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
Oh. Wow. Didn’t see that one coming.
Gee...the gop-e water boy of choice is flacking for the gop-e candidate of choice. I’m stuned. With a beber.
Ah yes, another practitioner of TDS math 17%+16% > 41%. As to the rest of your post, [expletive deleted] out your [expletive deleted].
Poke Trump! He’ll always react!
As to the rest of your post, [expletive deleted] out your [expletive deleted].Thanks for self-censoring your vulgarity. If only Trump would do that...
In any event, here's a brand new poll, from CNN (the one Trump recommended in the last debate) showing that Trump is the only republican who would lose against Clinton. Cruz and Rubio would both beat Clinton.
All the rest is an uncontrolled, dumbed-down, Jerry Springer-style TV clown act -- and Trump is absolutely the worst noise generator of all.
If I had a videoof the entire thing, I'd run it thru my video editor and log how many minutes Trump was blabbing -- including shouting over other speakers -- and put his glory-hogging on full display.
In a genuine, rules-controlled debate, Trump would have been thrown off the stage (IOW, disqualified).
“Not sure where you got those numbers but try this:
100% (Republican Primary Voters) - 41% (Trump Voters) = 59% (Not Voting for Trump).”
_____________
There is a flaw in your logic. Actually the 59% you reference above are voting for someone other than Trump who is their 1st choice amongst the available candidates. That does not mean they are all “anti-Trump” votes. While some are; some likely favor Trump as their 2nd or 3rd choice. It’s really impossible to predict how that will all “shake out” as the field winnows down.
In a pigs eye! Booger man!
I agree. This site has turned into Bubba GOP. Conservatives are few and far between. This must have been taken over by the Drudge Poll Crowd. lol
Lol!
Yes, Cruz should fire Beck!
I am curious how Cruz’s record over many years makes him a fraudster and Trump’s record over many years makes him the undoubtable rock-ribbed champion of the anti-Washington movement. Sorry, it just doesn’t add up. I am not supporting either at this point and could still vote for either. I just see the ridiculous attack made over and over without any facts behind it.
Sure sign of a small man!
“Cruz is not going to get the nomination, just not going to happen, the ‘Cruz won the debate blather’ means NOTHING, the average Joe likes Trump, not haughty Harvard Boy.”
Totally agree . Cruz is unelectable pure and simple .
It’s demoralizing to think that if people on *FR* can’t figure out that Cruz is far and away the best candidate, things are hopeless. Picking Cruz over Trump is as easy as selecting Steph Curry over HIS competition.
Cruz didn’t only WIN, he disassembled Trump. And everyone who watched knows it. Trump finished LAST, frankly.
“Trump easily won. Cruz came second.”
Yes, but only if you watched the sun rise in the west and set in the east yesterday! I love a mind that refuses to be confused by the facts.
Yes Rush you and a few other people believe Saint Ted of Wall Street won but not too many other people do. Keep telling us how to think Rush thinking for myself hurts my head.
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.