Posted on 02/19/2016 9:33:47 PM PST by joanie-f
Debate Performance Cannot Overshadow Decades of Personal History
One of the aspects of the current campaign climate that I find deeply discouraging is the fact that the majority of the American electorate spends little or no time learning about the candidates in the weeks and months leading up to the primaries, and they apparently spend little or no time during non-election years paying attention to the roles that American politicians, and would-be candidates, play in events and policymaking that are happening both in America and elsewhere around the globe.
One of the shocking and disturbing ramifications of that sad state of affairs is that, for example, in the twenty-four hours leading up to the recent New Hampshire primary, a full 50+ percent of republican and independent voters had not yet decided for whom they were going to cast their ballots.
Every remaining candidate in the republican race has a resume consisting of decades of revealing statements and actions that define his or her character, integrity, accomplishments, honesty, positions on public policy, and the depth and consistency of all of the above. Yet the citizenry either has so little knowledge of those essential prerequisites, or so little interest in them, that a single 'poor performance' in a single public debate can often threaten to derail a candidate's hope of claiming the nomination. And a 'poor performance' can be defined as anything as superficial as appearing tired, or too argumentative, or too repetitive, or not sufficiently charismatic, or simply making a single misstatement.
Let's take the example of Ted Cruz. (Disclaimer: I am an ardent Ted Cruz supporter, thus the choice of him as my example. If you would like the example at hand to be another candidate, then write your own essay.)
Flippant sarcasm aside, let's look at just a very cursory summary of Cruz's resume:
Ted Cruz graduated cum laude, with a B.A. in Public Policy, from Princeton. While there, he won many prestigious national debate awards. He then attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude with a J.D. degree. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. While at Harvard he received many awards and accolades, including being dubbed by Professor Alan Dershowitz (certainly no fan of conservative politics), 'off the charts brilliant.'
He served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, after which he accepted a position with a private law firm, and in that position was instrumental in drafting legal arguments for presentation before both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts.
Some of Cruz's public career assignments included serving as a director of the Federal Trade Commission, as associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, as domestic policy advisor to President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, as Solicitor General of Texas, and as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the following U.S. Senate committees: Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, Judiciary Committee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Activities, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
During his service as Solicitor General of Texas, he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times, winning five of those cases. He has authored seventy U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued forty-three times before the courts, nine of those times before the Supreme Court. He has appeared in that capacity before the Supreme Court more than any other member of congress has.
In academia, he served as an adjunct law professor, teaching Supreme Court legislation, at the University of Texas.
Cruz's legal credentials and accomplishments have been lauded by many, and he has been recognized for his efforts by having been named one of the fifty best litigators under the age of forty-five in America, one of the fifty most influential minority lawyers in America, and one of the twenty-five greatest Texas lawyers of the past quarter century.
Since his election to the senate in 2012, Cruz has sponsored no fewer than twenty-five of his own bills on issues ranging from the repeal of Obamacare to reforming campaign finance regulations.
Whether or not one agrees with Ted Cruz's conservative credentials, the above abbreviated resume is the kind of information that any informed voter should have at his or her disposal, not only regarding Ted Cruz, but regarding all viable candidates for the presidency of the United States. I happen to believe that Cruz's resume is stellar, especially as compared to most others seeking to become the leader of the free world. Other citizens may hold a different opinion, but each of us needs to know precisely what each candidate has accomplished in his or her adult life, by what means he or she has achieved those accomplishments, and whether his or her vision for America is consistent with that record of behaviors and accomplishments.
My question is, how many potential voters, in both the primary and general elections, know any of the above about Senator Cruz? How many potential voters have researched and are aware of at least a similarly cursory resume about each of the other candidates? If the answer to both questions is 'very few,' then relatively meaningless things such as two-hour debates, and thirty-second sound-bite political advertisements, develop the dangerous power to become inordinately more influential than they have any right to be in a free republic.
I ask all of you, when you watch the next debate, to take note of your positive or negative reactions to each of the candidates. Then expend the time and energy required to research and delve into that candidate's decades of genuine personal history. Then ask yourself whether that positive or negative reaction to a possibly offhand comment made in a single evening meshes well with what you have learned about that candidate's history. If it does not, then chalk your debate impression up to the fact that that candidate had an especially good, or an especially bad, day. We all have them. Do not allow a one-minute glowing promise, or a one-minute slip of the tongue, or a few drops of perspiration, to eclipse a lifetime of achievements, or a lack thereof.
Equally importantly, if you see a political advertisement that claims that a candidate did something that would be deemed distasteful to most voters, research that claim. If you discover it to be a lie or a blatant exaggeration, allow that to reflect on the person making the claim rather than on the person being criticized. If you discover it to be a true representation, add that representation to your own personal research.
More than a decade before America was even formed as a free republic, John Adams wrote, 'I must judge for myself, but how can I judge, how can any man judge, unless his mind has been opened and enlarged by reading? A man who can read will find ... rules and observations that will enlarge his range of thought and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that integrity of heart and that compass of knowledge and understanding which form the statesman.'
I strongly suspect that neither Adams nor any of the other Founders would today consider the watching of a few debates, or a few political advertisements, the kind of vigilant research that will provide the American electorate with sufficient evidence to judge who has and has not that integrity of heart and that compass of knowledge to become the leader of the free world at this watershed time in the history of both our nation and the world. I pray that the average American voter shows a willingness to expend the necessary time and energy, over the next few months, so that debates and political advertisements will serve as only one or two of many tools they use in their evaluation of the genuine character, integrity, accomplishments and vision of each potential candidate. Our Founders would ask no less, and our republic's very existence depends on it.
Jeepers, Aquamarine. This must mean you take a very dim view of Benjamin Franklin, who was a world-class rake. Read your history!
I mean, that guy was a womanizer par excellence, constantly seeking satisfaction of his libidinous urges, especially when he was in Paris; and he didn't care whether his paramours were married or not, or even prostitutes. It amazes me the man died of late old age, and didn't succumb to the ravages of syphillis by the age of 40....
God must have loved him very much.
Well said, betty boop.
Beer and Babe’s ...... Ben knew what was good for him...... :o)
A man who is a possible Mussolini would not be singing the praises of the Bill of Rights like Donald Trump does, on virtually every occasion. In particular, he enthusiastically endorses the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments. It seems some people cannot see past their prejudices to actually listen to what the man has been saying. Or if they do, they dismiss his words as those of a liar.... (WHY???)
The Trump phenomenon has been perplexing to me in many ways, in the reactions he draws from people. Some of my most respected and esteemed political analysts/commentators -- e.g., Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, Stephen Moore, Brent Bozell, Karl Rove, others -- look like they are going into anaphylactic shock at the mere mention of his name. Their eyes glaze over, they get this deer-in-the-headlights look; they start hyperventilating; they foam at the mouth; they look like they're about to have a stroke.... It really is quite a remarkable phenomenon, I just don't understand it....
What may be going on here is people projecting their own quite irrational subjective fears into the shape of a boogyman, which they then use to terrify themselves.
But it's all much ado about nothing, if you were to ask me!
Trump is running first and foremost as an AMERICAN WHO LOVES HIS COUNTRY. NOT as a "party man," but as a patriot. I don't know why some people find this so difficult to accept.
JMHO, FWIW
Be not afraid, my friend!
LOL!!! Probably why he lived so long, Squantos!
I have a view that is less bleak. You remember my article about Populism vs. Elitism being new battleground?
Cruz just threw in with the Elitists. That makes our side have ZERO representation. Maybe Jeff Sessions. That’s IT.
Populism cuts across ideological boundaries. You get some liberalism in there, you get some conservatism, you get nationalism.
Most politicians (Obama excluded) are hemmed in by their own words. Trump has made solid and undeniable position statements.
Trump, being a populist, will be a mixed bag for conservatives. He will, however, be strong on Immigration and Second Amendment. Those are my two top concerns.
Marry me, betty boop.
Betty...I hope you do not take offense...but quite frankly this is very uncharacteristic of you.
Myself...Joanie...Travis (Matt)...and others are somehow now irrational?
You honestly think that words like “projecting their own quite irrational subjective fears into the shape of a boogyman, which they then use to terrify themselves” are appropriate to use when replying to Travis McGee?
As he said, and as I have said, if it comes down to it I will vote for Trump...and I do believe that there are a number of things...per my own Trump Phenomenon Thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3401409/posts)...that I believe he is very serious about accomplishing which will absolutely help out nation.
But I will still do so with reservations. And I certainly will not discount...and will seriously consider the opinions and heart felt comments of people like Matt, Joanie, Squantos and others whom we have known for years and whom I know to be rock solid, loyal Americans. It just seems that your responses tend to write what they say off with accusations of irrationality or boogeyman fears.
I am just being honest with you dear sister, and I hope you will take it in the spirit it is intended. After something well over 15 years of correspondence with you...this is, IMHO, very out of character for you.
For Matt and Joanie and others...there is nothing wrong with being concerned about people like Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio. They are very talented people...but they are also imperfect people. All of mankind is weak and subject to ills and temptation. It is only through Christ that any of us can be made whole.
when it comes to politics and individuals seeking the Presidency and double and triple dose of concern and skepticism is in order.
I pray the US does turn around. I believe the GOP candidates that are left can each, to one extent or another...help that happen.
My biggest issue regarding all of this is the temperament and spirit that many people are latching onto as a result of it. Even more so than in past elections.
It is a spirit of anger and dissention amongst those of us why have been, and should remain allies. I do not intend to be a part of that.
I do intend to rationally share my own opinions of what I am seeing and pray that the American people will choose aright from the choices they end up getting presented.
Notice who helped put this accusation to print.
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer December 8, 2015... from the article ..” the conservative military historian Max Boot tweeted: “Trump is a fascist. And that's not a term I use loosely or often. But he's earned it.”
There are far more examples of possible "shaky ethics" with other candidate's impending fraud law suits, hiring practices, financial dealings, and support of other politicians with EXTREMELY shaky ethics.
Like you, despite my very deep reservations about Donald Trump's character, and the troubling historical examples of his fleeting allegiances, I will vote for him in November if the choice comes down to him or any other likely democrat.
I see such a vote as voting for the proverbial 'pig in a poke', since I have absolutely no idea the kind of leadership decisions he will make. His history is so littered with changes of heart, and so many of his decisions seem to have been based on one primary goal: the increase of his own personal power and wealth. When you insert such a man into the role of President of the United States, and leader of the free world, you are taking a monumental gamble as to how he will exercise that power, both in his executive role here at home and in his dealings with the leaders of foreign powers. It's a terrifying roll of the dice.
And yet we KNOW what we will get with a President Clinton or a President Sanders, and the thought of either one sitting in the White House is beyond abhorrent.
God bless and keep you, Jeff. We know, after all is said and done, Who is in control, and no amount of activism, or worry, or concern, is stronger or wiser than His will. May He forgive this country's turning her back on Him and inspire a reawakening among her people, and may the man who seeks to simply do what is right for this country be sitting in the White House next January 20th.
We have a choice between a world-class rake and a righteous man who tries to follow God's Laws. Why are people making this so complicated?
Then vote for him. What do you want- perfection ? Excuse me for sounding harsh-But my God- we are about to lose this country and everything that made it great.
We have a good man- Well versed in the Constitution, with a life long record of standing up for the principles of our nation, often standing by himself- Who is hated for exposing the do nothings in Congress who have sold us out.
And your griping about miniscule things like fund raisers. Cruz is not a billionaire- He has to fund raise.
If you want self funding vote for Trump. Problem is - you have absolutely no idea what you will get with him as POTUS.
His record is filled with inconsistencies, possible major scandals, and support for far left candidates:
An example of Trump being on both sides-Last night Trump said he would do away with the EPA- But in Iowa he said he would use the EPA to enforce higher Ethanol standards . Who knows what Trump will do as POTUS?
With Cruz, the life long record is there.
You have a pretty good idea of what he (Cruz) will do in office. (And I love his tax plan).
He can beat Hillary.
You can't say the the above things about any of the other candidates.
We are not voting for American Idol. We are voting for a person who will become the most powerful leader of the free world.
Please think before you vote. The future of our nation depends on it.
I guess my take is if one isn’t inclined to research a candidate then they aren’t likely to read a piece about researching candidates no matter how sound that advice is.
LOLOL!!! You so funny, Laz!
Excellent. But don’t marry Laz.
TED CRUZ is "a righteous man who tries to follow God's laws?" ???
PIFFLE!!!
Ted Cruz is as crooked as a country road.
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m not taking offense. You’re entitled to your opinion, Jeff.
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.