The Republican presidential candidates should be rejoicing over John Dickerson’s stellar performance in the Democratic Presidential Primary Debate held Nov. 14.
Dickerson, host of Face the Nation on CBS News, moderated what turned out to be a fairly boring but semi-hostile boxing match between the three Democratic candidates: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley. Though I’m sure the GOP candidates enjoyed Dickerson’s pointed questions and tough follow-ups, they should be even more thrilled that Dickerson and the other moderators exposed several areas in which the Dems do not have solid policy ideas.
All three Democratic candidates aim to defeat ISIS, but their means for doing so are rather nebulous. In the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris and Beirut — for which ISIS claims direct responsibility — each candidate expressed the desire that an international coalition led by the United States should rid us of ISIS. However, each holds a different view on how America should lead.
There was frequent mention of “boots on the ground,” some talk of the importance of human intelligence by O’Malley, and Sanders’ line that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” but other than that, there was no clear plan to take down what is now universally recognized as a threat, at least in the West.
Republican presidential candidates must have specific plans for addressing ISIS if they wish to stand out in addressing foreign policy. Otherwise, they will sound exactly the same as their Democratic opponents.
Additionally, whoever is selected to be the Republican presidential candidate can capitalize on one question: Who pays for all of the free things? The moderators posed this exact question to all three candidates, but all three answers were vague at best: raise taxes for the rich (but specific numbers are still in the works), and close corporate loopholes (but specific measures are yet to be determined).
Republicans need to do the math — calculate the entire total cost of the candidates’ welfare plans, determine how much each would have to raise taxes in order to fulfill those plans, and trumpet those numbers as much as possible.
Finally, the Democratic candidates all spoke emphatically about building an America that is good for children (i.e., those children who are born). Clinton wants to “even the odds” for every child in America. All want safety for children and free schooling for children through college. But all three candidates avoid a word that now seems taboo in the Democratic party: family.
Republican candidates, then, must speak frankly about the family and its importance in shaping a child’s future. If Republicans can establish this connection between strong families and a stronger, stable America — with specific policies to follow — then they can fill this void in current Democratic platform.
Ultimately, part of the reason why these Democratic candidates spewed such vague, lackluster generalities about policy issues is because they all hold to the same general framework: free stuff is good; the rich are evil; ISIS is bad; climate change is worse; and Donald Trump is an “immigrant-bashing carnival barker.” (Thank Martin O’Malley for that last one.)
So, who won the Democratic debate on Saturday evening? John Dickerson. But the Republican candidates can turn it into a win for themselves if they pounce on the Democratic candidates’ unsound stances on practical policies.
