A DEEP DISH DIFFERENCE

At last conservatives were treated to a somewhat fair debate in which the candidates, not the moderators, were able to characterize their political positions. I used the word, somewhat, only because some questions were fools fodder such as "Which Democrat do you most admire?" and also because the moderatos failed to control the time (Kasich) more equitably.

Governor of LA Bobby Jindal set the centerpiece on the debate table in the first tier by expressing that conservatism, itself, is under assault, by both the left and the right. Big bloated government is a product created by both political parties and unless a true conservative with constitutional values is elected little will change in Washington.

That theme carried into the frontrunner tier debates with Cruz, Fiorina and Paul all marking out a territory that defined genuine conservative principles as opposed to Republican-light policies. In fact, Rand Paul's debate within the debate of Marco Rubio's proposed child tax credit that would cost close to a trillion dollars, was an important voter compare and contrast moment, between the old establishment GOP thinking and the real ideals of conservatism.

Rubio may be young and articulate but his ideas are straight from the backroom, boardroom and Washington lobby-room that so infuriates American voters who feel betrayed by the beltway. Elitists conservatism isn't conservative and has only two purposes at its core, raising political money by pleasing donors and winning elections to keep the status quo safe.

Rubio keeps the IRS and the tax code safe and takes a page from the Democrat's give-a-way something for votes playbook, by calling for a child tax credit increase while slyly masking it to voters as not a new handout (which it is) but using his fast talking rhetoric to suggest it is a program to support family. Really Marco, does the government need to give Americans a tax credit to raise their families properly? 

The subterfuge of fraudulent politicians is not always easy for the voters to spot, which is why good debates that pit the policies of candidates rather than personalities of candidates, proves their value to voters. Rand Paul might not be your choice as a candidate but he was exactly correct to call out Rubio, and challenge him to explain how a big government give-a-way can be called a conservative idea. It isn't, and Marco Rubio may have a smooth tongue but on immigration, the economy and on foreign policy his candidacy is the lump of clay lobbyists hope wins the White House.

Voters also learned another key difference between genuine conservative and the faux candidates on stage. Jeb Bush and John Kasich would bail out the big banks and Cruz would not. Neil Cavuto looked at Ted Cruz with incredulity when he responded that he would not bail out the Bank of America if it were to fail, asking him the question again, as if to suggest that Cruz might want to change his answer given the financial hurt it would cause depositors.

That was when John Kasich interrupted, again, as he had all night long, like an obnoxious drama queen that had the loudest laugh at the party, making everyone ask "Who invited him?". Worse Kasich's answer to the bank bailout question was incomprehensible and had more gobble in it than the our upcoming Thanksgiving day bird. 

Still it was Ted Cruz who gave the correct conservative answer to the bailout question, which is a simple, no. The same answer to why General Motors should not have been bailed out.

Either you favor crony capitalism, corporatism and too big to fail socialism or you are a free enterprise promoter of a fair marketplace in which government plays its only role as an ethical arbiter through laws and regulations. Either you favor base-line budgeting or as Carly Fiorina suggested we have zero based budgeting where the government must do the same ledger math, as people and business do in the real world. Either you favor allowing illegal aliens to ignore our laws and still be granted citizenship as it seems Bush, Rubio, Kasich believe or you believe that they must suffer deportation which so far only Trump advocates. We did not hear from Fiorina, Paul, Cruz and Carson on the deportation question.  

Which leads to another criticism I had for the FBN Debates, which is on this very substantive issue as immigration certainly is, we should have heard comments from all the candidates on what to do with our growing illegal immigration problem. Perhaps some have some new ideas yet to be considered, but we need to hear all the candidates comment in order to choose wisely.

So who won the debate? Voters.

 

Clearly with a better panel of moderators, asking more substantive questions, allowed the voters to win this one. We certainly came closer to seeing the deep dish issue differences between the posers, frauds and faux conservatives versus the true constitutional based conservative ideals with freedom as one of its basic principles that founded our nation. One of these candidates will receive our approval to beat back the social progressives destroying the country. Will we chose a thin crusted pretender or deep dish principled advocate? The debate goes on.