Like most American citizens, the first round of 2016 Republican candidate debates on Fox News last night occupied my time. I missed the early debate with the candidates ranking lower in the polls, unfortunately. However, after watching the top ten, it probably was divine intervention that I skipped that first show. Of course, any time the lame stream enemedia directs a debate, one expects sparks as moderators target each candidate’s weakness through questions.
Americans watched as Chris Christie vowed to continue and possibly expand the surveillance state by violating innocent citizens’ rights of privacy and security, proving he would better serve the public as manager of a Krispy Kreme doughnut shop. Rand Paul challenged Christie on his stance, invoking the Fourth Amendment and declaring his support of the Bill of Rights when Christie indicated he would blame a terrorist attack on Paul. Regardless of Christie’s stance on any other issue, the clear support Christie gives to the violation of individual God-given rights by defying the federal government’s restraint under the Fourth Amendment discounted Christie as one who will abide by the Constitution.
Mike Huckabee received the difficult question on abortion and his stance that might jeopardize independent voter support. In response, Huckabee declared babies in the womb as persons deserving the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which the next president should invoke to afford the unborn protection of life through due process. Huckabee confirms what many Americans have been saying: babies in the womb are persons deserving of protection and government, through the Roe v. Wade decision, moved to disallow rights to those who cannot speak for themselves. Democrats now defend this position by using the crutch “women’s reproductive health” declaring anyone opposed to their stance as waging a “war on women.” From Huckabee’s stance, one could conclude he strongly supports individual God-given rights for everyone, including those who cannot speak for themselves.
Famed neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson responded eloquently to the questions asked of him, especially the one targeting his inexperience as a politician that surfaced regarding mistakes made while campaigning. He replied, “Experience comes from a large number of arenas, and America became a great nation early on not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation, and that’s what will get us on the right track now, as well.” However, his closing statement hit the ball out of the park.
I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins. The only one to operate on babies while they were still in the mother’s womb, the only one to take out half of a brain — although you would think if you go to Washington someone had beaten me to it.
But I’m very hopeful that I’m not the only one who’s willing to pick up the baton of freedom, because freedom is not free, and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for it because we’re fighting for our children and the next generation.
Despite his inexperience as a politician, Dr. Carson recognized Americans are losing their freedoms and whoever the nominee is will need to champion and fight for that freedom as future generations are dependent on what happens today. No other candidate voiced a profound statement like this one by Carson.
The target question for Sen. Ted Cruz centered on his “divisiveness” as a political figure. Cruz stated that he believed Americans were looking for someone who would be truthful. He proclaimed he “ain’t the guy” to send to Washington to go along to get along, agree with career politicians on both sides of the aisle who align with lobbyists and special interest groups. In his closing statement, he vowed to accomplish a host of things if elected. He promised to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional action taken by Obama. Cruz said he would instruct the DOJ to investigate the Planned Parenthood videos and prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations. He will direct the IRS and DOJ to put an end to the persecution of religious liberty. He stated he would move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and cancel the Iran Deal. Most importantly, Cruz promised to keep his word and fight for liberty. Some are still waiting on Cruz to justify his bid for the presidency knowing his ineligible status. When speaking about being truthful, addressing that issue is priority.
The same with Marco Rubio — justify the bid for presidency knowing his ineligible status. Americans deserve to hear these two candidates address the eligibility question openly and honestly. Their unwillingness indicates they themselves are not solid on their eligibility.
Wallace redirected an immigration question from Kasich to Rubio since Wallace felt dissatisfied with the answer by Kasich. Kasich contended that most illegal aliens entering the country from Mexico were criminals. Rubio countered by declaring that reports indicate most illegal aliens are coming from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. He stressed a fence was needed but tunnels under the fence had to be addressed. Rubio voiced support for E-verify systems and an entry/exit tracking system. In order for that to be in play, would not every American citizen have to be “verified” and “tracked” also? In addition, in order for illegal aliens from Central America to enter the country, they either cross the southern border from Mexico or board an Obama-plane headed for a major city. No one addressed the role Mexico plays in allowing unfettered crossing through their nation by illegal aliens to enter the US while Mexico takes a hard-line stance against US citizens inadvertently crossing the border into Mexico.
Rick Perry vowed to “white-out” all of Obama’s executive orders, stating, “It will be a long day.” Americans will be happy with candidates who vow to get rid of Obama’s unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful executive power grabs. With Perry’s record as governor of Texas, many will rally around him as a “can-do” candidate.
Gov. John Kasich fielded his question regarding his support for the expansion of Medicaid by invoking Ronald Reagan. Kasich stated that Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times. In the famous southern accent of Scarlett O’Hara as she stood on the staircase of Tara, after hearing about Yankee activities, “Don’t tell me anymore about what they did. I don’t care what they did.” It appeared Kasich invoked Reagan to justify his support for Medicaid expansion. Reagan wasn’t perfect; he made mistakes. Even though the public liked Reagan and supported him overall, it doesn’t mean the public approved of all his actions.
When it came to illegal immigration, more like invasion, moderators pegged Gov. Jeb Bush on his comment dubbing it an “act of love.” Bush reiterated his belief that a majority of illegal alien invaders “have no other option” since they “want to provide for their family” while stressing we needed to control our borders. I’ve always heard people have choices, but rarely recognize ones they don’t like as a choice. Therefore, they justify a choice as “no choice.” It’s the same with illegal aliens. They choose to violate our laws because in their mind, they have no other choice. However, they do have choices but choose to violate the law.
Bush denied his support for Common Core stating he supported a “common” standardization of education in the states. He declared that was different from federal Common Core in that the states should be responsible for establishing educational requirements for all students in the state. This appears to be in conflict with prior statements, but maybe it’s still supporting Common Core just worded in political fashion.
Gov. Scott Walker addressed the question regarding his past support for comprehensive immigration reform and the change in his view. Walker provided a simple answer saying he listened to the American people. In its simplicity, Walker’s answer confirmed what many Americans want from officials in Washington — listen to their concerns.
Everyone can read the news reports and watch the highlights if they missed the debate. Of course, the big news was “The Donald” and his inability to pledge his support to the Republican nominee winner and not to run on an “independent” ticket. If you read some behind the scenes reports, moderators used this particular question to set-up the debate to be “newsworthy.” Naturally, Trump would take the bait. He marches to his own drum.
Many watching the debate might declare it a good one. Some might even say all the candidates did well on “their” specific question. In reviewing opinions, there were no clear “winners” in the top ten but in the “lower six,” Carly Fiorina swept the other contenders under the rug.
The entire time I watched this “debate” I kept thinking these questions were more “fluff n’ stuff” than hard issues Americans want addressed. What about all the scandals surrounding this administration where individuals in various departments violated the law yet remain unaccountable? No question addressed the gun control push by the federal government or governmental agencies stockpiling ammunition as the administration arms IRS agents.
No one mentioned the attack on the coal industry because of the climate change farce that is damaging this nation. Nor did anyone address the reckless stimulus to “green energy” industries that bilked the taxpayers. But, they jumped right on to the imaginary “war on women” regarding comments made by Donald Trump. While they hit Trump with the “war on women,” Huckabee faced the question of homosexuals and transgendered individuals in the military. Many will agree with Huckabee that the military is no place to conduct “social experiments.”
When it came to Obamacare, the candidates talked “repeal and replace.” Of course, Donald Trump’s past comment on instituting “socialized medicine” surfaced. Remember, the Republican platform does not call for total repeal of Obamacare, but a repeal of some portions while replacing other portions with a Republican approved plan. Americans will still have government involvement in their health care if Republicans are able to nix Obamacare. Moderators did not address that factoid.
Attacks on free speech went unaddressed, as well as attacks on free association, by overzealous agencies. Where were the questions on government takeover of the internet under some antiquated “rule?” No one mentioned the new DHS designations of who is now a terrorist nor the egregious Southern Poverty Law Center’s targeting of innocent groups and individuals as “hate groups” or subversives. Military exercises on American soil, as occurring with Jade Helm, never surfaced.
Basically, this entire “top ten” debate centered more on discrediting Donald Trump with the “pledge support for the Republican nominee and not run on a third party ticket” vote and invoking a circus show with him in center ring. I am not a Donald Trump supporter by any means. When moderators intentionally “goad” a candidate in order to make a debate “newsworthy,” it’s unprofessional, underhanded and cheap. One only had to look at the snide smirk on the face of Chris Wallace when the camera panned to him to recognize a set-up. The entire debate set viewers on a course directed by the media moderators unless viewers engaged in analyzing the direction in a critical manner.
More questions than answers resulted from watching this circus show. I knew better than to watch lame stream enemedia, but my curiosity overwhelmed me. I spent more time fussing at the moderators on TV, which disturbed the “little princess” into fussy grumbling.
No candidate declared a support for the Constitution. Rand Paul was the closest candidate to declare support for the Constitution claiming his stand for the Bill of Rights. Americans need more than a stand for the Bill of Rights. No candidate declared to support and enforce current immigration law. Unfortunately, it looks as though decisions will be made on “fluff n’ stuff” social issues rather than issues that produced constitutional crises. It’s apparent the media possesses more interest in “entertainment” than actual debates.
Granted, this debate was the first. Hopefully, the subjects will advance to more complex ones instead of focusing on candidates’ weaknesses. Addressing tough issues exposes weaknesses, but the “set-up” appeared to be the focus making this debate pointless.