GOP Debate – An Impressive Field of Candidates

   < < Go Back

from The Gray Area:

As most people, I believe we start this Presidential campaigning about a year to early. Thus, I was not looking forward to the 1st Republican 2016 Presidential Debate which occurred last night in Cleveland. 17 candidates (too many), debating in August a year and 3 months before the election (too early) and the polls showing Donald Trump the faraway leader of the group (too funny). My expectations were not high.

However, several things surprised me last night.

1. The real winner of the debate was FoxNews. Reflecting back on National Presidential debates of Democrat and Republican nominees inn recent elections by the mainstream (left wing) media (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, et al) this actually looked like a real, fair debate. Unlike the mainstream (left wing) media, there were direct, hard hitting questions asked. FoxNews (right leaning) might be expected to take it easy on its perceived home team, the Republican Party, but no. Unlike the mainstream (left wing) media who protect and offer softball questions to the Democrat candidates, FoxNews and Megan Kelly were clearly superior and set a new standard for moderating a debate.

I am not the only one to offer this review. Mainstream (left wing) rags like The Washington Post joked about buying the debate if it “was a pay-per-view for $19.99″.

Buzzfeed Editor Ben Smith credited Fox News President Roger Ailes as “clearly the winner of this.” Liberal Huffington Post headlined its front page simply: “Ailes 2016.”

– New York Times magazine contributing writer Julia Ioffe gave her similar props. “Megyn Kelly is kicking serious wedge issue.” And @CNNPolitics Breaking News Editor Rebekah Metzler declared,“Megyn Kelly is winning this debate so far #GOPDebate.”

Even sometime journalist and full-time presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton was complimentary. “They’re doing a great job. Raising the quality of debate”.

… liberal Salon, noted that the first debate began with tough questions. “[E]every question has been “this is how you suck. your response?” The second debate was even tougher with Fox shocking the media world by making Republicans answer tough questions.

2. The overall quality of the candidate field. Watching the debate I was pleasantly surprised to see, tough questions, mostly high quality responses, realistic versus politically correct responses across the board and a very presidential look and feel (with the exception of Trump). The Wall Street Journal called it a “deep, talented pool“. Any one of the top 10 could provide sound competition for Hillary Clinton and certainly be a better president.

3. Trump was exposed as expected. Still Trump’s uncompromising style is creating room for the rest of the group to speak the truth comfortably under cover of his more excitable declarations.

4. Other than the comments above about FoxNews performance, the left’s responses were predictable. NY Times columnist, and deep in the radical left establishment, Paul Krugman, said “From Trump on Down, the Republicans Can’t Be Serious”. “Sideshow”, NY Times. …”an empty-calorie joy ride”, Politico.

MSNBC, The NY Times and Politico all showed Kaisch as winner or a strong #2. They discussed him and his performance a lot. That usually indicates one of two things. They are either afraid of his possible nomination, or, they are trying to lobby for it as they believe they can easily defeat him next fall.

5. Winners and Losers? Early reports and polls seem to indicate that Trump was the loser. Fiorina clearly outperformed those on the “Kid’s Table”, “Happy Hour” debate. The left liked Kaisch. Most liked Rubio as the winner. See results below.

Now looking forward to future debates and the results of Hillary Clinton’s many ethical and legal problems.