Debate Scorecard: Immigration and Unborn Life

2016 GOP pack has mostly listened to voters and moved in the right direction on these key issues.

Thursday night’s prime time debate on Fox News was entertaining and revealing. Before I get into the meat of what really mattered, a few broad observations:

** I look forward to the next debate, when the pointedly smart and principled Carly Fiorina will probably be up on stage, replacing (I hope) the drab, self- congratulatory John Kasich. She sounded like the college teacher everyone hoped to study with. He came across like the lackluster pastor of a fading suburban church. Kasich was simply awful on same-sex marriage, completely ignoring threats to religious liberty, and suggesting that it is conservative Christians who are unwilling to abide by the new “law of the land” and live and let live in a non-judgmental fashion.

** I’m not sure if Donald Trump has peaked, but his manic glee seems to be curdling into petulant self-assertion. Threatening questioner Megyn Kelly with unspecified retaliation, and insisting he might betray Republicans by running third party, did not come across as presidential so much as sophomoric. A man in his seventh decade who calls women “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” will in turn evoke his own associated epithets in the minds of voters: “verbally abusive first husband” and “psychotic first boss.”

** Commentators are overpraising Marco Rubio, whose statements were mostly fine but who seemed not ready for prime time. His youthful good looks actually detract from his gravitas. He looks ready to be president … of the local Kiwanis Club.

** Mike Huckabee’s Fair Tax is an interesting idea, with potential small-government and populist appeal. I hope it gets more attention. However, he let Chris Christie clean his clock on entitlements.

What should interest us most about the debate, however, are two critical issues where Republicans are closer to public sentiment, but far from elite opinion: Immigration and unborn life. Immigration will determine whether America will be saved as a viable country, abortion whether it deserves to be saved.

Here’s my scorecard of those candidates who answered questions on either topic.

On immigration, a subject on which he has flip-flopped that is now his signature issue, Trump could not produce the “evidence” he’d earlier promised that the Mexican government is purposely shipping criminals north of the border. Rubio nicely corrected him, pointing out that Central Americans from further southeast now outnumber Mexican immigrants to the U.S. Calling the American government “stupid” and the Mexican government “smart” probably wasn’t the smartest political move. Trump’s claim that no one would be talking about immigration except for him rang hollow with Ted Cruz standing up on the podium, as Cruz wasn’t slow to point out. Worst of all, Trump laid all his emphasis on illegal immigration, ignoring the problem of unskilled workers coming here legally, suppressing working class wages. Had Santorum made this debate, he could have called Trump on this. Someone should have.

On abortion, Trump explained that he went from favoring even partial birth abortion to being pro-life because friends of his had considered abortion and changed their minds — and the child whom they raised turned out to be a “superstar.” Only Donald Trump could offer a eugenics-based argument against abortion. Even Margaret Sanger wanted “more children from the fit.”

The former Florida governor doubled down on his nauseating assertion that illegal immigrants came to America as an “act of love,” when they had “no other choice,” essentially turning lawbreakers into legitimate refugees. No wonder he wants to offer them a “path to citizenship” after “paying a fine” and jumping through some unspecified hoops. He mentioned the important E-Verify program that lets employers check workers’ status, but his actual plan does not make it mandatory — which is the only way it will work.

On abortion, Bush highlighted some legitimate pro-life accomplishments, such as funding crisis pregnancy centers, banning partial birth abortion, and fighting euthanasia (though he didn’t actually mention poor Terri Schiavo). But he utterly failed to explain away his presence on the board of the Bloomberg Foundation that shoveled millions to baby butchers Planned Parenthood. That answer really hurt his image as someone we can trust with Supreme Court appointments.

The Wisconsin governor faced a tough set of facts on immigration, having supported amnesty just a few years ago. His answer was forthright and smart: He “listened to the American people,” visited the border and changed his mind. Most voters can probably live with that, especially since he talked about immigration’s negative impact on working class wages, suggesting that like Rick Santorum, he’s open to reforming the number of legal low-skill immigrants, as well as securing the borders.

On unborn life, Walker was refreshingly unflinching in the face of a really tough question from Megyn Kelly about “life of the mother” exceptions. But not terribly persuasive. Someone needs to take Walker aside and explain to him how this exception was routinely abused before Roe v. Wade, so that any pregnant woman willing to claim that she was suicidal could get an abortion in many states. He needs to understand the medical side of this issue, and explain how doctors should at least make an effort to save the unborn child, while protecting mothers’ lives.

He wasn’t asked a question about immigration, so it didn’t come up in his answers. In 2008, he showed significant squishiness on this issue, but few voters are likely to remember that — and his position has firmed up in the meantime.

On abortion and other court-driven abuses of the Constitution, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee showed political courage by saying that he would invoke the 5th and 14th Amendments to protect unborn life despite bad Supreme Court decisions. That prospect should hearten everyone appalled at justices legislating from the bench. He was firm and powerful on Planned Parenthood, aptly comparing its organ-trafficking to automotive chop-shops.

The Texas senator did not disappoint, offering clear, firm, and persuasive answers about immigration, pointing out his long record of seeking border enforcement even in the face of a reluctant Republican establishment. He was smart to mention the “Gang of Eight” amnesty proposal, to which he led the opposition. He probably ought to have cited the fact that Marco Rubio was one of the eight, for the sake of the non-wonks in the audience.

On unborn life, Cruz could point to his longtime, firm pro-life position and strong record of activism against Planned Parenthood and legal abortion. As a highly skilled attorney and debater, Cruz’s voice in the pro-life cause is one of the most eloquent and intellectually substantive. He came out of the debate looking more likable, but no less formidable.

As a candidate who is tied with Jeb Bush for the worst record on immigration, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio highlighted his new, firmer views — emphasizing the importance of fairness to legal immigrants, like his working class Cuban parents. He endorsed a border fence, and spoke to the feeling Americans have that they are being “taken advantage of” by neighboring countries. It’s doubtful that he will ever erase the memory of his involvement in the “Gang of Eight,” but Jeb Bush’s unabashed advocacy of amnesty-in-all-but-name will take heat away from Rubio on this issue.

On abortion, Rubio was bold and principled, correcting a questioner’s mistake by insisting that he had never favored “rape and incest” exceptions. He spoke passionately and sincerely on the subject, warning that future centuries will consider us today “barbarians” for “murdering millions of babies.” Bravo! Those are words from which a candidate simply cannot walk away, making Rubio a hopeful choice for a reliably pro-life president.

When the Mexican Government publishes pamphlets on America, how to get there, where to go, etc. It is dumping illegals on our soil, period.

When it establishes satellite consular missions to print up Mexican Consular IDs that facilitate US benefits and other documentation processes here, they are dumping illegals on our soil.

When it ignores its own illegal entry laws (from their southern border) and facilitates transport to their northern border, they are dumping illegals on our soil.

Trump doesn’t need to prove any of that. It is a matter of record.

Fact is Trump doesn’t go far enough. Beside all the other factors mentioned in previous postings on this subject;

In “countries such as Mexico where an American citizen decides to be a “legal” emigree never mind being a seasonal visitor .

They are denied voting privledges. Ownership of land in their own name, and selected access to government services.

Worse if entering that country illegaly. They face steep fines and jail time before getting kicked out. Beside being denied use of government services, including; income and energy subsistance including food stamps, or bringing in family members and free lawyers all paid by US.

When Trump announces he doesn’t believe we should not allow any such full citizenship privledges to illegals who are from countries such as Mexico that deny to a legal American immigrant full citizenship privledges.

And announces he supports reciprocal citizenship requirements and gets accused of racism I’ll believe in him when “eats the cracker” then asks God for forgiveness./s...

All Trump need do is keep the word “illegal” in play and to highlight the fact that Mexico aids them. We as a nation should all over the underhanded duplicity of Mexico and points south, in our own government and in our political parties.

You have to start somewhere; he’s done that - well, IMO. I don’t expect him to be President, but I do expect him to be present for a while longer.

I am seeing a plethora of self promoting blogs appear today.

I liked the story trump said about seeing a child that was spared abortion. That is the reality of the gift of life. Not some bs “the court has spoken to the serfs” focus group answer.

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.