Posted on 03/04/2016 11:44:11 AM PST by justlittleoleme
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I don't go into these debates with any expectations anymore. That's the key to being able to handle all of this. If you go into these debates expecting your candidate to be treated fairly, you're gonna be disappointed. Whoever your candidate is, if you go into these debates expecting fairness, however you define it, you're gonna be disappointed.
I just watch them. I watch them and soak it all up as a sponge. Literally I try to shelve every expectation I've got and every hope that I have, whatever they are, and whoever I happen to be pulling for, broom that, too, and just watch it, just take it in as it happened and judge it accordingly.
Here's my takeaway from last night. We'll of course fill in blanks and get into this in great detail, but I think Ted Cruz won that debate hands down. I don't think it's even close. I think Ted Cruz Ted Cruz was in a different league last night. Ted Cruz was in a different debate than what everybody else was doing, including Kasich. I think Ted Cruz was running rings around everybody in terms of awareness of the issues, knowledge of the issues, mastering whatever it was that was discussed.
Megyn Kelly tried a couple of times to insult him in questions and take him off balance and it didn't work either time. He did not respond to her in a negative way. He just took her question, answered it, and blew it out of the park. The one question where she said, "So, it looks like in this instance we just can't trust Ted." And his answer specified how her question was misleading and had incorrect data in it.
I think it was a polling question on a CNN poll, Trump and 49%, and Cruz pointed out in that poll that he's the only one beating Hillary in that poll. This is not to say that if you like Trump, if you like Rubio, if you like Kasich that I thought those guys didn't do well. I'm just telling you: As I watched this thing with no expectations and with no hopes and with no preconceived notions of what was gonna happen, I just thought last night...
Within the context of what happened last night, nothing compared to what's happened on previous occasions. No baseline from previous debates or appearances from which I'm making comparisons, just within the confines of that debate last night. When Ted Cruz got the question about Detroit -- Flint, Michigan -- he's the only guy that got the answer right. Now, the things other people said about it were true, but Ted Cruz is the only guy that got anywhere close to explaining what's wrong with Detroit. Liberalism! Left-wing policies!
For 50 years, everything that's going wrong wherever you go in the country, the people that have been running it are left-wing Democrat Party. Wherever they've been in charge unchecked, everything's a mess just like it is in Detroit. I think Cruz's skills as a debater were on full display last night for anybody to see, but there was a period of time early on in the debate where he was the new Ben Carson, meaning he didn't speak or wasn't heard from for easily a half hour.
His sections, his portions of the debate, nobody would call the most entertaining.
The most entertaining portions obviously were between Rubio and Trump. And Trump is entertaining and captivating and dominating ever he is participating, no matter what he says and no matter how he says it. But I really, for the first time, I actually... I don't know how else to explain this other than to say in terms of the old way that we used to consider qualifications for the presidency, the old way in which we used to analyze competence, Ted Cruz hit a grand-slam home run last night.
But that's not how we make judgments on these things today.
That's not a complaint. It's just an observation. I'm not whining. I do not whine. So that's my overview. Of course there are intricate elements and details of this thing last night to discuss. We'll do that while mixing your phone calls in with the program today. Plenty of audio sound bites to review from debate last night as well. One of the items of focus last night based on just my perusal of Drive-By Media coverage, is some people think that Trump flip-flopped in a major way on immigration on the H-1B visa questions and discussion.
There are other people who are expressing incredulity that Trump seemed to not know what "off the record" means, based on his answer about the New York Times. The off-the-record questions came up regarding Trump and his interview off the record with New York Times editorial board. And everybody's dying to know what he said, because he won't tell anybody what he said and he won't release the tapes. And they asked him -- the moderators and a number of people challenged him to release the tapes.
"Tell us what you said there, Mr. Trump," and Trump said, "I have too much respect for 'off the record.' I have too much respect. I wouldn't do it to the other guys. I would hope they wouldn't do it to me." And I admit I was scratching my head, because off the record is a protection for the journalists. The candidate in this case or the subject of a news story is totally in control of off the record. If Trump wants to release it, he can. If New York Times does, they are violating a profound journalistic principle.
If they release it -- which I think they've already done. I think the New York Times is even alluding to this, to BuzzFeed, and getting this whole thing going is a giant violation of journalistic ethics. But Trump himself is in total control. He's the one that would demand "off the record." The media doesn't offer it to you. And if they do, you've gotta be very suspicious about it. Very rarely will the media offer you "off the record." Now, maybe for an editorial board meeting, maybe it's standard operating procedure to be off the record and everybody knows it going in.
But normally whoever is the subject, whoever's the interviewee has to request "off the record," and then the media either agrees to do it or not, in which case the interviewee then decides how much he or she wants to say. And if the media will not go along with a request to go "off the record," you shut up, has been my experience. The only way you go forward's if they grant you your request to go "off the record." But it's not something that anybody but the interviewee is in control of. So it's not that the New York Times and Trump have to come to an agreement.
It's totally up to Trump. It's like grand jury testimony. Grand jury testimony is secret, private, "off the record," but if the subject wants to go out and talk about it, the subject can. But the prosecutors can't and the grand jurors can't, whoever else is in the room can't. But if you want to... If you're being asked to testify, if you're the witness, you can to go out and talk about what happened. You can. Very, very few do. Because when you get called before grand jury, it's generally pretty serious -- as is this.
You know, it's interesting that Hillary Clinton's...
This guy that set up her server has been granted immunity.
And when I first heard that, I said, "That's not gonna mean anything is going to happen. This guy has no knowledge of anything, other than how the thing was set up." But then I learned he's been granted immunity, which told me, "Well, that means there must have been a grand jury. And if there's a grand jury, that means somebody's presenting evidence of what Mrs. Clinton did, and this guy is being granted immunity as a means of facilitating the investigation into what Mrs. Clinton did or what Mrs. Clinton asked this guy to do."
So the existence of a grand jury in this case, that changes the focus of that particular story in a powerful way.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Snerdley, if you had to use just one word to describe the debate last night, could you come up with that? I know I'm putting you on the spot here. I'll give you mine. I'll give you my word. My word to describe the debate last night is "troubling," and I'm still troubled by it. I was troubled by that debate last night, and I still am. And I'm still trying to nail, drill down to exactly why. You know, there's a... Right now -- and it was last night, too. There's a -- I don't know what -- feeling of unease. I mean, I laughed at the parts that everybody laughed at, and I watched this, but something about it, I...
I don't know that it was just one thing about it, but I didn't... I didn't finish that debate relishing coming here to talk about it today.
END TRANSCRIPT
“Are you related to Glenn Beck or suffering the same mental deficiencies?”
Are you immune to sarcasm?
Luckily his audience can fit into the typical Carls Jrs.
Since when is being the best talker indicative of being best President
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson wrote better than he spoke
And so forth
Post #2 (satire): How dare he not take trump’s side. Rush is obviously in bed with the GOPe and their donors. . . . Die Rush, DIE!!!!
Post #6 (NOT satire:) Sorry Rush, you’re no better that the Faux News “Moderators.” Sad to see you go out this way, supporting Fraudster Cruz! I guess you’re just another example of people we used to hold in high regard!
Hard to tell the difference these days, eh?
Cruz won. I suppose he’d like Rubio to get out but the truth is that Rubio probably draws as much from Trump as from Cruz, particularly in Florida. Cruz might be better off if Rubio stays in.
“Hard to tell the difference these days, eh?”
Sadly yes.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/an-establishment-in-panic/ If you want to know who Limbaugh is working for.
Will anyone call for Cruz to disavow Beck after Beck implied he would assassinate Trump?
But I'll be honest about the debate. The way the cards are stacked, the best Trump can do is not lose. To us Trumpsters, not losing is a win for that reason.
Rubio didn't win that exchange. Trump is a hard worker, Rubio is not. Cruz pontificated. Listening to him is like going to a Debate Club tournament or attending the HS Senior play. He says stuff for effect and uses fake emotional crescendos. I can't imagine listening to that for four years.
But Kasich? He's backed off from the obvious attempts to steal the nomination, and assumes there's a path for him. He was quite articulate about his resume. FWIW, a lot of us OH folks don't much like him because he's a Democrat on many social issues and his "fantastic" OH budget has left local govs except in a few towns where corporate and private wealth are concentrated bled dry. That being said, Kasich handled the debate quite well, talking about his leadership attributes instead of obsessing about Trump's achievements.
JMHO
I agree that Cruz won. Kasich had his best debate and did well also.
Yes, but if Trump wins Florida, then it will be very, very difficult for Cruz to catch him, even in a two-man race.
It's not clear that any other candidate has any path to collecting enough delegates before the convention to lock up the nomination. Their best hope is to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from doing so, and hope for the best on a second (or third, or . . . ) ballot at the convention.
“you are a certified moron.”
According to FR rules, you are not supposed to make personal attacks. I guess a dim bulb like you can’t read, so it doesn’t matter! Anyway, we’re only a few days from wrapping this nomination process up and sending the Two Cuban Chihuahua’s packing! Cheers!
Right! And Cruz voted for TPP/TPA which makes the for losing millions more jobs.
He also voted for the Corker bill which made it possible for Iran to get its $150 billion.
This to start.
Cruz is a brilliant intellect but out of the classroom you actually have to get something done. His voting record sucks.
Trump easily won. Cruz came second.
Does anyone remember the skit from SNL many moons ago of a high school presidential race. One of the kids used “Jimmy Smith is a booger eater” against another kid running. This whole topics just brings that back to mind.
And yet, none of them was a loud mouthed, obnoxious bully. tRump’s problem, isn’t that he doesn’t know how to talk, it’s that he doesn’t know when to shut up.
The men you listed actually thought before they opened their giant mouths.
What we learned is that if you are negotiating, you will not win points by trying to embarrass Trump with things he might have done in his past. While you are saying look here, look there, after you wake up you will find you are swallowing your teeth after a big bite on what "little marco" describes as an "undersized" fist sandwich.
And that is the thing. Who do you want in your corner fighting for America like it used to be. Little marco, or "true conservative" Cruz, or the Trumpmaster.
I’ll give my impressions.
1. I am tired of John Kasich’s “shucks, I’m a good guy” routine and pretending to be above the fray. National Democrats are not like state-level Democrats — they don’t love their country or state. Nor do they have any interest in fixing problems. It’s not particularly useful to try to work with them; you have to overcome them. Evidence? Exhibit A -— George W was good at working with Democrats in Texas, but got crushed at the national level. Moreover, to sit by, and not criticize Trump is pathetic and wimpy.
2. Trump’s entire substance was: insults, defensiveness, lying, and distraction (look at my polls!) He committed fraud, uses illegals, and has a lifetime of supporting liberals. To anyone but his victims, he looked like a typical con man that has been caught.
3. Rubio did a fair job of pointing out what a scum bag liar Trump is, but really didn’t help his own cause.
4. Cruz also pointed out Trump’s failings, but primarily had something to offer: conservatism. He is a consistent conservative and a smart guy. I’d be proud to have him as my president.
Very cloudy but sorta remember....I wonder if it is on You Tube. If I remember correctly, it was funny.
People will say whatever they think that other stupid people will believe. Is this all it takes for you to throw in the towel?
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.