the matter is settled, there is a constitutional quandary as to whether having one parent an American citizen meets the standard. This circumstance could hinder Cruz, since he may not constitutionally be able to take the oath.

Markedly different was Rubio’s performance. No matter what the question was, he kept returning to segments of his stump speech – so much so,that his patriotic soliloquies had little to do with the interrogatives posed and more to do with conspicuous grandstanding. This tactic was not as effective as he intended.

The ever dwindling and idiosyncratic Ben Carson seems more and more superfluous. Carson’s generalized, ill-informed answers show a canyon-sized absence of governmental knowledge. He should also be counted among the walking dead.

As should former frontrunner Bush, who kept complaining about lack of moderator attention on the debate stage. Thus, he renders himself as a petulant adolescent seeking approval. His declining dismal poll numbers should have shaken his resolve to obtain the nomination by now. He should go to the great political beyond as well. Obviously, he is living in denial about his chances.

Kasich once again recited his resume, and no one listened.

Blowhard Christie mentioned his job as a former prosecutor four times, meaning he would be a real tough president, not like Obama. However, he did not mention the freefall that his state is in financially and the multitude of infrastructure, pension, and tax problems that are yet unresolved during his tenure. He also should realize his political mortality.

In conclusion, round six of the Republican primary debates should have had less participants and a more lengthy examination of issues. The entire lower-tier debate and half of the upper-tier debate was filled with the walking yet politically dead. The problem with ambitious and self-absorbed politicians is they do not know when they’re dead. Rest in peace, your presidential aspirations.

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • blauzer

    Just to set the record straight (as Richard Nixon once said), John Anderson never proposed a flat income tax when he ran for President as a Republican and then independent in 1980. He did propose a gas tax coupled with a reduction in Social Security taxes, which the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Economics (University of Pennsylvania Professor Lawrence Klein said would have positive economic benefit for the nation by reducing unnecessary consumption. I get this information from an excellent book on that campaign, No Holding Back: the 1980 John B. Anderson Presidential Campaign, published by University press of America. Rhode Island was one of Anderson's best states.

    Thursday, January 21, 2016 Report this