If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.


Republicans Launch Sharp Attacks in South Carolina Debate

A Commentary By Michael Barone

The CBS presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina, started off with a moment of silence in memory of Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death was announced earlier in the day. And the debate that followed was a sort of tribute to the late jurist.

Not that Scalia was much talked about. Every candidate agreed that the Senate should not confirm an Obama nominee, and all but John Kasich promised to appoint a conservative originalist. But the back-and-forth had a certain resemblance to Supreme Court arguments in which Scalia typically peppered lawyers with sharp questions from the get-go.

The fireworks started on foreign policy, when Jeb Bush attacked Donald Trump for accommodating Russia in Syria and Trump argued we couldn't fight two wars at the same time: a substantive dispute over a current difficult problem.

Then Trump called the Iraq War a big mistake and went on to say George W. Bush lied and said there were weapons of mass destruction when he knew there were none. This was a Democratic meme and without merit: Every intelligence agency and Saddam Hussein's own generals believed he had WMDs.

But instead of pointing that out, Bush said his father was a great man and his brother kept America safe. To which Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that." Trump's attacks may have antagonized some Republican voters, and on a Sunday show he withdrew his charge that George W. Bush lied.

Trump later called Bush laughable and the weakest candidate. Bush said Trump disparaged women and John McCain, a parry that hasn't worked yet, and Trump seized on Bush's comment that if he mooned no one would notice.

But Trump's biggest target was Ted Cruz. "You probably are worse than Jeb Bush," Trump said. "You are the single biggest liar." Trump cited Cruz campaign emails and robocalls and called Cruz a "nasty guy," adding that it's no wonder Cruz doesn't have the support of a single Senate colleague.

This was strong stuff compared to Cruz's oblique characterization of Trump's trade policy as "pixie dust." But Cruz may have struck a nerve when he charged that the not-always-conservative Trump would appoint liberals to the Supreme Court.

"I am a conservative. Now, I also feel I'm a common sense conservative. Because some of the views I don't agree with," Trump himself said, defending his use of eminent domain; he also praised Planned Parenthood for good work on women's health. As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver noted, these are not stands that are popular with Republicans.

In earlier debates in New Hampshire and Iowa, Marco Rubio was the main target; less so in South Carolina. But when asked to define "amnesty," he launched into an attack on Ted Cruz. "We're going to have to do this again." A Cruz amendment included legalization of illegals and more guest workers, he said, and repeated his own pledge of no legalization or citizenship until a border wall, E-verify for job applicants and effective entrance-and-exit visa tracking were effective.

Less than 20 percent of Iowa and New Hampshire voters told exit polls that immigration was their top issue, but Rubio clearly realizes his lead role in the Gang of Eight bill in 2013 is a liability. His argument in effect is that Cruz is just as bad and that Cruz's assertion that he is rock solid against legalization is another lie.

Jeb Bush and John Kasich also chimed in on immigration, Kasich promising to pass a bill with a path to citizenship and Bush saying most illegals came because they "have no other choice" and should be given "a little more respect for the fact that they're struggling." Neither stand seems likely to appeal to many South Carolina Republican voters.

Going negative in a multi-candidate race is risky, because attacks can hurt the attacker. Trump took this risk, especially on attacking George W. Bush, and so did Jeb Bush, who hit the front-runner most often. Cruz, more a target than an attacker here, may have been hurt as well.

Rubio, less under attack, gave detailed responses on foreign policy, on defending his child tax credit, on turning welfare over to the states. He claimed to be the strongest general election candidate and was the only candidate to evoke Ronald Reagan.

He also deftly laced his comments with remarks designed to appeal to religious conservatives, citing Justice Scalia's same-sex marriage dissent, proclaiming that life begins at conception and that rights come from the Creator.

What's the result of all this back-and-forth? We'll know next Saturday night, when the South Carolina results come in.

Michael Barone, senior political analyst at the Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), where this article first appeared, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


See Other Political Commentary

See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.