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.
I believe the metaphor will become operational truth sometime after the next Election when Mrs. Bill or whomever the chosen of Hussein turns out to be is "elected," assuming Hussein doesn't stay. Moslems don't use "chopping blocks," though. Large Moslems use swords in the open air. Weaker Moslems use knives.
I wouldn’t vote for Fiorina for dog catcher. Even though she has some natural aspects that would make her better at it than most.....
I thought that FL Jebbie did better than in the three earlier gatherings, especially No. 3, but most say he failed badly again.
Definitely. Trump and Cruz. Cruz for VP to give Constitutional ballast to Trump’s muscle and nerve.
I totally agree although I’m torn about who should be Attorney General. Cruz would be so good.
I think of being pulled over by two cops, one male and the other female. The female is always trying to be the Marine looking to take down an enemy . The male wants to write a ticket.
He was going along fairly well, and then he hit that answer where he just lost his words...deer in headlight look...he shrugged, “you know what I mean” or words to that effect, there was nervous laughter and the debate went on.
Honestly, would the media be pointing that out today if it had been Trump or Cruz?
I can’t find where ‘chopping block’ was discussed. Can you help me out?
I think a lot of women just aren’t comfortable wearing the ‘costume’ of power; it never becomes natural.
There are probably lots of reasons for that, and not only ‘nurture’. Women are different from men; but there are also many different types of women, and I’m sure many don’t have this issue; but for others, the possession of worldly power and authority just aren’t things they particularly like or want, deep down; and don’t adjust to.
In other cases, they may not have the competence required, and develop unpleasant tactics to cover for incompetence.
We see that in men as well as women...
-JT
Wrong thread.
Cavuto interviews are the best out there. He does an exceptional job with follow up questions. Since cutting the cable, Cavuto is the only Fox personality I miss.
The best are on Fox Business. This doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes.
Cavuto, Dobbs, and Varney can all go to the heart of an issue.
If you can point me to it, then I’ll be glad to respond. If it wasn’t really intended for me, then know that I’ve done the same thing, and that it’s no big deal. It happens.
Well put. Small people usually turn to this tactic.... see the current WH occupant.
IMO, a good leader is assertive: "We're going to do this."
A small, trivial person is aggressive: "We're going to do this because I say so, and I'm the one in charge, here."
Biiiiiiig difference, people generally follow the former and mock the latter.
“Evangelicals who are supporting him solely because they think he’s a Christian and who think they’re “voting biblically†by doing so need to reconsider their opinion on the matter.”
I agree with you 100% on that. Many democrats disguise themselves as devout Christians even though their party leadership is downright satanic.
“He has an outstanding resume as one of the world’s greatest doctors ...”
I hope his primary rivals afford him the same respect.
At the very least we should embrace Carson as someone who could fill the ‘Bill Cosby’ gap. He speaks for morality and against race-baiting.
That’s why I say he’s part of ‘the team’ no matter how this primary shakes out.
“If he needs knocking, the “violent teen†history is plenty for me.”
A reasonable claim, but I’d take him or Trump or Cruz over some wolf in sheep’s clothing any day of the week.
I think all three of those candidates are genuine patriots and humanitarians.
I doubt the conservative credentials of some, but we should not eat our own. They’re in a contest, and one will win it, and the rest will not, but that doesn’t mean they should be destroyed.
Agreed. Cavuto, as exec VP, has done an exceptional job of attracting talent.
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.