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.
