Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) was picked by Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) partly because he could appeal to some progressive Catholics who are drawn to his social justice warrior background. During the campaign, Kaine has claimed that he was a Pope Francis Catholic.
During the Vice Presidential debate, Senator Kaine tried to do the typical CINO (Catholic-In-Name-Only) two step in which he claims to personally be a practicing Catholic but does not impose his views on others.
Even though Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin is not a Jesuit, he applied an Ignatian principle of discernment to Senator Kaine's contention that faith is central to his life.
Perhaps between campaign stops, it would be fruitful for Senator Kaine to read Bishop Tobin's books Effective Faith: Faith that Makes a Difference (2009) and Without a Doubt (2001) to discern how the faithful can effectively form minds, change hearts and enlighten the world in which we live.
After an extremely contentious Second Presidential Debate, Democrat Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) gave a plucky presser on the plane.
Was Hillary's urgency in wanting to take off to serve drinks an example of Hillary's lighter side, a revelation of self medication after a Hard Day's Night or an allusion to a larger personal problem?
Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) squared off in their only 2016 Election Vice Presidential Debate in Farmville, Virginia. Much of the District of Calamity’s punditocracy expected the VP Debate to be a snoozer. After all, in prior VP Debates there were few memorable moments, aside from the 1988 Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) putdown of then Senator Dan Quayle (D-IN) “You’re no Jack Kennedy” and Admiral James Stockdale’s (Reform- CO) 1992 awkward self introduction: “Who am I and why am I here.” A Washington Post Pregame panel postulated that there was even a chance that Kaine and Pence might civilly engage in some substance.
Boy, were we wrong. While the VP Debate lacked the memorable insults from the First Presidential Debate between Donald Trump (R-NY) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), sparks certainly flew.
Almost from the opening salvos, Kaine employed a strategy of interrupting his opponent and being persistently provocative. This seemed so unexpected, considering Kaine's boring reputation. During the 90 minute debate, Kaine interrupted Pence 70 times, whereas Pence reciprocated only 39 times. But Kaine’s high energy approach and often employed canned ham made his interruptions seem much more obnoxious and irritating. The only thing that seemed to shut Kaine up was when Pence contrasted his accomplishments as Governor of Indiana with then Governor Kaine's record in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As a loyal soldier, Kaine apparently took the verbal spearing for raising taxes and increasing the deficit rather than take attention away from his running mate. Senator Kaine’s rapid fire insults certainly sought to empty the verbal armory on Trump/Pence. But by badgering and using a fast talking facade, Kaine did not allow many of his attacks to gain resonance. Pence exuded the guise of being a mild-mannered Midwesterner, speaking in a less caffeinated cadence and seeming courtly. In addition, Pence masterfully credited Obama/Hillary and Kaine by recognizing their positives before tearing them down. But these civil strategies certainly does not to suggest that Pence did not try to rhetorically draw blood from his opponent. It seems that Kaine embraced his role of being Hillary’s attack dog and had prepared for the VP debate by memorizing myriad Trump attacks. Rather than being lured down the rabbit hole to defend each of these charges, Pence let his experience as a talk show host guide him to selectively respond. After the stage lights dimmed, Pence's selective deflections of alleged Trump outrageous statements might be criticized as being insufficiently supporting his running mate or as opposition sound byte fodder. But Trump revels in making big bold statements which he later modifies, so it can be exhausting to defend the indefensible. Senator Kaine kept bringing up the Trump tax returns. This class warfare cudgel was wise wedge politics, it emphasized an arguable Trump flip-flop and was certainly au currant with the illicit New York Times tax forms leak. But repeatedly going to that well diminished its impact and then made it too obvious that it was pre-planned talking points. This was especially evident when Kaine renewed the Trump tax attack when the topic was supposed to be about North Korea nuclear weaponization. After Kaine returned to the Trump tax routine for the sixth time, Pence parlayed the point into some political jujitsu. Pence countered by explaining the appearance of influence peddling which the Clinton Foundation has while Ms. Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State. At that point, CBS moderator Elaine Quijano cut Pence off. While Pence comparatively spoke slowly during the debate, he allowed his analogies and attacks sink in. Pence twice used geographical metaphors to counter Kaine's contentions. To criticize Hillary Clinton's economic intentions, Pence referred to a mountain range of debt. Later, Pence poo-pooed Hillary's attack dog sneering an "avalanche of insults". In our hyper-kinetic, post literate culture, being able to evoke mental pictures through words can really make an impact. Again, this may be due to Pence's prior career on radio. When candidates command a national audience at a debate, it is prudent to make appeals to certain voting groups. Kaine clearly went after the womens' vote with the "Why don't you trust women to decide" on late term abortions, while shredding his faithful credentials among practical Catholics. But what was a mystery was how ineffective Kaine was in exploiting immigration. Even though Pence chided Kaine for keep going back to "that Mexican thing", he did not make strong positive appeals to Hispanic voters. Kaine has the background of being an Ignatian volunteer (he was never a Jesuit) in Central America and is proficient in Spanish. In fact, he pandered en la lengua during the Philadelphia convention. Instead, it seemed that he wanted to paint Trump/Pence as "racists" for wanting to slow immigration without thorough vetting of Syrian refugees. If Kaine's goal was to bolster the base and get out the vote, his VP Debate strategy was flawed. Democrats are reliant of winning the black vote. In this cycle, polling indicates that Democrats have a near lock on that segment of the voting public, but the question is whether African American voters will come out in droves to the polling place when Barack Obama is not on the ticket. Kaine's appeal to Black voters seemed to turn on exploiting a yet unadjudicated controversial police shooting of Philandro Castile. Kaine probably cited this Minnesota shooting as a way to pander to the Black Lives Matter crowd without uttering their name. But by the same token, it looks obvious that it is exploiting a tragedy and not respecting law enforcement officers presumption of innocence or right to a fair trial. If one dug into details, it was weird that the victim's girlfriend live streamed the shooting on Facebook and ignores the guy's numerous prior encounters. But it allowed Kaine's opponent to pitch Trump's Law and Order, mantra, as well as a Support the Police message while expressing agreement on Community Policing. In purely tactical terms, Minnesota is not a battleground state and Philandro Castile is not a household name for the Black Voters as Trayvon Martin was in 2012. So Kaine's police violence forays did not win new support nor generally bolstered battleground states. It might have been more strategic for Kaine to point to the shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina. But in doing so, it would not exploit the racial wedge subtext. Pence seemed more tactical in giving his shout outs. When touting the efficacy of stop and frisk, Pence highlighted how such a policy policy increases safety for good citizens in the inner cities, thus continuing the Trump appeal to African Americans, In pointing out how economic recovery has not reached many Americans, Pence specifically cited Scranton (PA) and Fort Wayne as working class places which have not seen the sunny side of employment numbers. This gave a shout out to key voters in a battleground state (ironically current Vice President "Lunch Bucket" Joe Biden's hometown). This was skillful and sounded natural. What was remarkable for a Republican was to make an explicit appeal for pro-life voters. The final formal question was to elucidate how each candidate was challenged in being faithful to his convictions as he acted as a public official. Mike Pence directed his answer to the sanctity of life and how he worked to make Indiana the most pro-adoptive state in America. But Pence continued by questioning the conundrum of how his opponent can claim to be pro-life but politically countenance partial-term abortion. Kaine countered by claiming that Trump/Pence wants to punish women who make "reproductive choices". And then to slam Trump's waffling, Kaine quoted the gospel of Matthew: "From fullness, the heart speaks". Kaine was so busy attacking on abortion that he failed to hit Pence on RFRA, which came to a flash point in the Hoosier State and could sway Same-Sex marriage supporters. Pence rejoined by echoing St. Mother Teresa and noting that a society can be judged by how it deals with the most vulnerable. By emphasizing partial birth abortion, Pence made a pro-life appeal with which 90% of Americans agree and may bolster support from conservatives skeptical about supporting Trump. Aside from being the designated attack dog, a Vice Presidential nominee on the hustings is often employed to counter deficiencies on the top of the ticket. For instance, in the 2000 Election then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) was perceived as an inexperienced Washington outsider, so he chose consummate Between the Beltways insider ex Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY) to give him "gravitas" in a running mate. In this cycle, Governor Mike Pence may well have been picked as an outreach to conservatives with solid Washington and outsider experience by a novice nationalist populist politician like Donald Trump. But Pence also offers a contrast in temperament. Trump is known for his flamboyant, outrageous and unpredictable style, whereas Pence proved in the VP Debate that he was cool, civil and steady. On the other end of the political pendulum this year, a self-professed progressive Hillary Clinton chose left-leaning Tim Kaine, seemingly to win to Virginia and bank on his identity politics of being a Catholic with outreach to Hispanics. As experienced of an insider as Mrs. Clinton is, she is not a natural politician and does not exude an inviting public personality that is believable. A feasible mission for Kaine during the VP Debate should have been to make his running mate seem warm and fuzzy. Instead, most people will remember the Democrat VP as acting like an obnoxious, argumentative jerk who kept interrupting. This did nothing to mollify Hillary's warmness gap and it made many Democrats agitated at Kaine's discourtesy. It is dubious if a Vice Presidential debate matters much in the scheme of a Presidential election. We could read the transcript to digest the alluvia of assertions and insults, but it did not seem that there were any measurable moments which encapsulate the event. But I am reminded of what Maya Angelou's pearl of wisdom that: "People may forget what you've said, people will forget what you did but they will never forget how you made them feel." Considering that both major party candidates would be septagenarian Commanders-in-Chief, and one has many prospective health challenges, voters need to seriously consider that the VP might actually occupy the Oval Office. This debate made Mike Pence look statesman-like, steady and civil, which helps Trump out as well as himself. Unfortunately, Kaine seemed like a smarmy, supercilious candidate who does not play well with others. That might stick in the minds of some voters who will remember that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Kaine.
During the Vice Presidential Debate, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) impeached his opponent Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) on how mishandling of classified information is administered.
Both of the VP nominees have sons on active duty serving in the Marines (as advertised by Sen. Kaine's lapel pin), so Pence's analogy of how the Pentagon would not suffer fools gladly should have hit home. However, as a good soldier to his boss Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Kaine reiterated that FBI Director Comey claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Clinton. Of course, that begs the question whether a prosecutor should reinterpret 18 US Code Sec. 1924 to require intentionality or if a Law Enforcement Officer ought to informally adjudicate a case in the first place. During her first Presidential Debate, Hillary Clinton kept urging viewers to fact check what her opponent says. It would only be just if inquiring minds would apply the same principle to Sen. Kaine's unequivocal denial that the military would decline to court marshal someone under their jurisdiction who handled classified information in what FBI Director Comey characterized as an "extremely careless" way. One suspects that it would be more fruitful to wait for Tim Kaine to let Mike Pence finish a sentence. Of course, people could save time fact checking and just ask General Petraeus.
As Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wonders why she is not connecting with Millennial voters, she should consider her attitude behind the public mask. Ex Secret Service Agent Ron Kessler points out the nasty way that she treats agents behind the scenes. Similarly, audio leaked from a Hillary event in February 2016 which she denigrated youthful Bernie backers as being basement dwellers. In this 2016 cycle, voters yearn for genuineness, even if it is unvarnished and uncomfortable ejaculations like Donald Trump on a roll. People may think that Hillary Clinton won the first Presidential debate because of preparation, canned ham (e.g. "trumped up, trickle down economics") and pasting on a smiley face for a prolonged period. This pose, however, did not significantly move the needle up. Millennials are loathe to run to a candidate who just plays the gender card. Now that they know "Sneering Hillary" who speaks contemptuously of being a barista or believing in real change, are they going to go out in droves to support Democrats? Might some join "The Deplorables" Trump Team? The latter seems unlikely.
If one wonders why Libertarian Presidential candidate labeled Religious Liberty issues as a black hole in the Washington Examiner, consider the colloquy in the Libertarian debate with Austin Peterson.
Not knowing the law, the constitution nor respecting religious freedom of believers to act in accords to their conscience may make Johnson's words a black hole for votes in November.
The RNC added another debate in Salt Lake City in late March that would be hosted by Fox News. After Donald Trump won four of five Ides of March primaries, the GOP front runner refused to attend, citing a conflict with a prior commitment with AIPAC (which had not yet scheduled its speakers' schedule). Governor John Kasich (R-OH), fresh off of winning 66 delegates in the Ohio primary was full of himself and also declined to debate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) without Donald Trump being on the rostrum. Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer questioned the conundrum of Kasich complaining about not getting enough time in prior Republican debates, yet declining two hours sharing the spotlight with just one other candidate.
With only a win in his home state, it is hard to take "Ohio President" John Kasich as a serious contender for the Republican nomination. This shift in postures from whining about not getting enough time to declining the debate stage makes him hard to take seriously period.
Part of Donald Trump's leitmotif during the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination race is to tap into the anger of the so called "Silent Majority" by inspiring large celebrity styled campaign rallies. Trump revels at being politically incorrect and pugnacious, so he does not suffer fools lightly for protesters who dare to counter-demonstrate at his events. The problem with such truculent tactics is that it rubs off on his fanatical supporters. During the Miami Republican Debate, CNN moderator Jake Tapper questioned Trump about violence which has been bubbling up at his recent rallies. Instead of immediately distancing himself from crazies at campaign rallies, Trump first feigns ignorance, then demonizes the disruptive dissidents then denies that he did anything. Tapper pushed back on Trump's tacit tolerance of the violence by pointing out several instances which Trump egged on or encouraged his followers to give the unwanted guest an abusive adieux. While it can be claimed that Trump says that he does not condone violence at rallies, his justifications impeach that assertion. Moreover, after the debate, Trump told ABC News that: "The audience swung back [on Trump disrupters]...what we need to see a bit more of." Many media commentators heaped praise on Trump for utilizing a soft spoken approach and not hurling crude insults at his opponents during the Miami GOP Debate. Yet the paralepsis politician continues to play the media, by implying something without saying it, albeit in without typical bluster or bombast. Was the Trump pussy footing around distancing himself from David Duke in 2016 because the man who has the self proclaimed best memory did not recall what white supremacists groups are or because they were a small slice of useful idiots to vote in the SEC dominated Super Tuesday? How about Trump touting authoritarian exertions of strength by Putin and the Chinese Red Army repressing the Tiannamen Square protests, yet claiming that he did not endorse the actions? Is this the "new normal" in the American polity? Post Scriptus 03/13/2016 After reports that Moveon.org and Bernie Sanders supporters were the groups which shut down the Trump Rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago, Trump tweeted a taunt and threat:
Much to the Trump camp's chagrin, the Donald is markedly underperforming compared the the polls and the large crowds, especially in closed primary and caucus contests. To remedy this lack of follow thru by truant Trump supporters, Donald Trump started a campaign schtick to urge attendees to take an oath to get out the vote for the Donald.
Unfortunately, the optics of having crowds raise their right hands in the air looks like a fascist salute. Several days after this tactic was applied, Donald Trump went on MSNBC's "The Morning Joe" to deny that he knew anything about it. Trump claimed that comparing this Trump pledge to a Nazi salute was crazy.
Oh--our mistake (sic). It's just unfortunate optics that are repeated in rallies leading up to Super Duper Tuesday.
Lest we forget how Donald Trump could not immediately recognize and condemn any support coming from ex Klansman David Duke and white supremacists. It would but stupid to prematurely alienate a small segment of fanatical Southern Pride voters when their votes count.
Contributing to this authoritarian aura around Donald Trump was his response in the Detroit GOP Debate when he was asked for his reaction if the military would refuse an illegal order. Trump insisted that this would never happen because: "They're not going to refuse me. If I say it, they'll do it." Besides, this would just be killing the families of terrorists in retribution for their war crimes. A day later, Trump PR flacks walked back this bold blurtation.
Trump social media warriors are quick to excuse these strong man assertions, noting that Mussilini did not originate the quote and that it is hate speech to see the similarities between a fascist salute and a Trump loyalty pledge.
During the Democrats Debate in Flint, Hillary Clinton attacked Republicans in Michigan for not abating the Flint Water Crisis.
While it may be water under a bridge, the dirty water danger was created by a Democrat Flint City Council that switched off the Detroit water system to save money. And the US EPA was slow to declare that the municipal money savings switch was unsafe. Of course, the Obama EPA has a muddy record concerning clean water, especially after the Animus River spill on Colorado.
Water from Animus River, Colorado after EPA spill August 2015
But it's much better Democrat politics to demonize Republicans and deflect any responsibility.
At the Democrat Debate in Flint, Michigan, Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist/D- VT) commented about racial blind spots, opining that white people can not understand what it's like to be poor.
This earned observation tells you about identity politics and embodies the soft bigotry of low expectations.
At the close of the Detroit Fox New GOP Debate, Governor John Kasich likened himself to "the Little Engine that Could". How presidential/sarc.
Perhaps this puerile position may have some appeal to voters. Before the New Hampshire primary, Kasich sold himself to skeptical voters to being the mush that was just right ala Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
Republican 2016 Presidential hopeful Donald Trump came into South Carolina with a substantial lead. During the debate in Greenville, South Carolina, Trump felt that he had enough swagger to liberally share his vitriolic views.
Trump displayed that he was not a conservative in step with the pro-life movement as he parried with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) about abortion. In response to defunding Planned Parenthood, Trump insisted that the organization does lots of good things for womens' health. When Cruz pressed him, Trump demurred but said that he was against abortion. Sure. Federal taxpayers can pay half a billion dollars to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood clinics and finance the loss leader of condoms
But the most telling truth from the evening was a colloquy between Trump and former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL). The moderator asked Trump about his harsh critique of the Iraq War. Trump reiterated his assertion that he always opposed it and that it was a stupid war that costs trillions of dollars.
Jeb stepped in to defend his family's honor and legacy. As Trump interrupted and insulted his favorite foil, Trump then charged that the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 were "W''s fault as they happened during the 43rd President's watch.
If any conservative needs more proof that Trump is not one of them, this should have been a crystalizing moment. To question the wisdom of invading Iraq is one thing that a war weary America may countenance, but blaming the Bushes for a terror attack-- that's Alex Jones 9/11 truther territory. This is the sort of tripe that loony liberals with loose change rattling around in their head spew.
Trump trolls will love the fight, no matter what. If Trump keeps to form, he should double down on his outrageous invective, as crazy charges scored big earned media that kept him in the headlines in the past. That may not work this time.
People are voting. Particular states are having primaries. For Republicans, the next prize is South Carolina which is a conservative state with a strong continent of military veterans. This bold bombast against the Bushes charging that their beloved former commander in chief was responsible for a terror attack is not a natural play. It sounds like the muck from looney liberals and crackpots (not necessarily one in the same group).
Implying that Senator John McCain was a (R-AZ) a loser for being a POW held in the Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War may have worked in the dog days of summer when 16 Republican Presidential candidates vied for attention. Will it work as voters choose from the final handful a week before casting the ballot?
It seems that the Trump Train is driven by momentum and pointing to polls. Trump's graciousness after the Iowa Caucus only lasted a day because Trump went out of the headlines. That's why he seized on being Ben Carson's champion for supposed "cheating". How magnanimous of Trump to help out his good friend, who he implied was pathological like a child molester in November 2015. Trump could sweep the field if he wins big in South Carolina. But if Trump fails again, that would kill momentum for the Nevada Caucuses and the nine state SEC primaries, where it is difficult to use celebrity events and outrageous earned media to triumph.
Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)'s rapid rise in the primary political polls has been premised on strong debate performances. Rubio is articulate, some say smooth talking, in giving upbeat bite sized morsels during his time on the debate stage.
Rubio surprised many political observers by his showing at the Iowa Caucuses, where he came in third as expected, but only 1.5% behind second place finisher Donald Trump.Thus his rapid rise made him a prime target at the Republican Debate held three days before the New Hampshire Primary. So he should have known what to expect.
After seven prior Republican debates, astute observers know candidates' patterns of behavior. Ex Governor Mike Huckabee always slung "canned ham", hokey pre-written one line zingers designed to make him seem like the funny every-man's candidate. The Iowa Caucus echo of Adele "It's Me" was expected but still amusing. Donald Trump (when he deign to show up for a debate) will start being subdued but eventually with squabble with Jeb! Bush. Dr. Ben Carson will joke about how little time he is being allotted and will do a data dump on questions not posed to him.Governor John Kasich (R-OH) will wildly flail his hands when speaking at the podium with occasional karate chops for rhetorical punctuation.
Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) inevitably will slip in a reference that he was a former Federal Prosecutor named just before the 9/11 terror attacks. Christie also loves to look directly into the camera and address the television audience. Christie's blunt, confrontational approach should appeal out the outsider aura, those who are fed up with the District of Calamity (sic) and presumably blue collar voters.
Senator Rubio was wont to retell his family's remarkable American Dream story, which loses its effectiveness after it has been used a few times. Rubio also had the habit of asking people for their vote in a close, which gets a bit cloying. Wisely, Senator Rubio has dropped both tacts. As for style, Senator Rubio shoots for the American Dream in some responses and then tries to focus attacks on Obama and Hillary, while subtly shivving other candidates in the back. This approach has given Rubio great favorability ratings. Along with his strategy of heavy paid media campaign advertising, it has precipitated his top tier status.
Governor Christie is staking the fate of his entire campaign upon doing well (placing in the top troika) in the New Hampshire Primary. For the week before the Republican Debate in Manchester, Christie had been gunning to take Rubio down a couple of notches, deriding him as "Bubble Boy", who was not accessible to voters or responding to tough questions. Other have ripped Rubio as being robotic. So the critiques were being telegraphed to Rubio. Yet the freshman Florida Senator displayed a glaring glitch.
It seems that Rubio got rattled after Christie repeatedly rubuked him for giving memorized 30 second speeches. Almost to prove his point, Rubio blurted out similar tracks about President Obama four times in four minutes. In post debate spin mode, Rubio claims that he is passionate about this position and wishes people would keep playing the clip. The episode inspired a parody Twitter account "Marco Rubio Glitch".
Unfortunately, that was not the only instance were over-preparation showed. In his answer about the military, Rubio began his answer, then stopped and began again because his memorized stump speech had to be delivered in that order. Again, this glitch contributes to the charge of being robotic and mars an otherwise good debate performance, with excellent responses about ISIS and defining conservativism.
I do not begrudge candidates doing preparation work prior to a debate. In fact, it shows some respect for an audience and hones a message, unlike Donald Trump's flippant definition of conservatism as "conserving money". However, it is most effective if the audience is unaware that you are prepared. For example, Huckabee's canned ham are groaners because you know there are not spontaneous and he stained to find the opening to launch the zinger.
Similarly, by regurgitating the same rhetoric several times in a short span sounds robotic and pre-programmed. Discerning viewers are prompted to question authenticity. It begs the question of how a candidate will stand stricter scrutiny in the General Election campaign.
Sometimes glitches underline growing perceptions. Ben Carson had developed a whiney reputation from the debates for not getting enough recognition or time allotments. The Carson campaign seized on a kerfluffle over a CNN news report at the start of the Iowa Caucuses that Carson was taking time from the campaign trail prior to the New Hampshire Pimary. Both the Cruz and Rubio campaigns spun this news to their grass-root leaders in the Caucuses to garner more votes. Carson took umbrage exclusively at Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz quickly apologized for not passing along subsequent reports. Carson claimed as a Christian he accepted the apology but then priggishly seemed to require conditional forgiveness. Cruz apologized again at the Manchester Debate, but that did not seem to assuage Dr. Carson's animus.
But as the candidates were being introduced onstage at the Manchester Debate, there was a technical glitch to cue Dr. Carson so he remained waiting in the wings, even as a stage manager gestured for him to take his place. The ABC News Moderator David Muir had to invite Ben Carson for him to go to his podium. Afterwards, Carson complained about not being introduced second.
This strange stagecraft, combined with a perception of priggish prissiness in politics, made it seem like Carson was being stand-offish because of a pecking order failure. Along with Carson's standard complaint about being ignored and his refusal to accept Cruz's repeated apology, it gave a bad impression. The technical glitch may have be inadvertent, but the cascade of a candidate who stands on heirs and hardly seems like he is working to win was a tough impression to shake.
Most of the time, people do not remember the substance of a debate but their impressions. Famously, in the 1960 Presidential Debate, the radio audience thought that then Vice President Richard Nixon (R-CA) bested then Senator John Kennedy (D-MA). But the vast majority of the audience was on television, and they remember Nixon's five o'clock shadow vis-a-vis a tan, rested and telegenic Kennedy.
Or the 1992 Richmond Town Hall debate when President George H.W. Bush was caught on camera looking at his watch. It gave the perception that Bush looked bored.
Then there was Vice President Al Gore's audible sighs in the 2000 Debate, which in retrospect he may have wanted to keep in a lock box.
How much the Rubio Glitch or the Carson miscue sticks in the minds of Granite State primary voters remains to be seen. At the very least, Rubio's less than stellar Manchester debate performance has halted his meteoric rise in the media and may prompt another antagonizing reappraisal by the GOP establishment of which horse to back against insurgent outsider candidates.
The Ben Carson campaign has been capitalizing on a kerfluffle regarding a CNN report just as the Iowa Caucuses were starting that Carson was suspending his campaign. Other opponents, such as the Cruz and Rubio campaign, trumpeted the information to their grassroots operatives. A subsequent clarification from the Carson campaign that he was off the campaign trail for a few days to get some R&R as well as fresh clothes, were not passed along to the Caucus precinct captains.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) publicly apologized for not passing along the additional information. Some have been scandalized by a recorded telephone call (isn't dissemination a felony unless there's two party consent?) that the Cruz campaign pushed a suspended campaign pitch to win over Carson voters.
Dr. Carson has perseverated on this point. First, he claimed Christianity forced him to accept the apology but then his forgiveness was conditional. Then his expectation evolved to having heads roll in the Cruz campaign. Now in day three of this contrived controversy, Dr. Carson went on television to demand:"Don't do what's legal, but what's right". Whatever does that mean in the primary process?
In addition, is this selective outrage? The Rubio campaign was also trafficking in this report. Why is Cruz the sole focus? Is it animus against Cruz because some of his New Hampshire staff and fund-raisers defected to Cruz? Is it because both Cruz and Carson are competing for the same sliver of the Republican primary electorate? Or is it to gang up on the front runner which neither the establishment nor the press likes?
That pious platitude is about as clear as Carson's campaign clarification that he was leaving the campaign trail to get fresh clothes in the heat of a primary that could determine the viability of the Carson campaign.
It is unclear what Carson really wants, other than more publicity and burnishing his personal brand. Perhaps he will answer when he returns to New Hampshire on Saturday afternoon for the Republican Debate. But if he thinks that this whiny, ambiguous complaints about past contests endears himself to conservatives, he is as mistaken as former Governor Sarah Palin was about her endorsement of Donald Trump for President
After the falling out between 2016 Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump and the Fox News , (the organizer and broadcaster of the only GOP Iowa Debate), the mercurial mogul announced that he would boycott the debate and instead attend a fund-raiser for veterans at nearby Drake University.
Since Trump put up a fuss over Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asking questions, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) proposed a mano-a-mano debate with Trump. Suggested moderators included Mark Levin, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, or it could be a 60 minute Lincoln Douglas like debate.
In addition, a Cruz Super PAC offered to donate $1.5 million to veterans' causes if the populist politician would show. Trump demurred unless the Republican race was whittled down to just two candidates. Not content with that one-on-one evasion, Trump spokesman Corey Lewindowski said that Trump would agree to debate Cruz once a federal judge declares him eligible to run for President.
It would seem that Trump is using veterans as props to advance his campaign cause more than raising money for a worthy cause. But to be fair, the Cruz Super PAC double dare also has the stench of politics over charitable concern.
A couple of also rans in the 2016 Republican Presidential race have expressed interest in showing up to the Trump inspired rally. Trump was tickled to tweet about how ex Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and ex Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) wanted to share the stage with Trump if it was a charitable fund raiser for veterans. Santorum said that he had nothing to do after the under-card Republican debate.
It seems dubious that Trump will share the stage with a couple of also rans in a campaign counter-programming event that just has a veneer of charity for veterans.. The Huckster and Little Ricky still haven't heard back from The Donald.
In the fall, Trump partnered with Veterans for a Strong America for his big military announcement aboard a battleship which amounted to "We'll build a military that will be huge so no one will want to fight us and Americans will get tired of winning." Well, Veterans for a Strong America lost their non-profit status and endorsed Trump.
Per 990 tax filings, The Donald J. Trump Foundation has only donated $57,000 to veterans groups between 2009 and 2013. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks insisted: "Mr. Trump has made significant financial and in kind contributions to many Veterans organizations, personally and not through the Donald J. Trump Foundation." However Hicks declined to estimate the charitable contributions towards veterans' causes.
Several veterans groups distanced themselves from any Trump charity event for Veterans in Iowa. Veterans for America founder Paul Rieckhoff chaffed at being used for a publicity stunt.
After the VA scandal and the need of our wounded warriors in the long-war against Islamist extremism, it is praiseworthy to support veterans' policy concerns and share the spotlight. But it is bravo sierra to use them as political pawns or props.
Post Scriptus 01/29/2015 The Trump Veterans Rally was held in a small 175 person auditorium at Drake University, which was a couple of miles away from the GOP Debate site. Contrary to expectations, Mr. Trump did share the stage with a couple of his rivals, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (who had previously won the Iowa Caucuses in 2008 and 2012 respectively).
The big news from the event was that the rally had raised $5 million overnight, including a $1 million check directly cut from Donald Trump. This money is supposedly earmarked for 22 veterans organizaitons. But all of the proceeds are funneled through the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The setup seems reminiscent of the Clinton Foundation, in which private entities are encouraged to make charitable contributions funneled through a single entity with the appearance of currying favor later with a politician poised for a powerful position.
Scrutinizing who Donald Trump talked up prior to running for President as a Republican gives insight into his political values, the longevity of his beliefs, his judgment and with whom the billionaire real estate/ television celebrity chooses to curry favor.
