Posted on 02/06/2016 10:46:36 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
What a glum, drab debate. ABC clearly tried to make all the candidates look bad, and the bad blood between the candidates left over from Iowa meant that they just did not care about showing any level of solidarity against the media, as they often do. Christie successfully tore down Marco Rubio for the first hour of the debate, but made himself look like a royal, braying jerk in the process. Normally in these posts, I have three winners and three losers, but I don't think there even were three winners - but there were a whole bunch of losers. Let's go to the scorecard.
WINNERS
1. Ted Cruz - Cruz was nicked by Carson's strong opening on the Carsongate controversy, but I think Cruz's apology on that point came off as sincere and genuine. After that point, Cruz clearly had the strongest night of any of the candidates on stage. Cruz was the first recipient of Martha Raddatz' pointless and dishonest badgering, and handled it well. Cruz did well with the guns trained away from him once again, as everyone focused on Rubio. Cruz's answer on his family member who succumbed to heroin addiction was the most poignant moment of the night and really humanized Cruz in a way that no one has yet seen in this campaign. Cruz was one of the two likeable people on stage tonight.
2. Jeb Bush - Surprisingly strong performance from Bush tonight. He absolutely kneecapped Trump in the exchange on eminent domain. He avoided any meaningful verbal flubs. He appeared wonky but likeable. He was in command of the facts. His story about the guy who died (according to the VA) was charming and humorous. I don't know if it's because the rest of the candidates don't consider him a threat, but Jeb was able to really rise above the fray and be one of the only two positive presences on stage tonight.
LOSERS
1. Marco Rubio - Here's what I don't know: I don't know how much people watch beyond the first 45 minutes of these debates, especially on a Saturday night. If they do, they they saw Rubio really regain his feet after his own Martha Raddatz dishonest badgering session. But the initial exchange with Christie was very bad for him, visually. He was accused by Christie of repeating a pat line, and in response he repeated a pat line, twice. Then after every answer he gave, he was followed by a hounding Chris Christie, who he never brushed back off the plate. Again, Rubio recovered very well for the last two hours of the debate, but the concern for camp Rubio is that people turned off the debate when the clock hit 9pm. Rubio's answer on the life issue was an absolute home run - but who was still watching at 10:15pm?
2. Chris Christie - Christie clearly came to the debate with one goal, which was to trash Marco Rubio. He succeeded to some degree, but made himself look like an especially angry chihuahua in the process. Then, after trashing Rubio for repeating himself, he spent the rest of the night repeating himself over and over and over. I think his victory over Rubio, if it was one, will have to be seen as a pyrrhic one in the end.
3. The RNC, again - It's an absolutely incredible fact that the RNC allowed Martha Raddatz to moderate another debate in which Republicans were on television after her horrible and clearly biased performance in the 2012 Vice Presidential debate. Raddatz is not only a known and vocal critic of Cruz, but she spent the entire night arguing with the candidates about answers they did not give. She repeatedly accused the candidates of not answering questions when the problem actually was that she was not listening. On the other hand, when she asked Trump to answer a question with specifics, and he refused, she never once followed up and pressed the issue.
The entire production of this debate was awful. The lighting was bleak, the pre-debate commentary was geriatric and low energy, former Clinton employee George Stephanopolous was running the show. Bill Kristol had about 15 seconds on air and he was the only thing within sniffing distance of a conservative voice.
This was a worse debate than the CNBC debacle and it had the effect of lowering all the candidates on stage. There were numerous red flags about the entire ABC production that the RNC should have seen coming from a mile away, but did not. What tonight's experience showed was that, in spite of their largely symbolic move to cut NBC out of the debate process, the RNC has actually learned very little about using their negotiating power with the media to ensure a level playing field for Republican candidates. And that's disappointing to all the campaigns.
Also present -
John Kasich - John Kasich pretending to be a happy person is one of the most awkward things you've ever seen. ABC forgot he was there for the first 45 minutes and I remember literally nothing about him being there other than his weird gooberish attempt at being funny when he said "AWWW THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE SO MUCH." Kind of surprised that he was left alone by both Christie and Bush, but I don't think he made any sort of impression in spite of the opportunity.
Donald Trump - Surprisingly low energy performance from Trump. Got stomped by Bush in the only direct confrontation he had in the night. Mostly faded into the background and spewed nonsense. But he wasn't really a loser because of the likelihood that Rubio took a step back. Call it a draw for Trump.
Ben Carson - Ben Carson had a great opening moment of the debate and may have earned himself some sympathy on the Carsongate issue. But then, every question he answered afterwards, he began with a complaint about how long it had been since the last time he got a question. Very off putting. At least he looked awake during this debate, so it was a marked improvement from previous debates.
I’m on my tablet and can’t get Trump’s immigration plan to open on his website.
In the meantime, I scanned a lot of articles that reviewed his plan, and just reading them was a great refresher on what a good plan it is.
The article at Breitbart was particularly good. There’s no question that, if his immigration plan is put into motion, illegal immigration will cease to be a threat to our nation’s well being.
In essence, Trump’s policy calls for a complete return to the rule of law, regarding illegals, coupled with some signature enhancements, such as fully implementing E-verify and beefing up our Border Patrol. He also intends to eliminate special jobs programs for adolescent illegals, and make it mandatory that employers make every effort to hire American citizens first.
I don’t think I have to tell you how well Trump’s plan was received by conservatives when it was first released. It was virtually a blockbuster hit on the right, as well it should be. It’s the right prescription for what ails us.
Last, but not least, it was put together by Sen. Jeff Sessions, a true leader in this area.
Yep you just keep holding on to that idea....let us know how it works out for you.
“Trump was right about Keystone. It’s private. You can’t walk up to it. ..”
WHAT does that have to do with taking PRIVATE property for PRIVATE use, like Trump did when he tried to steal the widow’s PRIVATE property for PRIVATE USE (parking lot for Trump’s casino).
From the Fifth Amendment: “....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
You can plainly see in the Fifth Amendment that private property should only be taken for PUBLIC USE (NOT for Trump’s casino parking lot, a PRIVATE business).
It's a regular "two minute hate".
It’s moot because he is natural born. And it was Trump that called him an anchor baby.
Hey Redstate backs your horse in this race—what are you complaining about?
What if Trump and Cruz are pulling together?
Will you drop the phony- “I’m a patriot by saying crap against Trump” routine?
Thanks for looking up the details of Trump’s immigration plan for me. I can’t get into the page on this device for some reason.
It’s true that Ted’s plan is close to copying Trump’s. I recall that some derided it as being a ‘me too’ plan at the time. We’ll never know what Ted would have proposed, if Donald hadn’t led on the issue to begin with.
I’m just glad that someone kicked that door open and forced the whole field to confront it, head on. Trump made the rest of them go on the record during this selection process, and show whose side they’re really on.
Trump is genuine ... everyone else , including Cruz, give phony, canned answers ... they are owned
"....Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.
"Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," the billionaire developer says.
"The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it," Trump says. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."
Romney's solution of "self deportation" for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
"He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal," Trump says. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote," Trump notes. "He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy "to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country," Trump says........"
Though the vitriolic Cruz supporters will not accept what you wrote, I appreciated your review of Cruz immigration policy.
It’s like asking Cruz’s girlfriend who “won”.
I can walk into a casino more than i can get gas from keystone.
the pipeline is owned by a privately held company and they will use the government’s power of imminent domain against many property owners along the path of the pipeline to make themselves filthy rich,, and all of the audience members and people on stage including Jeb Bush are 100% for it which makes them huge hypocrites..
Good. My twenty bucks worked. Hah!
Pretty much. Donald Trump has plenty of paid shills from India who keep attacking Trump’s rivals on internet boards including Freerepublic, and who continue to vote countless times in these internet polls. They are utter garbage.
46
If you want the government to own everything, keep thinking that way. Eminent domain opposition is a fools errand.
Geez Wife, give it up. Do you really want me to post what Cruz said about his position on amnesty just last year?
You must not get around on the forum much, if you haven’t seen it. I’m surprised you’re actually opening that can of worms.
Trump won
Let's pop the lid:
President Obama is pushing a path to citizenship as a "poison pill" to prevent meaningful immigration reform, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) charged Monday. "The part that I"ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. "I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.
"I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate," continued Cruz.
The Tea Party favorite said Congress could easily pass a comprehensive immigration reform deal if Democrats, and particularly Obama, stopped demanding the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally.
Cruz's comments came as a bipartisan group of senators indicate that it's nearly done crafting a broad immigration bill. The so-called "Gang of Eight" hopes to unveil the legislation in April, with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday suggesting that the group could unveil legislation as early as next week...."
WASHINGTON - Among the 300 amendments to the Senate immigration bill is one that would take away one of its central purposes: giving a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain "no" vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.
The path to citizenship under the gang of eight bill is already a difficult one. It would take about 13 years and require immigrants to complete a number of requirements, such as learning English and paying hefty fines. Undocumented immigrants would first apply for provisional immigrant status, and most would be required stay in the U.S. for at least a decade before being eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. They could then eventually apply to be a U.S. citizen. But the government would have to meet certain border security benchmarks before any provisional immigrant could move into legal permanent resident status........
Ted Cruz Files Amendment To Deny Path To Citizenship As Senate Works On Bill
......"The amendments filed today to strengthen border security and reform our legal immigration system will not only bring meaningful, effective improvements to our immigration system, but also have a chance of becoming law," said Cruz in a statement. "America is a nation of immigrants, built by immigrants and we need to honor that heritage by fixing our broken immigration system, while upholding the rule of law and championing legal immigration."
His amendments are among more than 300 filed by the Tuesday evening deadline. Republicans wanting tighter enforcement provisions filed a majority of the amendments, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, leading the pack with 77 amendments.
Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.
In a press release, America's Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz's anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.
"This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill - the popular heart of an immigration reform solution - but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy," said the release..........
........Cruz says his amendment was a "poison pill" designed to doom the Gang of Eight reform package that Rubio co-authored.
So who's actually correct? There are two big points to unpack.
First is whether Cruz's amendment was indeed a "poison pill" meant to kill the immigration bill, which the Texas senator's campaign now contends. That is unequivocally true, so point goes to Cruz.
Second is whether Cruz's amendment signaled his true policy beliefs at the time. That's significantly murkier and ultimately, may never be knowable.
Let's start with the first point.
The bipartisan group of eight senators - including battle-tested veterans and relative newcomers like Rubio - painstakingly negotiated a delicate compromise in early 2013 that would overhaul every corner of the U.S. immigration system, including a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions here illegally.
Fans and foes of the legislation, as well as observers at the time, knew the core bill couldn't change too dramatically because that would upset that compromise, which not only had the backing of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate but also coalitions off the Hill, such as labor unions and the business lobby.
Cruz's amendment - which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization - would have done precisely that.
The night before each Senate Judiciary Committee markup, senior Gang of Eight aides would huddle to scour through each of the amendments that were teed up for the following day, determining which proposals would be palatable and which would be unacceptable. This strategy was meant to ensure the core elements of the Gang of Eight deal would stay intact (the four members of the Gang who sat on the Judiciary Committee would vote in a bloc, usually with the rest of the committee Democrats, to vote down potential deal-killers).
"This one was one that clearly we all had to oppose because it went to the core of the deal," recalled an aide to a Senate Democrat during the 2013 negotiations. "It could've unraveled the whole deal."
Sure, Cruz himself never called it a "poison pill" at the time. But no senator refers to his own proposal as a poison pill, even if it plainly is. The Gang of Eight never considered Cruz as "gettable," and it was well-known at the time that Cruz was never going to vote for the bill and was in fact, trying to kill it.
"Everyone was rolling their eyes and smirking when he said it would improve the bill," said the aide. "I don't think anybody took it seriously.".........
Jan 29, 2016 - FR THEAD: Megyn Kelly to Ted Cruz: "The record supports you."
"After the Fox News-Google debate Megyn Kelly interviewed Ted Cruz. [7:40 Video begins with a 1:00 clip of the earlier debate]
Kelly continued to pursue the "amnesty" angle that she'd begun during the debate [starting at 3:41] - about his history on illegals, immigration and amnesty, but concedes:
Kelly: "I look at your record, a lot, to see: Did Ted Cruz really want legalization, or didn't he?"
"I think the record supports you - that you did not want it; it does."
"It really was a poison pill amendment."
Then there is back and forth where Kelly states that Cruz had said that he wanted the Gang of Eight bill to pass.
Sen. Cruz corrects her and states that he wants immigration reform to pass -- but he never said he wanted the Gang of Eignt bill to pass. [He directs everyone to see the 11-page, very very detailed immigration plan on website (linked in comment below)].
Cruz explains tactics: "When debating Democrats [Schumer] you use the language of Democrats to show their hypocrisy."
"Schumer talked about 'coming out of the shadows' but it wasn't about that."
"Chuck Schumer said, 'If there is no citizenship, there is no reform and we'll kill the whole thing.'"
Their interview ended this way:
Megyn Kelly: "The record supports you." [Cruz: "Anyone here illegally is permanently ineligible for citizenship."]
"It was a poison pill."
"You do have a consistent record on that; I will give you that; we did look back on it."
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.