Cruz responded:
"We can have a conversation about that after the border is secured."
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.
Establishment versus anti-Establishment.
One poll I viewed, had Trump winning at 85%. LINK
Here's one at 76%. LINK
They would be an excellent team for the border welcoming committee ...
>> BTW, Trump was booed - his antics flopped, his repertoire is stale.
You can’t be serious. It was the Establishment minions that booed him.
Cruz responded:
"We can have a conversation about that after the border is secured."
Well it was his strongest performance to date, not that that was a very high bar for him to get over. Any day he can get out without Trump bringing him to tears is a winner for Jebra.
That link is broken.
Your other two links are to meaningless online polls (not likely GOP voters) to The St. Louis Post Dispatch and to Fox.
>> We can have a conversation [at some later point]
That of course is not a commitment to do anything — including the ‘conversation’ itself.
And Ron Paul won every online poll he was ever in as well. Online polls are never known for their accuracy.
Sound bites - that’s Trump’s MO.
This is Cruz’s detailed immigration policy.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
He did indirectly answer it by saying he’d beef up the E-Verify system and deny them welfare, so you could infer he’d rely on self-deportation.
I’ll grant you that, but do you honestly think Trump has people going out voting on the internet for him. That was Paul’s trademark.
I don’t. He could care less.
You’re such a hoot.
Downright silly...
You know darn well if Ted were doing good in those polls, you would be pointing to them with glee.
Redstate and right scoop are both embarrassing.
I’ve read Ted’s immigration policy paper. It says nothing about what he’d do with the 40 million illegals living in our country.
Oh, there’s a mention in there about deporting “criminal illegals”, but nothing at all about what he’ll do with the rest.
Go ahead and buy into that plan if you must, but I can read plain English, and I know that the truth is what the plan DOESN’T say.
Trump’s immigration plan makes perfectly clear, that he will deport every single illegal in the country, be they “criminal” illegals or lawn care workers.
Stop kidding yourself. Ted hasn’t been a straight shooter on this issue since the campaign began, and he’s not ever going to be. His bread is buttered on the wrong side.
You can stop with: “Ted hasn’t been a straight shooter.”
Too many ifs, ands, or buts, and assumptions in that. I want to hear Ted unequivocally state that, the illegals have to go. Period, full stop, end of sentence.
Ted won't do it. He can't do it. His bread is buttered on the wrong side.
Well, no.
Trump isn't perfect and he is shooting blanks on the eminent domain issue.
I plan to vote for trump, but certainly not for his stand on the E.D. issue. He is dead wrong. A rational man will admit this sooner or later.
His entire explanation confounds "public benefit" with increased tax revenue, which is a sick perversion of the concept. The voters of the jurisdiction must have the final word, not an unaccountable "bought" judge or the power hungry local elected criminals as to what qualifies as a general public benefit.
Certainly an unsupported assertion should never be enough.
Even the magic Negro has failed to succeed with the arbitrary and capricious attempt to sell assertion as fact.
It's simple.
A new multilane urban street connecting existing isolated neighborhoods with each other providing faster access by emergency services is a general public benefit.
Providing access to a casino or new shopping center with no similar benefit to existing neighborhoods is not.
Note that providing similar security access to future neighborhoods is a circular self-serving argument, unless the street involved is part of the city general plan which, at least in California, is required by state law to be updated regularly to fit changing conditions.
I don’t hold much stock in those on line polls - which certainly includes Drudge.
Who’s voting online in these polls? What party? What country? They’re worthless - except to try and sway public opinion.
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.
