I flipped the channel last night between my favorite series (the James Spader draw), Donald Trump’s rally and veterans’ fundraiser, and the GOP debate in Des Moines.
I predicted Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) would go mano a mano, and they did. I also asserted Trump would gain by not being there. He did.
In addition to those matters, candidates missed some rather glaring opportunities, and we should all bemoan the intrusive presence moderators have become in GOP debates regardless of the network.
I came to some conclusions. My favorite series, one of the only shows I watch on legacy networks, had a boring episode.
My other conclusions have to do with who has momentum, opportunities GOP candidates should seize, and questions about whether we have simply outgrown debates that set moderators in a position to advocate. There was also a misstep by one of the lower polling candidates once considered a shoo-in and a failure by other candidates to use it to their advantage.
The answers are obvious. Businessman Donald Trump gained because he avoided his customary position as group and moderator target. Trump capably redirected a great deal of media attention to his own event, abetted by lower tier candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.
As I watched the Trump event—Huckabee’s speaking style resonates with working class Americans for sure; he is a great storyteller—I couldn’t resist seeing Santorum as potential Labor Dept. secretary and Huckabee as head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Trump gained in another way as well, just as I predicted.
RUBIO VS. CRUZ
Trump’s absence left only one option for the two senators in second and third positions. Rubio and Cruz were forced into open confrontation. Let me say I’ve seen pundits, quite a few on the left, dismiss Rubio. That is a mistake. One big foul-up by Trump would advance Rubio. The young Florida senator is (repeating) charismatic, capable, and just enough to the right to not alienate the base but not so far right the left could legitimately be up in arms.
A reminder to the hard right. The US president is leader of a country that is a mix of political ideologies. Most Americans are, I think, in the middle. The far wings of both major parties rarely acknowledge this, but the White House cannot be secured by running a hard core ideologue.
Ideology is fine. I respect that. But unwavering ideology is not a practical basis for governance. That is exactly why Democrats have failed to not only unite the US but to govern effectively.
As I predicted in a buy modafinil online canada by having his opposition duel with each other, saving him the trouble.
Now I have come under fire from many who get red in the face and rant about Rubio’s so-called “amnesty” bill. I have acknowledged the popularly labeled buy modafinil online sun pharma bill was not a good piece of legislation. It wasn’t and that is something Rubio acknowledged long ago. After all, he had the sense to walk away.
What is really needed on the topic politicians misleadingly call ‘immigration’ is common sense and upholding, rather than breaking, federal laws.
Our current problem isn’t immigration, it is migration. As past amnesties and legalization initiatives indicate, not all foreign nationals want to assimilate or become citizens.
We should start by demanding reform be done incrementally. As the behemoth PPACA/Obamacare bill showed, when Congress and the president collude on a massive bill stuffed with unknowns, they deliberately screw ‘We the people.’
Before any so-called reform occurs, the border should be secured and visa overstays should be addressed.
Solutions could include, but are not limited to:
*A census of undocumented foreign nationals. Should they choose not to register or participate, the penalty would be deportation and no hope of legalization.
*Changing our policies in accordance with Rubio’s paradigm. Admit people who will benefit our country, focusing on those with high skills. However, adhering to the standard of non-displacement for US workers should be a prerequisite. We need physicians (some of the best come from Russia in my opinion), we need high tech wizards, and so forth and so on. We do not have, however, a problem filling positions in hospitality and other industries. Also put some sort of restraints on chain migration. No, families should not be separated, but yes, there should be limits and those limits should be enforced.
*Abolish welfare for immigrants. We would of course need to keep assistance for refugees, but they are a different class than those who break laws to come across the border or overstay a visa. Refine definitions for refugees. Right now, almost anyone can assert he or she is a refugee and the government will oblige.
*Provide to the American people a breakdown of the US prison population’s foreign national count. Charge countries whose citizens come here illegally to commit crimes, and that can easily be done by offsetting costs against aid funded by the US taxpayer.
*Conduct an investigation of agencies responsible for immigration. There is undeniable corruption within these federal agencies and that should be addressed.
*Temporarily halt incoming from countries where terrorist groups are active. Trump was right when he said, “We don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” or something along those lines. Until executive branch officials can assure us we are not encouraging criminals or terrorists, and until we have an accountable system, simply halt the flow.
We have a migration problem, not an immigration problem.
ACKNOWLEDGE THE DYNASTY ISSUE FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush has struggled to gain traction with the broad base, and without exception, dozens of Republicans I’ve talked to are concerned about vesting that kind of power in one family. As Bush acknowledged last night in a tone suggesting bravado, his father and his brother have served as president.
Bush’s fellow contenders did not take advantage of his bringing that fact to center stage. Nor have any GOP candidates pointed out thebuy modafinil singaporein the White House.
Returning power to families who have wielded vast power and influence is a risk for the republic. That is a topic no moderator has brought up and no candidates have exploited.
MODERATORS AS KEY PLAYERS, VIDEO AS TOOL FOR BIAS
Fox News not only permitted moderators to assume roles as players in the debate, the network also used videos indicating candidates have changed positions on various issues. I can think of no candidate, including President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush, who hasn’t contradicted himself. Using gotcha tactics is fine in a direct interview where the candidate has time to put things in context and fully rebut. Using them in a debate is not acceptable.
When I see networks show video of Hillary Clinton’s contradictory statements, perhaps I will change my mind. Networks not only ignore her fabrications, they ignore outrageous statements such as something she said during the Benghazi hearings in October, 2015 before the US House Select Committee. After her testimony, legacy media leapt with joy—she handled those nasty Republican questions and triumphed!
How disgusting can media get? How low can this government auxiliary get? During that same hearing, as Reason magazine pointed out in the March, 2016 print issue (pg. 24), Mrs. Clinton asserted:
“[T]he murdered cartoonists of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo ‘sparked’ their own assassination by drawing caricatures of Mohammed—the free expression equivalent of blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts.”
That Democrats can entertain electing a woman who not only has already played a key role in the quagmire our US government has become but who so violently shreds the First Amendment to the US Constitution suggests the party has absolutely no moral core whatsoever. If you cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton, stuff a gag in your mouth because that is what she will do if elected and you should get used to it.
Debates should be a free, unscripted exchange between candidates, with candidates guiding those exchanges. Debates should never be about moderators, some of whom are simply interested in advancing their own brand. We should reform the entire debate enterprise because the primary beneficiaries are networks and media outlets who stand to gain the most from the candidate with the biggest war chest.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
Last night’s winners, in my humble opinion, were Trump, Rubio, and Kentucky senator Rand Paul. Trump won because one of his competitors damaged another and the businessman was nowhere in sight. Rubio won because he came off as presidential, thoughtful, and likable. Paul won because his pragmatic approach to the bureaucracy and the economy makes sense and his level-headed manner was admirable.
I’ve written that I believe this election is the GOP’s to lose. All candidates should bear that in mind as they spar, and not fall for networks’ World of Wrestling approach. Democrats thus far have taken pains to not inflict permanent damage on any of their candidates, though that could change if a miracle occurs and Bernie Sanders is given a real chance to compete with Hillary Clinton.
As it now stands, in my opinion, the competition will shift to a Trump vs. Rubio duel. Trump has already backed off a bit on his initial platform for power—a hardline stance on what politicians call ‘immigration.’ That soft retreat provides Rubio an excellent opportunity.
buy modafinil paypal will be interesting and likely be top of the fold in coming weeks. Trump remains the frontrunner. For now. But Rubio should not be dismissed. I suspect he is just getting started.
Featured image on front page: Photo of White House from Carol M. Highsmith’s America; US Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Div.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/January 29, 2016)
Note: I have not endorsed a candidate and I will not endorse one until the primaries conclude. I have written numerous articles about Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul. You can access them via the search bar in the left column.
Please help us continue to keep our site online by donating a small amount via the PayPal link in the right column. We don’t run ads from major search engines or third parties on this site. Please share our articles on social media; indie sites don’t get much link love from search engines aligned with the left. Follow us on Twitter @DayontheDay. We are entirely funded by readers and the editor.