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.
However, I hope your statement, "The only two candidates I would consider in 2016 are Trump and Cruz in that order." means in your state's primary election rather than the general election.
Please don't sit home and allow the Liberals to win again.
Long way from a Carson supporter, but unless I have had a lifelong misunderstanding, Jehovas Witnesses are NOT even closely the same as Seventh Dayers.
If he needs knocking, the “violent teen” history is plenty for me. If he really was that way, that’s a trait I don’t want in a POTUS. If he made it up, that too is a trait I don’t want in a POTUS.
We would do well to see him in an Administration, he just will not be the nominee for POTUS.
Abolishing one organization to start up a second to handle the responsibilities of the first is stupid.
As far as hyperbolic, I expect in a debate facts, not exaggeration.
:) You have to admit, everyone else was acting like children, arguing, interrupting, yelling I’m best, pick me.
Well, except Carson but I think he was asleep.
Moderators win by being all but invisible, setting the stage for the candidates to win, lose, or make no difference.
From all that I am hearing, the moderators for this debate “won” the distinction of being proper moderators.
Agree w/ your protection of life statement! While we’re on the subject of morality:
I am a faithful Catholic and I believe Common Core is anti-Christian and morally bankrupt. The curriculum allows our children to be experimental pawns who are indoctrinated and essentially spied upon. Not a very pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian curriculum. And, it’s fundamentally unAmerican. Jeb Bush is up to his eyeballs in CC, in some ways even more than Obama.
Yeb Bush is anti-life in many ways. No way I’ll vote for him. I’d rather stay home if he’s the candidate.
No, I’d prefer rein in the IRS, reform the tax code.
The argument then, is over semantics, not goals.
Ergo, not worth pursuing.
I’m a woman and I work for three women. You’re right about the aggressive rather than assertive thing. However, I’ve noticed something after 40 years in my field — women who work with male subordinates seem to work better than women who work with women subordinates. I have a theory that it’s because women have to prove to their female underlings that there is no “sisterhood” in the relationship — it’s strictly business. Just my pet theory.
Fiorina is a smart cookie and quick on her feet...but she does come across as a “hawk”, what with her “no fly zone” and how she would treat Russia. Maybe we’ve conceded the middle east to Russia/China through lack of interest by this administration, but it is the fault of Obummer, either on purpose or deliberately. I don’t fancy a war against Russia with Obummer at the helm, or at all.
Even Trump supports legal immigration. If you listened to Trump last night, he talked again about how most of the people he would deport would come right back in with a guest worker permit. So even Trump's plan wouldn't significantly reduce the competition for jobs or affect the downward pressure on wages.
With regard to H1B's both Trump and Cruz have talked about the need to crack down on employers that are abusing the system by replacing existing American employees with lower paid H1B employees. But neither of them is suggesting eliminating the H1B program entirely.
It is one thing to oppose illegal immigration - we should oppose it vigorously and attack it with all of the tools available. But if we also reflexively oppose legal immigration, we make it easy for the left to paint conservatives as racists, nativists and xenophobes. Improve the legal immigration system. Make sure we are allowing in people who will help make America better, not the ones who want to change it or just suckle at the government teat. Make sure immigration is not used as a way to hold down wages for American citizens. And then make the process easier for those people who qualify.
The reason Carson shares his personal story and nothing else is because his personal story is all he's got. Every single other candidate, whether I agree with them on the issues or not, has something more than their personal story to stand on.
Trump and Cruz complement each others strengths remarkably well and clearly respect each other.
Actually, abolishing the IRS does not mean that there is no tax collection function that needs to be fulfilled.
We abolish the IRS for the same reason we abolish any abusive organization. No vestige of it should remain.
But to suggest that a collection branch of the Treasury department is automatically the IRS totally ignores what mission and parameters they might be given. One they would not have, however, is the legacy of an abusive, intrusive, drunk-on-power arm of the elite.
No, I think Cruz is actually that good on his feet. He paused too long, in my opinion, after the word “offensive”.
That is not to say that he doesn’t think these things over ahead of time and plan. He’s a seasoned debater. There is no crime in preparation.
If we had a contest for “best” moderators, these were far better than the others. But, since this is a candidate forum, all the moderators can really do is be better or worse.
They “cannot” win the debate. Although Candy Crowley certainly did enter into the debate itself.
We are in violent agreement, FRiend.
The moderators stayed out of the debate itself, which means they cannot win the debate.
But it also means they win for being proper moderators.
I was pretty sure Cavuto would do an outstanding job of not becoming the story.
Cavuto is the best newsman out there right now. I assume he’s a conservative, and that he favors the establishment — otherwise Murdoch would can him — but of all of them on any network, he works hardest to get to the heart of an issue without using personal attacks or childishness.
I agree with you. Cruz looked at Cavuto like, “what???” What Cruz should have said was that everyone is insured by FDIC up to $250,000 and they know that at the time they open their accounts. The gov’t should not be in the business of guaranteeing investments, and deposits greater than $250k are low yielding investments, but investments non the less.
I remember when savings and loans were tanking. I don’t remember exactly what happened, but I do know the gov’t won’t back up stock investments. People need to do their work and research the banks, stocks, companies they invest in. If some are guaranteed by the government, that is not fair to the rest of us. We already have FDIC to cover most people. When a joint account, it covers each person to that amount, so a married couple with a joint account is covered up to $500,000. If they need more insurance, buy it. Otherwise what stops people from getting the highest rate at the most irresponsible bank and just sticking taxpayers with the tab if the bank fails?
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.