The first presidential debate for the 2023/ 2024 election season happened in Milwaukee on August 23, 2023. There were 8 candidates up on stage, which notably didn’t include Donald Trump.

There is a bit of controversy over whether Larry Elder should have been excluded from the debate. It seemed like the RNC may have purposely picked the polls that would exclude Elder.

Some libertarians really like Larry Elder, including Peter Schiff, who was encouraging people to donate at least a dollar to his campaign. Elder is decent on economic issues and has some good things to say on the culture wars, but I don’t think libertarians should be fooled that he would bring any great change to Washington DC. I don’t think Elder would take on the establishment/ deep state in any significant way.

I was surprised to learn just before the debate that one of the requirements by the RNC for being in the debate was to sign a loyalty pledge to support the eventual nominee.

This is a bunch of garbage coming from the Republican National Committee. It just encourages people to lie (which most of them do) and would exclude someone who is really honest.

If these had been the rules in the past, it would have excluded Ron Paul in 2007/2008 and again in 2011/2012. It also would have excluded Donald Trump in 2015/2016.

Are we really supposed to believe that Christ Christie and Mike Pence will support Trump when he is the nominee? Maybe they’ll say it at the beginning before giving you every reason that Trump is an awful human being.

And Asa Hutchinson said during the debate that he wouldn’t support Trump if Trump is in jail. So why was he allowed up there?

Fox News and Moderators

The debate was hosted and aired by Fox News. The moderators were Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum.

They appeared to be fairly neutral. I say this coming from a perspective of whether or not they showed bias. They did not seem to show particular favor or disfavor to any one candidate. On this, I give them a little bit of credit.

From a libertarian perspective, I thought most of the questioning was not that good. Of course, they never asked about the role of the Federal Reserve. They never asked about COVID vaccine mandates, let alone vaccine side effects. They don’t pin down the candidates and ask them what they would specifically cut out of the federal budget.

In fact, most of the candidates talked about the fiscal situation and the need to reduce deficits and get spending under control. But not one of them actually gave any specifics on what would be cut other than perhaps Ramaswamy saying later that he would not send any more money to Ukraine.

It is easy to say that you will cut spending or get it under control, but that is worthless without any specifics. It is especially worthless when most of them promote more war and empire overseas. So the lack of follow-up by the moderators allowed them to get away with this.

Here are the candidates. I will start with the worst and finish with the best or the least bad.

Asa Hutchinson

This guy is just horrible in every way. I didn’t realize he is such a creep until the debate. I just knew his name as being the former governor in Arkansas.

He looks a bit like Joe Biden. He looks like he has one foot in the grave. And just about everything he said on stage was wrong or evil. I can’t imagine why anyone would support this guy.

Mike Pence

Although Pence got the most talking time, he was horrible in just about everything he said. He sounds decent on economics, but it is meaningless because he offers no specifics. He would be a fiscal disaster just for the fact that he would continue wars and probably start new ones.

He preached about the Bible and said that he favors some kind of nationwide abortion ban. That last part is unconstitutional. He is horrible on Ukraine and anything else dealing with foreign policy.

It was interesting that he kept referring to the Trump/ Pence administration. He wants to run on Trump’s record even though Trump is in the race. It is a bit of an odd strategy, but he needs some kind of strategy because he is just so unlikable.

Chris Christie

Christie was predictably annoying and bloviating about everything. He talked a lot about his experience in government.

Aside from his fake talk about fiscal conservatism, he is bad on just about everything. He could probably be a good debater except that he is so wrong and annoying about it.

While Christie and Pence look different, their material up on stage is very similar. They just go about things in a different way. Their styles are different, but both of them are terrible people.

Tim Scott

Scott is another war hawk that you can lump in with Pence and Christie. He may be slightly less annoying, but he has a bigger political problem. He is completely dull and boring.

There is absolutely nothing that he said in the debate that stands out to me. All I can remember is that he is the person who would put you to sleep.

Nikki Haley

Haley actually started off quite strong when she was talking about economics and spending. If I didn’t know anything about her, I would have given her a good rating on that. Of course, as noted above, she didn’t actually offer anything specific.

Then she went downhill. She made a degrading comment about men. She likes to point out to everyone that she is a capable woman.

And when it comes to foreign policy, she might be the worst, although there is a lot of competition in this group of war hawks.

Doug Burgum

Who?

I didn’t know he was either, and I am quite familiar with North Dakota.

I do have to give credit to Burgum on one thing. He spoke in favor of the Constitution in more than just a platitude. On a specific question about abortion and Roe v. Wade, he said that the federal government should leave it to the states because of the 10th Amendment (as he pulled out a copy of the Constitution). He easily had the best answer on this question.

Unfortunately, he too is bad on foreign policy.

I have no idea why he is running.

He has no chance of winning.  Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.  Or maybe he is doing the Joe Biden strategy of throwing his name in the ring and then getting elected a few decades later because the party can’t find anyone better to go out there.

Ron DeSantis

DeSantis wasn’t terrible, but he wasn’t great either.  He said some good things, but his timing is off, and his enthusiasm isn’t there.  He had some canned line at one point that may have sounded good, but it was at the wrong time for the wrong question.

When asked for a show of hands of anyone who would stop sending money to Ukraine, DeSantis couldn’t decide whether to raise his hand.  He blabbered on about how Europe needs to take more responsibility.  I understand that not everything is a yes or no question and that some things require nuance.  But this question should have been fairly clear.

DeSantis reminds me of Rand Paul in 2015 when he ran for president.  He is trying to please an anti-establishment faction while also trying to please an establishment faction.  It results in wishy-washy answers that just make you look weak.  You end up pleasing nobody.

DeSantis has almost no chance of getting the nomination in 2024 unless something happens to Trump.  DeSantis should drop out, lick his wounds, and try to save himself for the future by being the best governor he can in Florida.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek was the clear winner on the debate stage.  He was confident and well-spoken.  He had some great lines.  I don’t know if he was expecting it, but he was the biggest target on the stage by far.  In fact, he was targeted more than Donald Trump.

I have had my criticisms of Vivek for playing to his audience.  When I hear him on a libertarian podcast, he doesn’t sound the same as he does when interviewed on Fox News.  He is bad on China and he has said he would bomb Mexican drug cartels in Mexico.

With that said, Vivek was mostly great on the debate stage.  He was the only one who challenged the notion of a climate change crisis and called it a hoax.  He was the only one who raised his hand (besides DeSantis putting a finger in the air) saying he would not send more money to Ukraine.

Christie, Pence, and Haley all attacked Vivek for his supposed lack of experience and his foreign policy views.  This played well for Vivek.  It distinguished him from the crowd.  He was by far the most unique and charismatic person on the stage.

He is setting himself up to be Trump’s running mate.  And if anything happens to Trump, Vivek may be the frontrunner for the nomination now.  I give him lots of credit for being someone different and getting most of the issues right.

Donald Trump

Perhaps the biggest winner of the night was Donald Trump, who didn’t attend the debate.  Instead, Tucker Carlson ran an interview with him at the same time.  I have since watched it.

I don’t know if Trump was trying to be funny, but I laughed out loud several times.  The interview itself was nothing special, but Trump, even with his bragging, just comes across as more sincere than all the rest of them.

So Trump and Vivek are the two winners of the night.  The good news for libertarians is that these are the two candidates on the Republican side who actually want to end the war in Ukraine and to stop sending U.S. taxpayer money there.  They also seem like the only two candidates who actually want the United States to be a better place.

Now we just need Kennedy to get some traction on the other side.