Special Edition: The First Republican Presidential Debate

I watched the first GOP presidential debate. It’s going to be a looooong election season.

         Welcome to a special edition of Life Its Ownself! Once again, thanks to all my readers for helping me reach 500 subscribers, and welcome to all my new readers! Your support encourages me to write and publish regularly. All my content is free, but your paid subscription is a big affirmation. Please let me know how I’m doing by 1) liking, 2) subscribing, 3) sharing with others, and 4) commenting below.

Friday, August 25, 2023

         I would not normally write about the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night, as it is not in my wheelhouse. In fact, I am 50/50 as to whether I would even have watched it. But I had a unique opportunity to watch and comment on it, so today is your lucky day.

         Gerald Daugherty was a Travis County Commissioner during the time I worked for the county in the 2010s. He was hard-working, able, fair, and fun to work with. Among other things, he oversaw the Intergovernmental Relations Office I managed. Over time, we became respectful colleagues and, eventually, friends, in spite of the face that he was a, ahem, Republican.

         We kept in touch after I retired in 2020, occasionally breaking brisket together at the Green Mesquite barbecue joint in Austin – the epitome of what “Lunch with Smart People” is supposed to be.

         Gerald and his lovely wife Charlyn spend some time every year at their summer home in Ruidoso, NM, and have issued a standing invitation for me to visit them. As I planned my Road Trip 2023 (about which I have written here and here), Gerald and I tried to work out a day or two that would work for me to visit:

         ME: Well, I could come your way on my way back to Texas. What about August 22-24?

         GERALD:  That would be OK, but I should warn you that I plan to watch the GOP presidential debate on the 23^rd.

         ME:  I’m in!

         That settled, Gerald and Charlyn offered me the best of their hospitality. They have a lovely home overlooking the mountains and forests around Ruidoso. They gave me the run of the house and took me out for some amazing meals. And on the appointed night, Charlyn put together a meal we could eat while we watched the debate. (In fairness to Charlyn, I should point out that she’d rather have a wisdom tooth extracted without anesthetic than watch a debate, but she hung in there with her hubby.)

         I’d told Gerald I might want to share my thoughts about the debate in this newsletter, but of course would not mention that I was with him or any of his comments here unless he was OK with that. He said it would be fine if I shared his thoughts. And so, I’ve tried to characterize his comments, and especially our areas of agreement. I take full responsibility for any misstatements of his views and ideas, and will give him an opportunity to correct the record in a future edition.

1.    Gerald and I both pay attention to the news, but the “news” is different for each of us.

         As an initial matter, we discussed that we have very different news ecosystems, to borrow a term. For instance, Gerald knows that Hunter Biden arranged meetings for some of his less-than-circumspect clients with Joe Biden when he was either Vice President or prior to his 2020 run. I have never heard of such meetings; the most I’ve heard is that Hunter would call his dad while meeting with his clients, put him on speakerphone (with or without his knowledge) and use their conversation to suggest he had influence over his father’s official actions. The truth, as far as I can tell, lies somewhere in between. My point is, Gerald and I both consume news in good faith, but we are consuming different news. This phenomenon is becoming more widespread in our society, and carries obvious dangers.

2.    Gerald and I viewed the debate with different agendas.

         From the get-go, we also acknowledged our different agendas: he was watching the debate to form impressions about who he might vote for, while I probably would never vote for any of those people.

         Accordingly, we judged the debate by different standards. I tried to evaluate how each candidate did: were they part of the conversation, did they make an impact, did they distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack? Gerald was looking at those qualities, but also evaluating whether he was less or more likely to vote for them.

3.    Our analyses had a lot in common.

         Despite our different agendas and approaches, our conclusions turned out to be pretty similar with respect to each candidate:

•          Ron DeSantis had the most to lose in the debate, but we both thought he did OK, hitting his talking points. I thought he was a little stentorian at times, but at least he had no major gaffes.  

•          Vivek Ramaswamy was the evening’s breakout player, but we both found him a little too arrogant and naïve about a lot of things (e.g., there is no executive order that will eliminate teachers’ unions). The audience loved him, though, except when it didn’t, like when Nikki Haley schooled him on Ukraine.

•          Speaking of Nikki Haley, she impressed us both and, in my judgment, gave a big boost to her so-far sluggish campaign. Her comment about Trump being the most unpopular politician in America may have been her most unpopular moment, but she gave a good answer on the abortion question, suggesting that the American people want a more reasonable approach.

•          Tim Scott is a nice guy but failed to stand out in any way. Not impressive. What’s the case for his candidacy?

•          Mike Pence had a strong performance. He defended his actions on January 6 and offered a counterpoint to Vivek’s doom-and-gloom assessment of our country. Still, it’s hard to imagine the “base” will coalesce behind him.

•          Chris Christie was Chris Christie, and had a couple good moments. He is going nowhere and seems to know it. His goal is limited to taking down Trump – and he trained his fire on his proxy, Ramaswamy, at the debate.  

•          We both admired Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum, although it’s hard to see what lane they can fill.

         For me, shooting the breeze with a good friend was the real treat of the evening. By the way, I do not want you to think Gerald and I have the kind of shallow relationship where we only talk about national politics; we also talked about state and local politics.

         We continued our discussion into the day Thursday, driving through stunning scenery from Ruidoso to Cloudcroft. The road winds through beautiful pine forests that blanket the high mountains. It was one of the most beautiful drives I’ve ever been on.

         Our mission: to eat barbecue at Mad Jack’s Mountaintop Barbecue in Cloudcroft. As a Texas Monthly profile discussed, “Mad Jack” is James Jackson, late of Lockhart and a superb chef and owner. He came out and visited with us before the restaurant opened (the smart people start getting in line an hour before the opening bell sounds).  

(Charlyn Daugherty hanging out with a couple mooks at Mad Jack’s.)

(Mad Jack’s Mountaintop Barbecue served up a fine meal.)

         After our immense meal, I bid Gerald and Charlyn a fond farewell as I headed to Artesia and, eventually, Texas. I’ll have more comments about the trip in another post, but what a nice treat it was to visit with Gerald and Charlyn!

---

         Your weekend reading …

         … Goin’ back to Houston … The 2028 GOP national convention

         … You’ve heard of the Elephant’s Graveyard, but what about the wind turbine graveyard?

         … The Texas Tribune has a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.