Posted on 11/11/2015 6:56:46 AM PST by xzins
The big winner was Cruz, and the big loser was Bush. See below.
Just to get started on the right foot, let's state at the outset that "the moderators" could not be the winners of a national debate. They can certainly be the losers, however, if they impede, if they are biased, or if they are infantile. That describes the CNBC moderators and the first Fox News moderators, Kelly/Wallace/Baier. They were losers.
But for moderators to 'win' means we have relegated the issues and the candidates to some kind of back row.
Who were the real winners last night?
I believe it was those who were brutally honest with us: Cruz, Paul, Trump, and Fiorina. I'll not be applauded for two of those names.
The losers were those who played the party line. These are Kasich, Bush, and Rubio.
Carson held his own but still has to turn in his assignment.
Cruz: A+ -- Senator Cruz laid it on the line with every response he gave. It was bold, brutal honesty on display. His points were amazing, and the "journalists crossing the Rio Grande" moment was the score of the night for me. He attacked illegal immigration, called the establishment candidates amnesty supporters, advocated abolishing the IRS, called for the closure of Departments of Commerce, Education, HUD, IRS, and Energy.
Paul: A -- Senator Paul makes some excellent points. It is not conservative to add new entitlement spending, and it isn't conservative to drive the nation to bankruptcy. A great military can only be great if they have the money to train, to research and develop, and to maneuver and operate.
Trump A -- Trump was absolutely brutally honest about illegal immigration. A nation without borders and a nation without laws is not a nation at all. Cruz supported that statement. Trump called China to task for violating trade agreements via money manipulation. While Paul was accurate that China isn't part of the TPP, it is also true that that treaty assumes China as a major partner of the Asian countries who are part of that treaty. Trump sticks to his themes. Some like it, and some don't. But it is disciplined.
Fiorina B+ -- Carly Fiorina was fearless in her attack on the establishment lack of budgeting. She's right on the money about knowing where each dollar is spent. Like her or not -- and some of her canned speeches are OK, but they shouldn't be issued as if they are profound -- she is right about zero based budgeting.
The Losers:
Kasich D -- Kasich is dead wrong on amnesty. Without borders and enforcement of laws we aren't a nation. Even when Kaisch says thoughtful things, he comes across as condescending to us in the audience. He acts as if he is a father instructing children.
Bush F -- Bush lost his ability to speak at one point last night. He could not articulate what he was trying to say. If that had been any of the anti-establishment candidates, it would be all we would hear reported this morning. If it happened in a debate with Hillary, he would be so pilloried in the media that the campaign would be over. And when he's finishing his sentences, even then he sounds so unsure of himself. He came out for amnesty in spades.
Rubio C+ -- You might not have noticed it last night, but Rubio came out for allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country. He was silent on it during the debate, but said later we should build the wall (lack of courage not to support Trump on that), but then he said we can give everyone a green card for 10 years. IOW, Ten Years After they are citizens. He also wanted to add a new entitlement. I appreciate his regard for the family -- he's right that it's the foundation of society -- but a bankrupt nation doesn't help anyone.
Carson "I" -- Carson gets an incomplete. He didn't really engage beyond his personal story. He stepped carefully with every question, and I'm not sure where he'd actually come down.
Jeb had both the authority and OBLIGATION to save Terri Schiavo, and he failed.
If Jeb can't protect a person in a hospital bed, how can we trust him to protect America?
I’d agree with just about everything in the article.
I would kick Cruz down to A, saying he would abolise the IRS is stupid, who would administer his tax plan if he did that?
I’d kick Carly out the door but that’s just because I can’t stand her.
Trump seemed like the most mature on the stage.
“SOMETHING IS WRONG”
That’s the most important observation.
America sucks to Americans. We’re going to have a political revolt.
It will be messy, at least.
Ted Cruz on H-1Bs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3358297/posts
[Vince Coakley Radio Show]
[FRiends discuss the controversy in-depth not only regarding Cruz but also Trump]
The Treasury department would have a collections branch without sweeping powers.
Well, he’s not a JW, he’s Seventh Day Adventist.
While the SDA statement of faith is a bit more orthodox than the JWs, the problem with the SDAs is that they add keeping the OT law to faith in Christ, which basically is a rejection of Christ.
That’s why SDAs, for instance, worship on Saturday (the sabbath) and keep the dietary laws - they believe that keeping these helps you to be righteous. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, says that righteousness comes ONLY through the grace of God through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. If you add anything to that, then you’re essentially rejecting Christ for your own works.
One could quite rightly say that the book of Galatians was written specifically to combat the false doctrine of groups like the SDAs, who add works and lawkeeping to faith, and thereby have “fallen from grace.”
“she has become aggressive rather than assertive.”
A lot of females in the workplace are like that; they have never become comfortable with power, and never understood how to wield it.
-JT
Leading criticism of Cruz is regarding H1B.
So why don’t we address it ‘in-depth’?
Ted Cruz on H-1Bs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3358297/posts
[Vince Coakley Radio Show]
[FRiends discuss the controversy in-depth not only regarding Cruz but also Trump.]
You know, on any other day, I'd have LOLed at that.
Cruz offered an increase in H1Bs as a compromise to the Gang of Eight's "comprehensive immigration reform".
That's all it ever was. And, with the failure of "comprehensive immigration reform", it's a dead letter.
basically all I see there is some more Trump bashing which to tell you the truth, I am sick to death off...that’s a dem trick and every time someone bashes a republican, they are a RAT in my eyes....
Thanks anyway....
Thanks for the link.
Cruz does not support illegal immigration and does support the right legal immigration. Personally, I would freeze all legal immigration for a decade.
Ah. Thank you for clarification.
But to me, that doesn’t make him a non-Christian any more than Peter was right after the Ressurection.
Peter did not fully understand God’s Will, but he was still a Christian the moment he saw Christ had risen.
If you recall in the Scripture, Peter received the sign that compelled him to accept pagan Christians.
I grant you that — Peter was misguided to demand Old Testament orthodoxy.
But ... was Peter a non-Christian prior to that sign?
He was flawed but yes, Christian, just as literalists who think that the earth was created in six [or seven] solar days.
[Note that the Sun was not created until the third ‘day’.]
I believe in freezing unskilled labor as much as is reasonably possible. But we should continue to attract talent, such as future doctors.
And we should also use interrogation techniques [such as watching eye dialation with camera closeups] to ensure that no islamo-terrorists are let in.
Well, those are completely not the same things.
Peter failed for a time - but he still believed on Jesus Christ as Messiah, and put his faith and trust solely in Him. Peter learned, and then lived, that you didn’t need to keep the law for salvation.
The SDAs believe you need to keep the law to help you be saved. That’s a *rejection* of Jesus Christ, as the Bible defines it in Galatians, etc.
These are not the same thing at all.
One thing I would add is that I am NOT saying that because Carson is an SDA, that this is a reason to not support him. I don’t set religious tests for who to support.
BUT.
I *would* note that the Evangelicals who are supporting him solely because they think he’s a Christian and who rthink they’re “voting biblically” by doing so need to reconsider their opinion on the matter.
In my very brief watching I was struck by how Cruz seemed to have applause lines built in, which he would over-dramatically pause for.
These characters really need to thin their ranks, and evolve to roundtable discussions with but one moderator agreed to by them. Then we might really get down to it.
Despite his religious denomination, Ben Carson is still a candidate for president. He has an outstanding resume as one of the world’s greatest doctors, and the real question is whether expertise in a field other than politics qualifies a person to be a president.
Personally, I think I’d rather have any randomly chosen successful farmer in America be president over Barack Obama...or Hillary Clinton.
Not stupid, just hyperbolic.
The point is to make the IRS little more than a P.O. Box #.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.