Not ready for prime time: The Republican presidential parody

Amid great fanfare and hype last week, particularly by the Fox News Channel who sponsored the first debate among seventeen presidential hopefuls, the "A" team of ten followed an earlier warm up by the junior varsity of seven whose standing in the polls did not warrant a prime time slot.

For those anxious to hear specific policies and visions molded by facts and clear-headed analysis, disappointment was predictable. The debate was largely theater and entertainment occasionally interlaced with fantasy and delusion.

One yearns for the famous Kennedy-Nixon debates of long ago!

In a phrase, while at least sixteen of the seventeen candidates had prepared and prepped for the debates, few were ready for prime time, at least as far as content and substance were concerned. The looming pre-debate question unsurprisingly was the Donald, aka Mr. Trump, would do. Equally unsurprisingly, Trump was himself -- bombastic, flamboyant and promiscuous in use of word and phrase to bully rather than to argue logically and cogently to make a point.

In fairness, this was the first debate and at best the beginning a long and painful process until both parties chose their presidential candidates a year from now. Viewers from afar must have questioned the seriousness if not the sanity of the U.S. political process after watching this debate. The reason is the disconnect between many of the promises made by the presidential aspirants and reality. Of course, the almost certain likelihood is that one will become the Republican nominee and could become the president.

While the A-team debate was better theater than the group of seven's earlier exchanges, general themes emerged. Regarding the economy, regulations would be slashed; the tax code amended; Obamacare repealed; and jobs by the millions created. Regarding national security and defense, the border with Mexico would be sealed; the military would be "strengthened;" the Islamic State defeated simply by labeling it radical Islamic extremism; the nuclear agreement with Iran abrogated the first day of the new presidency; and Israel given even more security guarantees. And, of course, the obligatory Republican deference to "Guns, Gays, God and Gestation periods" was underscored.

Several of the governors argued that each would fix Washington by working with the opposition as they had done in state capitols. And Mr. Trump who, with face time of over ten minutes clearly dominated that vital metric, boasted how he and only he could create jobs and correct the ills of Washington created by the "stupid people" who inhabit government. The proverbial Martian observer would wonder on what planet these candidates were living and to what depths have American politics sunk?

Not one candidate had specific plans for how to repair a government that was badly broken along party lines -- only the belief it could be done. And many were simply ill informed or not informed on basic facts. Some of the biggest whoppers, for example, concerning only the Iranian nuclear deal were:

-- Abrogate the agreement on taking office irrespective of whether it was working or not -- Deny Iran all nuclear capacity even though the non-proliferation treaty guarantees Tehran nuclear power for peaceful purposes -- Re-station missile defense in Europe to protect against a nuclear Iran even though over the next few years the process is underway to deploy such systems

Equally blunt critique could be liberally applied to the other topics.

That is not to say Democrats are any better. Perhaps because that field is a quarter of the size, their debates will be less entertaining. But the Democrats have one big advantage Republicans ignore at their peril. To win the presidency, the magic number is 270 electoral and not popular votes.

Arguably, the Democratic candidate most likely has bout 230 electoral votes virtually assured.

Demographics for women and minorities are also skewed in their favor, especially as the Republicans in the debate had little to say to change that dynamic. And Trump's answer to a question of why he has described women as "pigs" and worse did little to gain the female vote.

If Republicans are truly serious about winning the White House, they need to come to their electoral senses. First, facts matter. Words are cheap. Basic understanding of reality rather than fantasy or whim must underwrite policy prescriptions.

Second, the Republican nominee cannot win without significant women and minority voters.

Third, politics in Washington and abroad are tough, complex and complicated. The naivete shown by many of the candidates is embarrassing. But will their prescriptions improve? One hopes. But hope may be the only possibility.

_______________________________________________________________ Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business; and Senior Advisor at both Washington D.C.'s Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security. His latest book is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace.