Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Latest GOP Debate

Sorry for the delay. Had a defective keyboard in in which the letters "e," "i," and "w" would not work. Try writing this blog without "me," "we," and "I." Impossible!

Re the debate: A good one. Lots of substance and, once again, proving that the Fox reporters are far superior to their progressive counterparts at the mainstream media outlets. The questions were good, there was a sense of humor throughout, and the replies were all--almost--pretty good.

I thought all the candidates, with one exception, did well. Let's start with that exception. Governor Kasich blew it. He is a decent politician with a good track record as governor of Ohio and in Congress. He, however, has run a bizarre campaign which I would label as seeking to become the "progressive conscience" of the Republican Party. At this debate, his comments on immigration were, frankly, foolish. He gives rather lachrymose speeches and throws out lines, e.g., "not an adult argument," which will come back to haunt the GOP in the general elections next year. He should run for Democratic nominee and swap with Jim Webb. He doesn't belong on the stage with the other candidates.

The winner? Tough to call, but in my view it was Rubio with Cruz right behind him. I would even accept an argument that Cruz won. Maybe a tie? Both Senators were on fire. I scored it for Rubio because of his foreign policy and defense comments--I am prejudiced that way, you see--and his simple explanation of how raising the minimum wage raises unemployment. Cruz's response on illegal immigration was brilliant, to wit, journalists would write a different story if the illegals had journalism degrees and were driving down the wages of journalists. Either Rubio or Cruz would eat Hillary Clinton alive in any debate setting.

The others? Nobody did badly, although I thought Trump's comment about Fiorina interrupting was childish and unnecessary. Carson's closing statement was excellent: a 30-second piece of prose poetry not commonly heard in political debate. It reaffirmed his standing as a man of integrity, compassion, and patriotism.

Any one of the big four--Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz--would be a far preferable alternative to Hillary Clinton or the current calamity in the White House.

22 comments:

  1. "Try writing this blog without writing the words "me," "we," and "I." Impossible!" That would paralyze the entire Obama speech writing staff.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder if that keyboard is compatible with the teleprompter used by the Current Resident?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I generally agree with your views, Dip. I found myself feeling sorry for Jeb during this debate, as I could almost see the acceptance of defeat in his eyes. As much as I think Rand Paul is an intelligent man, he's still got too much of his batshit father in him, so that alone disqualifies him in my mind. For the first time, I thought Trump showed his shallowness, beyond his bombastic nature. He was the only candidate not to encounter the "out of time" bell and for good reason. No substance. His team better be busy preparing him for the next debate, because another showing like this one and I think he'll be inviting the hook. It looks to me like both Cruz and Rubio are finding their ground. If Trump starts to falter, I think Cruz stands to gain the most, as most Trump supporters will move behind Cruz. The money should start to dry up quickly for the likes of Kasish and thank God. I found him rather irritating and yes, very Dem like. Perhaso those two aren't exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dip:

    I saw the debate pretty much the same way you did, except I still have a hard time with both Trump and Rubio.

    Trump has toned down some, true, but he still sounds like a blowhard who uses bombast to cover for lack of an in-depth understanding of the issues. And his constant emphasis on his personal ability to make deals ignores the fact that running the government is most successful when it is a large team effort and not just a single star leading the show.

    Rubio has several flaws for me. The first is his membership in the gang of eight -- that infamous effort by a few Senators to impose Democrat policies under the guise of phony bipartisanship. The second is his speed of delivery. Sometimes his words come tumbling out too fast to understand and, in at least one instance at the debate, too fast for him to get them all right. At one point Tuesday night he said something like "the important thing is the Presidency," when the thrust of his statement was that the important thing was the people. Just talking too fast. And the third thing is his lack of executive experience, although this applies to a lot of people on that stage, including my favorite: Ted Cruz.

    Cruz is cursed with a kind of querulous smirk, not dissimilar from what George W. Bush had. Maybe it's a Texas thing? I don't know, but the way Cruz holds his lips and eyebrows makes him look like he's disdainful of his audience. He will be easy to caricature.

    I still like Fiorina enormously, but would rather see her as VP candidate instead of at the top of the ticket.

    I still like Ben Carson, too, but would rather see him with a senior cabinet position rather than at the top of the ticket.

    Jeb just does not come across well for me. Nor do Christie or Jindal, although they both have the executive experience Cruz and Rubio do not.

    But remember this: the race will be won by the candidate who attracts the most independents. No matter who on that stage wins the nomination, most Republicans will pull the lever for them, and I think vote turnout will be fair to good for the GOP. But if the candidate does not get the independent vote, and especially if the independents go for Hillary, the Republican candidate will lose. The nominee must not only look good to Republican voters, but to undecided and independent voters too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nominee must not only look good to undecided and independent voters, but to Republican voters too.

      Delete
  5. Don't see anyway that Cruz could survive his eligibility problem. The Dems would keep him off the ballot, especially as many of the secretaries of states in charge of ballot filings and eligibility, could keep him off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That will be difficult as the Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically covers similar situations.

      Delete
    2. That was repealed in 1795. Article Two specifies natural born citizen, not just citizen. Born in the US to two US parents. Naturalized and dual citizens aren't eligible.

      First objection to Cruz filed today, even for the primary:

      http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/19430384-95/sanders-cruz-receive-first-challenges-to-new-hampshire-candidacy

      Delete
    3. http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

      Delete
    4. There is no eligibility problem. You people are like mosquitos and creaking floorboards.

      Delete
    5. Harvard Law Review? LOL. HLR churns out lots of such pieces -- and none carry legal weight.

      There are eight SCOTUS decisions since 1812 that all recognize ONE definition of natural born citizen: jus solis and jus sanguinis. The most pertinent SCOTUS case, Minor vs. Happersett, clarified that NBC's do not derive citizenship via the 14th Amendment. "Birth in the US to TWO citizen parents" was also read into the Congressional Record twice in the 1860's by John Bingham, author of the 14th, defining an NBC.

      Find one SCOTUS decision that recognizes any other NBC definition. The founding fathers took it from De Vattel's "The Law of Nations."

      Several attempts in Congress over the years to try to change the NBC definition and water down Article Two. The last fail was by Sen. McCaskill.

      Taught this subject for twenty years -- retired. Creaking (maybe).

      Delete
    6. Well, your students should get their money back.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Saying that anyone of the top GOP contenders would be better than Shrillary Shroooo isn't saying much--although I agree with this assessment 150%. It is an utter disgrace that Shrillary Shroooo is even considered POTUS material.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "e," "i," and "w": just use 3,1, and uu. I used to have a keyboard with a defunct "b": I used '6' and 3v3ryon3 s33med to cop3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way too complex for a pen-and-paper guy . . .

      Delete
    2. Actually English is remarkably comprehensible without vowels.

      nglsh s rmrkbl cmprhnsbl wtht vwls.


      See?

      Delete
    3. Sorta like Hebrew and Arabic. Don't think we want to go the degenerate language route.

      Delete
  9. Perhaps the turning point to the madness in Europe is now happening in Paris. At the least they reaping the harvest for their muslim immigration policy of the last 45 yrs.
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
  10. there may be simply no suitable answer from regardless of whether you have to or even In the event not. your greatest debate is, are i going to get what i want or perhaps. i going in order to loose an friend . http://www.mordocrosswords.com/2015/10/drawbridge-locale.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. What ho, Dip; what ho, what ho.

    I thought this might amuse you
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-3314166/Would-buy-Ford-Mustang-icon-available-right-hand-drive.html

    Note the wonderfully mongrel set of units we use in summarising a car's characteristics.

    Pip, pip.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rubio has no background as an executive, has been a participant in amnesty schemes, and has lied through his teeth about his collaboration with Charles Schumer et al., and has very little prepolitical career apart from a few years in solo law practice. No sale. Ever.

    ReplyDelete