The Daily Signal - Biggest Hits, Misses in 2nd GOP Presidential Debate

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

Seven GOP candidates took to the debate stage Wednesday night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, for the second Republican presidential debate. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former Vice President Mike Pence, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum spent two hours answering questions from debate moderators Dana Perino of the Fox News Channel, Stuart Varney of Fox Business Network, and Univision anchor Ilia Calderón. Former two-term Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson did not qualify for the second debate.  Former President Donald Trump skipped Wednesday night's debate, opting instead to deliver a speech at an auto parts manufacturer and supplier about 25 miles northeast of Detroit.  Several significant moments stood out from the second GOP presidential debate, and Nathan Duell, the California state director of Heritage Action for America, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain how the debate compared to the first one Aug. 23 in Milwaukee and what issues moderators should have addressed, but didn't. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Action for America is an independent nonprofit organization affiliated with Heritage.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, September 28th. I'm Virginia Allen. And if you watch the second GOP presidential debate last night, then you might be feeling a little bit tired this morning. We're right there in that boat with you. It was a packed two hours. And Nathan Duell, he is with us on the show today. He is the California State Director for Heritage Action for America. He was watching the debate from his home state of California. Of course, the debate was also taking place in California last night. Nathan, thank you so much for being here to give your analysis on what we saw during the debate. Yes, thanks so much for having me, Virginia. Well, let's get right into it. First off, it's important to note that for the first presidential debate, there were eight candidates on stage. There were only seven on stage Wednesday night for the second debate. The former two-term Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson, did not meet the criteria.

to be on stage for the second debate. So we had a little bit of a smaller crowd. Of course, former President Donald Trump was also not present. He opted to be in Michigan and gave a speech there. What did you notice in the difference in this second debate from the first one? Or was there much of a difference in the tone? I think at the beginning, there was a little bit more of a difference in the tone. There was some good speaking about optimism for America.

and what the future will look like and some good touching on substance as well with the policy discussions. And then as the debate progressed, it looked like much of the same where it wasn't the best moderated debate and a lot of food fighting going on between the candidates. Still some good moments where there were policy distinctions communicated by the different candidates. You mentioned the moderators. What did you think of the moderator questions? What were the questions that you were really pleased that were asked, and what were a couple questions that you think should have been asked that weren't? Yeah, with the question, some of the framing I didn't agree with, I think when it came to amnesty and the border, they weren't framed in a way that

was fair to the American people and the issues that are truly at hand. I don't think that the framing did them a lot of favors. I did appreciate that topics like parental, rights and pro-life were brought up, even if I didn't like the framing. And I wish that some of the debate question had focused a little bit more on those, especially in California, where they are such hot-button issues to the voters. Well, I think that's a good point. You know, parental rights is something that's an issue that has really taken the whole nation by storm. It's top of mind for so many Americans across the country. And I think there maybe was opportunity to weigh. in on that more. Why do you think that candidates didn't lean into that issue more? Is that just simply a

time constraint or is it maybe not as high a priority for all the candidates on stage? I think it was a time constraint. It seemed like as the debate went on, the moderators would give one or two speakers an opportunity to present on it and then they would pivot to something else. They started out the debate talking about things like crime, the border, the economy, which are all very important issues. But when it came to parental rights, not a lot of candidates got to discuss it. And in a state like California, there's six school boards right now that have passed parental notification policies, which is great. It's a revolution of parents who are stepping up. Governor Newsom recently vetoed a bill that would have forced parents to basically have their views

on having a transgender kid. Those views would come out in court, and that would have to be weighed by the court. So parents are talking a lot about it across the country, and it's paying dividends in a state like California that is very blue, but they're starting to see some wins, which is great. So yeah, just to reiterate, I wish more of the candidates had an opportunity to say where they stood and talk about radical transgender ideology. Sure. Are there a couple moments that really stand out in your mind as being marker moments for the debate that you think we'll see discussed and talked about. in the news and the days to come?

Some of the points there was a lot of unity and not much difference about what candidates said. I think on the border being such an important issue for the electorate, not just politically engaged people are seeing the problem at the border and every state is now a border state. And I noticed that a lot of the answers on the border seemed pretty similar. There was a lot of agreement that it's a major issue and that border security needs to be prioritize before even having the immigration discussion. And the same goes for inflation. Now, that's a softball question. Obviously, everyone's against inflation and the government spending. And these candidates don't always govern in the way that they talk. But there was broad agreement that

inflation is a major issue hurting our economy and that government spending is that driver for inflation. Spending was definitely a common topic that came up. And of course, in Washington, D.C., here, we're looking at those spending debates, we're looking at a possible government shutdown coming on Saturday if an agreement's not reached if budgets aren't passed or a continuing resolution. And with that, did you see from GOP candidates that they appear to have a plan to address out of control spending in Washington, D.C.? I think all those candidates on stage agree that spending needs to be reined in, but did you see any sort of presentation of this is how it would be done? I did not. Did not see any plans that I can recall.

And on the issue of the government shutdown, not a lot of candidates weighed in with their views either on that. So as we know, there's different factions going on right now with how to avert the shutdown while others are okay with the shutdown. And you have a bunch of different dynamics, both in the House and the Senate. And the candidates could have used it as an opportunity to, say, a Senate CR that attaches Ukraine spending is a no-go under my administration. I would not be in favor of that. And they didn't get too much into the policy details. I would have liked to see more of a plan about how to get spending under control in America. Now, there were, of course, course, a few tense moments during the debate, some exchanges between certain candidates.

One of those moments about halfway through the debate was between former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramoswamy on the subject of TikTok. Vivek Ramoswamy is on TikTok, and he defended his use of TikTok saying that that is where the young people are and to reach younger voter. voters was his implication that it's important for Republicans to be on TikTok. Well, Nikki Haley had a pretty fiery response to this. What did you make of the exchange that they shared on stage? I understand VEVec wanting to appeal to younger people, but with how much of a national security threat, TikTok is, I think it's the wide and prudent decision for candidates on the conservative side

to say no to TikTok. We are not going to allow our data to be gathered by the Chinese Communist Party to then be used against us. So I think in that exchange, it came across well from Nikki Haley that TikTok is doing that and it's going to go to the Chinese Communist Party and be used to hurt America. So it was a good exchange, and I understand where Vivek is coming from, but also I think this is a clear line in the sand that Americans should not. be on TikTok. Now, looking at all of the many topics as a whole that were covered, what are the ones

that for conservatives in particular that they should be paying most attention to and maybe looking into a little bit further from comments that candidates made on the debate stage? There was a comment I really liked very brief that talked about fatherlessness and how big of an issue, that is, and talked about the American family and how we need to have policies in place and also build a culture that is pro-family in America. I think that was a missed opportunity to not talk about it more, but that was a shining moment in the debate. I also think when it comes to foreign policy, that was one of the areas where we saw greater disagreement among the candidates, where there are some who are okay with sending more money to Ukraine without any

oversight with the money, while other candidates who, I would argue, are listening to the American voters, are fed up with sending blank checks to Ukraine when we can't even secure our border here at home. So that was an area where it needs to be hashed out more because there was certainly disagreement between some of the candidates. Let's talk about who was not on stage. Of course, former President Donald Trump, he was not there. He, as same as he did with the first debate, opted to deliver his own speech, sort of do his own thing, and gave a speech instead on Wednesday night from Michigan. How do you think his not being on stage affected the tone of the debate or did it? I think it did. Not having him on the stage, he wasn't as much of a target, I believe,

and also he wasn't able to defend his record or pushback if people disagreed. It just made it where the big elephant in the room was not in the room. Chris Christie talked about Trump the most out of any of the candidates, I believe, but it would have been a much different dynamic had he been there because most of the attacks would be toward him and then he would get the opportunity to defend it. And then it would be left up to the voter to make what they want of that, whether they side with Trump or not. The debate ended in kind of an interesting way. Dana Prino of Fox News was one of the moderators, and she actually asked all of the candidates standing on stage to write down the name of someone that they would, quote unquote, vote off the island, vote off the debate stage if they had to pick one person to be eliminated as a candidate.

And it was interesting to see the response. The candidates actually refused to do that. They said, I believe it was Governor Ron DeSantis was the first one to say, no, that feels really disrespectful to our fellow GOP members standing up here who are running for president. What did you make of that and how the candidates handled that situation? What does that say about them? I thought that the way DeSantis handled it and the others who refused was an honorable thing to do. These debates are at their best when they're focusing on the policy disagreement. and not when they're being entertainment.

I know that some want entertainment. They want to see the food fights, but I think the vast majority of Americans who are having trouble providing for their families, they see the crime in their cities. They don't want more entertainment. They can go on Netflix if they want entertainment. They have real problems,

and they want to have a leader who is going to change the direction of the country. So I appreciated that the candidates didn't play those games with the moderators. Well, Nathan, final words and thoughts. here. What of the takeaways? Did this debate really move the needle significantly on any policy discussions or maybe for any particular candidates? My hope is that the way it moved the needle was people watching the debate who are unsure of which side of the aisle, conservative, progressive they want to support, that they see the real problems and that there is a side

where there's a vision for making America better and improving a lot of these serious issues that we're facing as a nation. Nathan Duell of Heritage Action for America. Nathan, thanks for being with us tonight. Yes, thank you so much for having me, Virginia. And with that, that is going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for joining us here on the Daily Signal podcast. If you haven't had a chance, make sure that you check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed where we bring you the top news of the day. Also take a moment to subscribe to the Daily Signal Podcast wherever you like to listen.

We're across all podcast platforms and take a minute to leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks again for being here today. We hope you have a wonderful Thursday. We will see you right back here around 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Luey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop.

To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.