The Republican debates . . . Lots of talking, but little insight

This week’s Republican debate sure was a raucous affair, wasn’t it?

Did you learn anything about any of the candidates and their positions on what you’d consider important issues? Can I pick a few? Immigration? Job growth? Taxes? Foreign policy (let’s say in the Middle East)? Military spending? Foreign trade? Canadian maple syrup?

OK, I was kidding about that last one, but I, for one really didn’t learn much. (Besides, I buy New Hampshire maple syrup.) Clearly a few candidates came to beat up on each other, and pretty much all of them beat up in the CNBC moderators. Granted, the questions really weren’t all that insightful and in all the Republican debates, there seems to be more of an interest in encouraging the candidates to squabble than to debate.

As we know from debate class, the debate structure is generally pretty rigid . . . Usually an opening statement, timed answers and responses and a closing statement. Anyone see anything like that so far?

So let’s look at this week’s cage fight . . .

My take? Cruz and others scored points with their supporters by hammering on the press, always an easy target and one that plays well with Republicans and their backers. Cruz scored the most points.

Rubio proved fairly fast on his feet and managed some style points in his jabs with Job Bush, who looked like someone off the set of the Walking Dead. Incredibly unimpressive. He may be able to manage the job, but it’s starting to look like his downtrend is not merely a blip in the polls.

Trump and Carson say a fair bit, but not much of it makes much sense, though I find the contrast in styles rather amusing. Carson will play well in Iowa. And while the voting is still a ways off, and there will be a million ups, downs, withdrawals and TV appearances until then, trends are starting to emerge.Rubio will be tripped up by his past financial dealings. People will eventually tire of Trumps “I know how to fix it” speeches, though these potential primary voters thus far seem more enamored with style than substance. Bush, unless he can turn his sinking ship around and refloat it, will be an afterthought (He just doesn’t seem to have any campaign personality . . . A Republican Al Gore, perhaps.) Cruz is sharp- tongued, but besides riling up his base, he’s offered nothing on the policy side other than to bash Obama at every turn. (I’ll say it again . . . Obama’s not running again . . . he already won twice.)

Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum and probably Graham are bench warmers now, and only Graham has much of a chance (slim) of getting on the big boy’s field. Kasich is probably in the same boat, but still holds appeal with his background and often moderate views. A moderate probably won’t get through the primaries. Carly Fiorina faded fast after her bump following the two previous debates. Her business background will hold back support for her as she tries to carve out her niche. Chris Christie is gaining a bit of traction, but his record in New Jersey will haunt him. 

The fundamental problem Republicans have now is too big a flock of candidates. With each one trying to make a mark and get their 30-second sound bite, the messages are muddled, often too sharp and too pointed. And lack, therefore, much of a policy slant.

One hopes we get debates that showcase policy, issues, and solutions from the candidates. That’s the only way voters can make at least partially reasoned decisions on who they might support.

My fear is that we’ll continue to get more infighting, less discussion and little insight.