Republican Debate Four In Two Syllables: UGH-Ly

It seems fitting in his memory – and useful for this topic – to recall a possibly apocryphal anecdote about the late Henry Kissinger when he was an already world-famous professor at Harvard.  Allegedly, when a student would hand his or her first paper to Kissinger, he would accept it, then call the student in the next day and intone, gravely, “Is dat de best you can do?”

The student would invariably say, well, I suppose I could do better, take the paper back for a rewrite, and hand it in again. The next day, Kissinger again would reach the paper forward and again inquire, “Is dat really de best you can do?” The scholar would again head back for a revamp and return, with the scene repeating itself until finally, the exasperated apprentice would declare, “Yes, Professor, I truly believe that is the best I can do.”

To which a stone-faced Kissinger would reply, “All right, den. I vill read it.”

Exactly the reaction of an equally exasperated conservative commentator (no longer a Republican, but that’s another story) in enduring a fourth (seriously?) Republican “also-ran debate,” which is what they are starting to be called with the continued absence of the faraway (in every sense of the word) frontrunner.

Here’s what passed for thoughtful positions, witty repartee, and presidential deportment in various exchanges Wednesday night (not necessarily in order):

“Corrupt.”

“Bankrupt.”

“Shut up.”

“Most obnoxious blowhard in America.”

“Smartass mouth.”

“Go have a nice meal” (to the rotund former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie)

“Get the hell out of the race.”

“Dictator.”

“Bully”

“Broken-down politicians”

“Lipstick on Dick Cheney… fascist neocon.”

“Licking boots (of Donald Trump).”

“Too timid.”

“Cave to donors.”

And of course, repeatedly, “Lying.”

In two syllables: Ugh-ly. With the emphasis on “ugh.”

But amid all the mudslinging, insult-trading, name-calling, rude-interrupting, over-each-other-shouting, “you-said/did-10-years-ago-no-I-didn’t-yes-you-did” and “you-didn’t-answer-the-question-yes-I-did-no-you-didn’t” on the Alabama stage – at least this time no one was called “scum.”

Perhaps that’s progress.

Still, the entire affair evinced an air of utter desperation descending on the race for second place, as the clock ticks away at any opportunity for sufficient separation to square off against, and close ground on, the former president. “Overreach” is an understatement, with the night’s initial and biggest target being Nikki Haley, whose “surge” has brought her a mere 40 points behind The Donald, depending on the poll. 

Earning her an early tag team assault from Ron DeSantis – and by the way, who slipped him an energy drink before the debate? – and Vivek Ramaswamy, vacillating as always between brilliant insight and his characteristic smartest-kid-in-the-class smarminess and condescension.

In fact, at points amid the uproar, each of the candidates again showed flashes of their ability to forward arguments on the issues that are, if not brilliant, at least carefully considered, well-prepared, intellectually stimulating, and politically astute. On a range of issues including the economy; fiscal policy; immigration; China, Israel, terrorism and defense and foreign policy in general; censorship; and wokeness.

Yet far too much, if not most, of the time was spent simply forwarding arguments not on the issues, and with each other.

And if that’s the best they can do in presenting their case to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, maybe it is in fact time to close up shop and close ranks behind the unparalleled practitioner of the dark arts of altercation, denunciation, fabrication, and obfuscation at the top of the ticket.

But the truth is, the candidates, the audience, and especially your correspondent know they can do better.  

As displayed less than a month ago in a contest described in this space as “one of the best beginning-to-end, top-to-bottom, left-to-right ensemble performances this pundit has witnessed in his 45 years in and around the political game.” In which “a collection of candidates (came) across as substantive, slick, savvy, sensible, self-assured, at times swinging-for-the-fences, and – yes – smart.” And, tellingly, featured “comparatively fewer ad hominem exchanges among the contenders.”

Bob Maistros is a messaging and communications strategist, crisis specialist, and former political speechwriter. He can be reached at bob@rpmexecutive.com.