politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: CNN turns GOP debate into aggravating, irrelevant snoozefest -- as planned
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news ... s-gop-debate-aggravating-irre/
Published: Dec 15, 2015
Author: Charles Hurt
Post Date: 2015-12-16 08:22:46 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 4914
Comments: 20
There were, literally, more candidates on stage for Tuesday night’s Republican debate than there were at a Jeb! Bush debate watching “party” in Miami. Once again, in the name of “fairness,” the media has utterly swindled the GOP. By keeping the stage crammed with a couple of actual front-runners and cluttered with has-been also-rans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, debate moderators are managing to do what once seemed impossible: Boring voters even though real estate mogul Donald Trump is still on the debate stage. They will stop at nothing to water down the goliath front-runner for the GOP nomination. Mr. Trump is ahead of the pack by a wider margin than Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton, yet he is stuck scrounging for time on stage with at least five candidates who are getting beat in the polls by “margin of error.” Instead of a substantive debates with actual front-runners, we get these shoutfests with nine people, each one wasting their microphone time to complain about getting short-shrift or barking at one another over irrelevant details. The result is that they sound like a bunch of whining lunatics in an insane asylum having hysterical arguments over the remote control. Think “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” when Randle McMurphy just wants to watch the World Series: “Which one of you nuts has got any guts?” It doesn’t help that just about every question begins with, “Donald Trump said …” It is like some kind of therapy session for a group of people suffering from Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome. It got so bad Tuesday night that Mr. Trump himself finally called out moderators for making him a star of even the undercard GOP debate — that he wasn’t even in! “It was Trump this, Trump that,” Mr. Trump said, rolling his eyes. “I think it was very unprofessional.” Adding to the bizarreness was some person off camera who kept coughing and sniffling into a microphone. Was that one of the candidates? One of the moderators? Or was it some kind of special effect that was piped in from the outside? Message: GOP has sniffling, coughing fits. These people have been standing around on debate stages together so long that they have started morphing into one another — to varying degrees of success. Jeb! Bush tried stealing a page from Mr. Trump’s playbook by insulting his way to his party’s nomination. “He is a chaos candidate,” Jeb! said of Mr. Trump. A bunch of them have even starting dressing alike. Mr. Trump, Jeb!, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were all wearing a white shirt, red tied and blue suit. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, being an executive, eschewed the white shirt for a pale blue one. But everything else was the same. Thankfully, there was Ben Carson, being different and wearing a pinstripe (blue) suit and a patterned blue tie. Then he opened his mouth and sounded like a graduate student badly flunking foreign affairs who had stayed up all night cramming for an exam. But when he started talking about “terrorist malpractice,” it was time to change the channel away from the good doctor and the 2016 GOP field. Just as the media wants.
(1 image) LAS VEGAS — Stop the madness. These debates cannot go on. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
I didn't think it was boring. I think it was one of the better debates.
Kasich was a dumb ass.
Fiorian was like a red bird moving and shaking her beak.
Chris Christie looked good, and looked like a mob boss. He did ok, and I don' care for him.
Rubio looked like some little gay guy. He is very feminine. He looked pissed and was visibly shaken many times. Paul and Cruz got the best of him.
Ben Carson did ok too. I like when he told the moderator to let Ted Cruz and Rubio answer the question of who won their exchange.
Bush was a dork.
Rand Paul had his best debate yet. I liked the Ted Cruz Rand Pual slugfest on feminine Rubio.
Donald Trump did good in the debate too. He had good answers and ideas. Looked like he was in charge.
Ted Cruz did better then any of them. He repeatedly hit Rubio. On immigration he made Rubio look like a liar and a liberal. Ted Cruz also probably got some Rand Paul supporters whith his defense of the Bill of Rights. I thought Rubio was starting to cry once in his attempted comeback whith his squeaking like a girl.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Rubio looked like some little gay guy.
Rubio looked like some little gay pool boy.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
"Rubio looked like some little gay guy.'
Metrosexual is the term, I believe.
Rubio was poised and a very good speaker. Plus, he was a human encyclopedia. He delivers his message well ... I just don't like his message.
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
Who brought up the Geneva Convention -- was that Rand Paul? Trump was talking about retaliating against the families of terrorists, and up pops Paul with his Marquess of Queensberry rules of fighting.
When my enemy does not wear a uniform, is willing to commit suicide, and his main target is innocent women and children, there are no rules.
#5. To: misterwhite., TooConservative (#4)
Who brought up the Geneva Convention -- was that Rand Paul? Trump was talking about retaliating against the families of terrorists, and up pops Paul with his Marquess of Queensberry rules of fighting.
When my enemy does not wear a uniform, is willing to commit suicide, and his main target is innocent women and children, there are no rules.
Besides ,by now it is clear that Trump meant that we should not worry about collateral damage when the IS leadership uses their own families as human shields . Trump has also made it clear that the mother of Syed Rizwan Farook who must've known about his plans should not be immune.
Also agree that Geneva convention only applies to jihadistan in that they are unlawful combattants under Geneva rules.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#6. To: TooConservative (#0)
Enjoyed the undercard much more . I think it definitely has a lot to do with the number of participants. They should not be allowing the networks to host their debates. Instead the RNC should host the debate and allow any network that wants to cover it to do so. Maybe they could run round robin debates as an alternative.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#7. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Message: GOP has sniffling, coughing fits.
Actually, that was Carson. Apparently, he had a chest cold and coughed and sniffled through the whole debate. It's part of why he didn't get a lot of questions.
As with Nixon in '60, a bad cold can really hurt a campaign. It may be fatal for Carson's campaign.
Rand Paul had his best debate yet. I liked the Ted Cruz Rand Pual slugfest on feminine Rubio.
I dunno. I'm a fairly big Rand fan but I read him as knowing that he isn't going to be the nominee, that 2016 just is not going to be his year. Cruz has sucked up some of his constitutional voters because Cruz is really terrific at that, loves talking Constitution any time. You may recall that Paul's campaign announced last week that if they got dropped from the main debate, they would have a campaign announcement. Well, he got included in the main debate a few days later and no one had any campaign announcement. It seems almost like Rand blackmailed CNN to keep him on the main stage or he'd quit the race.
Anyway, something about Rand tells me that he knows his campaign for prez in 2016 is dead and he needs to lock in his Senate seat, try to elect other Republicans, the usual team player stuff.
Rand is young, like Cruz, like Rubio. They can live to fight another day, unlike Trump and Bush who have to win now or they'll be way too old.
#8. To: misterwhite (#4)
Who brought up the Geneva Convention -- was that Rand Paul? Trump was talking about retaliating against the families of terrorists, and up pops Paul with his Marquess of Queensberry rules of fighting.
Uh-huh.
What about the bin Laden family. Osama had something like 53 brothers and sisters. A half-dozen of them and their kids were here in the States on 9/11. Do you and Trump just want to grab them and execute them without due process?
When my enemy does not wear a uniform, is willing to commit suicide, and his main target is innocent women and children, there are no rules.
Yes, there are rules. The civilized nations respect and observe the basic Conventions because it provides protections for civilians in war zones as well as basic protections for soldiers. But always remember that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to non-uniformed combatants. To be protected by them, a combatant must be in uniform. This is why our special forces and CIA personnel who do sometimes operate inside hostile countries and are not in uniform are fully exposed to torture and execution. They have no protections at all from their captors.
You saw how Jordan reacted after their pilot got burned alive in that cage. Imagine how America would react if it was an American pilot. Let's say, one of the new female pilots who are now cleared for combat. Fire would come from the sky, I think. America would avenge itself in a major way. Like with a firestorm bombing of Raqqa.
#9. To: misterwhite (#3)
Rubio was poised and a very good speaker. Plus, he was a human encyclopedia. He delivers his message well ... I just don't like his message.
I keep noticing too. It isn't a bad strategy, given the state of the race. Mentally, he's pretty agile, maybe more so than Cruz is in a political debate. And in interviews, he can be downright charming, even while on the offensive against lib pundits with a list of gotcha questions. In fact, that is the single most effective venue for Rubio. None of the others come close at taking on hostile libmedia interviewers and deflecting them while having some charm. Some serious Teflon.
I'm not sure it's such a liability for a candidate like Rubio to have been a handsome young athletic guy. A lot of low-information voters who decide at the last minute decide on likability and who looks good. I always think this can easily account for 5% of the vote, perhaps more when the candidates are quite similar in most of their policy ideas.
Here we see Coach Rubio putting his son's team through their drill.
I don't like Rubio but I can see why a lot of people would.
#10. To: TooConservative (#8)
"What about the bin Laden family. Osama had something like 53 brothers and sisters. A half-dozen of them and their kids were here in the States on 9/11. Do you and Trump just want to grab them and execute them without due process?"
What I wouldn't do, and what Trump has stated, is have the FBI escort them to a private charter plane to leave the country.
#11. To: TooConservative (#9)
"None of the others come close at taking on hostile libmedia interviewers and deflecting them while having some charm."
True. But I noticed last night, when he'd finish talking, I asked myself, "What did he say?"
I mean, I know there was a question, I know he answered it, but I'll be damned if I could tell you what the answer was.
Ask about ISIS and Rubio will give you a well-reasoned 24-page position paper on his solution. Ask Trump and he responds, "I'll bomb the shit out of them. And take their oil".
#12. To: misterwhite (#4)
When my enemy does not wear a uniform, is willing to commit suicide, and his main target is innocent women and children, there are no rules.
Very true. If they want to have a war against civilian populations we can see who is better at it, them or us.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
True. But I noticed last night, when he'd finish talking, I asked myself, "What did he say?"
He does better with a canned attack line, like the one in the last debate where he rocked Jeb back on his heels by telling him he had been given bad advice to attack Rubio. Of course, Jeb had telegraphed his attack on Rubio in the press earlier in the day so Rubio was just waiting to deliver one of a half-dozen rehearsed lines.
As I said, Rubio is strongest in the TV panel interview format. Most of these pols who pulled out an upset victory have a talent area like this. For Christie, it is undoubtedly the townhall format where he excels. He can work a crowd like Xlinton did.
#14. To: TooConservative, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#0)
There is some speculation that Jeb! bussed in loads of Mormons from nearby Utah. $50 million will buy a lot of Rent-a-Fanbois.
That much applause for Jed! has to be fake!
Hugh Hewitt asked the worst, most biased questions ever.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#15. To: hondo68 (#14)
That much applause for Jed! has to be fake!
Jed! Clampett is running? I might have a new first choice.
#16. To: TooConservative (#0)
Mr. Trump is ahead of the pack by a wider margin than Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton, yet he is stuck scrounging for time on stage with at least five candidates who are getting beat in the polls by “margin of error.”
"beat in the polls by "margain of error"?
OUCH!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#17. To: sneakypete (#16)
I thought the article was delightfully mean-spirited.
#18. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#11)
True. But I noticed last night, when he'd finish talking, I asked myself, "What did he say?"I mean, I know there was a question, I know he answered it, but I'll be damned if I could tell you what the answer was.
Yeah, what was Rubio's answer on whether he supported a path to citizenship?
When directly asked the question about supporting the path to citizenship for illegal aliens, Marco Rubio talked at length without answering the question.
Dana Bash followed up with "Senator, you haven't answered the question. You described a very long path but does that path end at citizenship?" This was met by Rubio saying "I've answered that question repeatedly," and then proceeding to evade the question yet again by stating, "I am personally open -- after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card."
Where did this gobbledygook about being open to allowing people to apply for a green card come from? What happened to the path to citizenship?
As a member of the gang of eight, Rubio supported a path to citizenship. In June, when explicitly asked if he support a path to citizenship, Rubio responded, I do."
Rubio and "act of love" Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio: 'I Do' Support a Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants
Published on Jun 26, 2015
Details of the Gang of Eight Bill
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7X1aYvubs0GSkxSQjNJQm14ZlE/edit?pref=2&pli=1
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Regugee Rights
Senate “Gang of 8” Immigration Bill (S. 744)On June 27, 2013, the US Senate passed the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act.” This bill includes a path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants as well as several other major changes to our immigration system.
Path to citizenship: Undocumented immigrants who were in the US before December 31, 2011, could start a four-step process that will lead to US citizenship:
- They would first apply for “registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status, which would allow them live and work in the US for six years. To apply, they must pay a $1,000 fine and pass a background check.
- After six years, they would need to pass another background check and meet certain work or educational requirements to renew their RPI status.
- After ten years of RPI status, they could then apply for green cards if they pay another $1,000 fine, pass another background check, meet further work and English requirements.
- Immigrants on this track would then qualify for citizenship after three years of green card status.
- - - - -
At last night's debate:
BASH: Thank you, Dr. Carson. We've been talking tonight about programs and policy proposals that you all have to keep Americans safe and it's a big discussion on the campaign trail. Also about border security and immigration. So let's talk about immigration. Senator Rubio. You co-authored a bill with Democrats two years ago that allowed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Do you still support that path to citizenship, which means giving those immigrants rights, like the right to vote?RUBIO: Yeah. Immigration is not an issue that I read about in the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS or CNN. It's an issues I've lived around my whole life. My family are immigrants. My wife's family are immigrants. All of my neighbors are immigrants.
I see every aspect of this problem. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And here's what we learned in 2013. The American people don't trust the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws, and we will not be able to do anything on immigration until we first prove to the American people that illegal immigration is under control. And we can do that. We know what it takes to do that.
It takes at least 20,000 more additional border agents. It takes completing those 700 miles of fencing. It takes a mandatory e-verify system and a mandatory entry/exit tracking system to prevent overstays. After we have done that, the second thing we have to do is reform and modernize the legal immigration system. And after we have done those two things, I think the American people are gonna be reasonable with what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 10 or 12 years who hasn't otherwise violated our laws -- because if they're a criminal they can't stay. They'll have to undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes. And ultimately, they'll given a work permit and that's all they're gonna be allowed to have for at least 10 years. But you can't get to that third step until you have done the other two things, and that was the lesson we learned in 2013. There is no trust that the Federal Government will enforce the law. They will not support you until you see it done first.
BASH: Senator, you haven't answered the question. You described a very long path but does that path end at citizenship?
RUBIO: But I've answered that question repeatedly. I am personally open -- after all that has happened and after ten years in that probationary status where all they have is a permit, I personally am open to allowing people to apply for a green card. That may not be a majority position in my party, but that's down the road. You can't even begin that process until you prove to people -- not just pass a law that says you're gonna bring illegal immigration under control. You're gonna have to do it and prove to people that it's working. And that was the lesson of 2013. And it's more true today, than it was then. After a migratory crisis on the border with minors coming over that you're seeing start up again now, after all these executive orders the President has issued. More than ever we need to...
BASH: Thank you, senator.
RUBIO: ... prove to people that illegal immigration is under control.
BASH: Thank you, senator. Senator Cruz.
(APPLAUSE)
#19. To: nolu chan (#18) (Edited)
Yeah, what was Rubio's answer on whether he supported a path to citizenship?When directly asked the question about supporting the path to citizenship for illegal aliens, Marco Rubio talked at length without answering the question.
Ah. Obviously, Rubio confused the issue masterfully. What else could he do?
His opponents can keep referring to the Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill. Which is what it was. Rand hit him with it, Cruz did too.
So he tries to find something, anything, that involves Cruz and Schumer. "Ted, you once said 'good morning, Senator' to Chuck Schumer and you still dare to call yourself a conservative?"
I look for Rubio to continue to stonewall on his Gang of Eight amnesty bill. But Cruz is gonna be a pitball and lock his jaws on that. It worked well for Cruz last night.
#20. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
might have a new first choice
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron PaulTop • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]