By Lina Bryce
Fox Business has declined Senator Rand Paul’s appeal that he be included in tonight’s main GOP debate, noting a recent poll which placed him in the top five in Iowa. Fox has offered him a spot in the undercard debate and Paul has kept to his word by stating he will refuse to attend.
This has sparked some dispute amongst Paul supporters, who wonder if all the pros and cons had been weighed before making his decision to skip the undercard debate. So is it a good move?
Here’s a list of possible pros and cons of not attending the undercard debate.
PRO: He shows himself to be a man of his word. Paul previously stated he would not participate in an undercard debate because he didn’t believe the media had the authority to delegate his campaign second-tier. By appearing in the undercard, Paul would be eating his words.
Compare that with Donald Trump, who demanded that CNN pay $5 Million for him to attend their debate. They didn’t, and of course, and he showed up anyway.
CON: Carly Fiorina has also been knocked down to the undercard debate (where she started her campaign before being invited to main stage). But she is showing up, resilient as ever and ready to fight. She looks like she can handle down swings and can stay tough when things aren’t going her way. By contrast, Rand Paul looks less than impressive.
She’s proving to her supporters that participating in the undercard debate is not beneath her.
PRO: By refusing to let the media define the terms of his campaign, Rand Paul is challenging them. He has put a magnifying glass over the ways in which they exert control over the process.
If he comes away with even a small bump in the polls, he wins a moral victory.
CON: By skipping the debate, Rand will be passing up the chance to spar with Rick Santorum, who has been particularly critical of both Rand and his father. These two squaring off on a small stage would have been good television, and Rand probably would have come out looking like a better debater than he has previously.
Rand Paul has already proven he can agitate Rick Santorum.
Remember this exchange from a previous debate:
Paul: “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately… “
Santorum: “I would expect to hear that from maybe Bernie Sanders. I don’t expect to hear that from someone running for the Republican nomination.”
PRO: Rand Paul may have created a shroud of intrigue around his campaign. By foregoing the debate, Paul comes across as a go-it-alone kind of man. It’s almost aloof, or even mysterious, to just decline an national television audience. People like unconventional and mysterious. Could Rand Paul be creating buzz that a debate appearance could never generate?
This may have more people googling “Who is Rand Paul?” and learning more about him.
CON: Rand may be cutting off his nose to spite his face. The chance to appear in a debate where he would have more speaking time allotted than previous debates may mean passing up a golden opportunity. In this light, Rand’s attempt to not let the media define his campaign may cause him to miss out on reaching new supporters.
Media attention has been increased, but not all of it has been good. In many ways Paul comes across like a petulant child who refuses to play a game once he is losing.
PRO: It doesn’t matter what the media says, because Paul is pushing a narrative to his supporters. The narrative, reminiscent of his father’s “Black this Out” campaign, paints Paul as the underdog who is being singled out and mistreated by the establishment. This bolsters his base– something Paul badly needs.
The evidence is plain as day in the fundraising numbers Paul is bringing in since this has been developing.
PRO: The future president does not sit at the ‘kiddie table’.
It just doesn’t seem presidential to appear with others whom everyone knows will not be president. It marginalizes him. By skipping, Paul demonstrates that his campaign is top-tier.
