Now as always, the rules:
The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.
Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the last debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th inmy previous analysis.
Now of course Trump skipped the last debate...so I am going to have a special notification for him.
#7 Marco Rubio (3/6)
Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.
Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.
Marco Rubio's debate performance was bad, one of the worst Ive ever seen.
Uh sorry, got caught in a Rubio-loop.
Seriously though who could forget this:
"And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world."
this:
"But I would add this. Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country."
and this:
"Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing."
It seems that was literally his answer for EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. Did I mention by the way these were all taken from the opening like 5 minutes of the debate?
The first was in reference to his inexperience, the second in reply to Chris Christie agreeing Rubio was inexperenced, and the 3rd......well actually you go to see the 3rd to believe it so here it is in context (which is mostly Govenor Christie)
"CHRISTIE: I think he mentioned me and my record in there, so I think I get a chance to respond. You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this. That's what Washington, D.C. Does. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him. See Marco -- Marco, the thing is this. When you're president of the United States, when you're a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person. They expect you to plow the snow. They expect you to get the schools open. And when the worst natural disaster in your state's history hits you, they expect you to rebuild their state, which is what I've done.
None of that stuff happens on the floor of the United States Senate. It's a fine job, I'm glad you ran for it, but it does not prepare you for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
MUIR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Chris -- Chris, your state got hit by a massive snowstorm two weeks ago. You didn't even want to go back. They had to shame you into going back.And then you stayed there for 36 hours and then he left and came back to campaign. Those are the facts.
Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing.
CHRISTIE: There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody."
Thats right, he go to response that he had memorized and was only able to give that one reply......was to do it a 3rd time.
*faceplam*
Christie by the way also took issue with claim that New Jersey had to shame him into going back for the blizzard.....and that did end well for Rubio either:
CHRISTIE: Oh, so -- wait a second. Is that one of the skills you get as a United States senator ESP also? Because I don't think it is.
RUBIO: Chris, everybody -- you said you weren't going to go back. He told everyone he wasn't going to go back. They had to shame him into going back. And when he decided to go back, he criticized the young lady, saying, what am I supposed to do, go back with a mop and clean up the flooding?
CHRISTIE: It gets very unruly when he gets off his talking points.
Seriously, 7 or 8 minutes into the debate, and the only way Marco Rubio wasnt going to be at the bottom of my list......and EVERYONE else's was to have a fantasic debate from there out.
So how'd he do?
Well he was asked if the US should have launched a preemptive strike against a North Korean Missile, his response:
"Here's the broader point, as well, and then I think it touches on what Donald just mentioned. Barack Obama views America as this arrogant global power that needed to be cut down to size. OK? This is a president that views this country as a country that's been too powerful in the world and we create problems around the world."
That sounds kinda familiar......although credit for changing the wording?
Or when challenged by Chris Christie....again....over his handling of the gang of eight immigration bill:
"Well, here's the response. I think anyone who believes that Barack Obama isn't doing what he's doing on purpose doesn't understand what we're dealing with here, OK? This is a president -- this is a president who is trying to change this country."
Oh for fucks sake.....
So how'd he do?
Well he was asked if the US should have launched a preemptive strike against a North Korean Missile, his response:
"Here's the broader point, as well, and then I think it touches on what Donald just mentioned. Barack Obama views America as this arrogant global power that needed to be cut down to size. OK? This is a president that views this country as a country that's been too powerful in the world and we create problems around the world."
That sounds kinda familiar......although credit for changing the wording?
Or when challenged by Chris Christie....again....over his handling of the gang of eight immigration bill:
"Well, here's the response. I think anyone who believes that Barack Obama isn't doing what he's doing on purpose doesn't understand what we're dealing with here, OK? This is a president -- this is a president who is trying to change this country."
Oh for fucks sake.....
#6 Ben Carson (4/7)
I do have to give Rubio Credit for one thing though....at least he made it to the start of the debate before massively fucking up, I cant say the same for the good doctor:
his first question was about his reaction to Ted Cruz lying about him dropping out.
To which his reply was:
Well, you know, when I wasn't introduced No. 2, as was the plan, I thought maybe he thought I already had dropped out. But...
Um, yea, you WERE introduced second.....you just apparently got lost or something coming down the aisle.
I do have to give Rubio Credit for one thing though....at least he made it to the start of the debate before massively fucking up, I cant say the same for the good doctor:
And its not like things went much better for Carson once he got there:
his first question was about his reaction to Ted Cruz lying about him dropping out.
To which his reply was:
Well, you know, when I wasn't introduced No. 2, as was the plan, I thought maybe he thought I already had dropped out. But...
Um, yea, you WERE introduced second.....you just apparently got lost or something coming down the aisle.
But you know, today is the 105th anniversary, or -- 105th birthday of Ronald Reagan. His 11 Commandment was not to speak ill of another Republican. So, I'm not going to use this opportunity to savage the reputation of Senator Cruz. But I will say -- I will say -- I will say that I was very disappointed that members of his team thought so little of me that they thought that after having hundreds, if not thousands of volunteers and college students who sacrificed their time and were dedicated to the cause -- one even died -- to think that I would just walk away ten minutes before the caucus and say, "Forget about you guys."
I mean, who would do something like that? Now, I don't think anyone on this stage would do something like that. And to assume that someone would, what does that tell you? So, unfortunately, it did happen.
I mean, who would do something like that? Now, I don't think anyone on this stage would do something like that. And to assume that someone would, what does that tell you? So, unfortunately, it did happen.
Translation: So I'm not going to talk bad about Senator Cruz.....except I am. But I dont believe anyone on this stage would do that intentionally. But they did
Um What?
Um What?
Now to be fair to Carson the other times he spoke he didnt actually do that bad...hence why hes ahead of Rubio. Problem is, he only spoke about 5 more times in the debate.....mostly clustered towards the end of the 2nd hour. So yea, the whole "not taking" debate stratigey has never really worked well in my opinion
#5 Ted Cruz (2/3)
Right out of the box Ted Cruz backpeddled in awe of Donald Trump. This was his opening question:
"MUIR: Mr. Trump, thank you. I want to bring this to Senator Cruz, then. Because Senator, you did said of Trump's behavior this week, that's not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe. Why not?
CRUZ: Well, you know, David, the assessment the voters are making here in New Hampshire and across the country is they are evaluating each and every one of us. They are looking to our experience. They are looking to our knowledge. They are looking to our temperament and judgment. They are looking to our clarity of vision and our strength of resolve.
The world is getting much more dangerous. We've had seven years with Barack Obama in the oval office, a commander-in-chief that is unwilling even to acknowledge the enemy we're facing. This is a president who, in the wake of Paris, in the wake of San Bernardino, will not even use the words radical Islamic terrorism, much less focus on defeating the enemy.
I am convinced every individual standing on this stage, would make a much better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
(APPLAUSE)
And the primary voters are making the assessment for each of us, who is best prepared to keep this country safe, to rebuild the military, to rebuild our Navy, our Air Force, our Army, our Marines, and to ensure that we keep America safe.
MUIR: Senator Cruz, I did ask about Mr. Trump. You said he doesn't have the temperament to be commander-in-chief. Do you stand by those words?
CRUZ: I think that is an assessment the voters are going to make. And they are going to make it of each and everyone of us. They are going to assess who is level-headed, who has clear vision, who has judgment, who can confront our enemies, who can confront the threats we face in this country, and who can have the judgment when to engage and when not to engage -- both are incredibly important for a commander-in-chief, knowing how to go after our enemies.
In the case of Iran, for example, who has the clarity of vision to understand that the Ayatollah Khamenei, when he chants, "Death to America," he means it. We need a president with the judgment and resolve to keep this country safe from radical Islamic terrorists."
He went on from there to channel his inner Newt Gingrich in his anwer to the "should we preemtively shoot down a north korean missile question, his reply was yes because:
"As it would orbit around the Earth, and as it got over the United States they would detonate that nuclear weapon and set of what's called an EMP, and electromagnetic pulse which could take down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern seaboard, potentially killing millions."
Except that, no one has the ability to do that yet.......especially not North Korea. But i'm glad to see the crazy that was Newt Gingrich lives.
Right out of the box Ted Cruz backpeddled in awe of Donald Trump. This was his opening question:
"MUIR: Mr. Trump, thank you. I want to bring this to Senator Cruz, then. Because Senator, you did said of Trump's behavior this week, that's not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe. Why not?
CRUZ: Well, you know, David, the assessment the voters are making here in New Hampshire and across the country is they are evaluating each and every one of us. They are looking to our experience. They are looking to our knowledge. They are looking to our temperament and judgment. They are looking to our clarity of vision and our strength of resolve.
The world is getting much more dangerous. We've had seven years with Barack Obama in the oval office, a commander-in-chief that is unwilling even to acknowledge the enemy we're facing. This is a president who, in the wake of Paris, in the wake of San Bernardino, will not even use the words radical Islamic terrorism, much less focus on defeating the enemy.
I am convinced every individual standing on this stage, would make a much better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
(APPLAUSE)
And the primary voters are making the assessment for each of us, who is best prepared to keep this country safe, to rebuild the military, to rebuild our Navy, our Air Force, our Army, our Marines, and to ensure that we keep America safe.
MUIR: Senator Cruz, I did ask about Mr. Trump. You said he doesn't have the temperament to be commander-in-chief. Do you stand by those words?
CRUZ: I think that is an assessment the voters are going to make. And they are going to make it of each and everyone of us. They are going to assess who is level-headed, who has clear vision, who has judgment, who can confront our enemies, who can confront the threats we face in this country, and who can have the judgment when to engage and when not to engage -- both are incredibly important for a commander-in-chief, knowing how to go after our enemies.
In the case of Iran, for example, who has the clarity of vision to understand that the Ayatollah Khamenei, when he chants, "Death to America," he means it. We need a president with the judgment and resolve to keep this country safe from radical Islamic terrorists."
He went on from there to channel his inner Newt Gingrich in his anwer to the "should we preemtively shoot down a north korean missile question, his reply was yes because:
"As it would orbit around the Earth, and as it got over the United States they would detonate that nuclear weapon and set of what's called an EMP, and electromagnetic pulse which could take down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern seaboard, potentially killing millions."
Except that, no one has the ability to do that yet.......especially not North Korea. But i'm glad to see the crazy that was Newt Gingrich lives.
Then there was his answer about what to do about illegal immigration:z
" So, in terms of a practical solution, I've laid out the most detailed plan for solving illegal immigration. It's 11 pages, single-spaced, chapter and verse. It's on our website, tedcruz.org.
In short, we're going to do, we're going to build a wall. We're going to triple the border patrol. We're going to increase -- and actually, since Donald enjoyed that, I will simply say, I've got somebody in mind to build it.
We're going to increase four-fold, the fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, so that you have technology monitoring an attempted incursion to direct the boots on the ground where they're occurring. We're going to put in place a strong e-verify system in the workplace, so you can't get a job without proving you are here legally.
We'll put in place a biometric exit-entry system on visas, because 40 percent of illegal immigration comes not over the border illegally, but people coming on visas and overstaying."
So thats militarize the border, give donald trump a blowjob, and then give Christie a reach around on his idea of placing tracking chips in ALL immigrants.
Speaking of weird answers, we have his answer to is water boarding torture?
CRUZ: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems, so under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.
MUIR: If elected president, would you bring it back?
CRUZ: I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use. And indeed, I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels.
But when it comes to keeping this country safe, the commander in chief has inherent constitutional authority to keep this country safe. And so, if it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe.
No its not torture....but that said we cant just let ANYONE do it, cause they might do in a way that it is torture. but its not. So Id use it. but only when I absolutely have to cause you know it might be torture.
Its weird too, Cruz is the only guy to win a primary so far....so why was he running away from everything and trying to look like Trump? (AKA the guy he beat)
" So, in terms of a practical solution, I've laid out the most detailed plan for solving illegal immigration. It's 11 pages, single-spaced, chapter and verse. It's on our website, tedcruz.org.
In short, we're going to do, we're going to build a wall. We're going to triple the border patrol. We're going to increase -- and actually, since Donald enjoyed that, I will simply say, I've got somebody in mind to build it.
We're going to increase four-fold, the fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, so that you have technology monitoring an attempted incursion to direct the boots on the ground where they're occurring. We're going to put in place a strong e-verify system in the workplace, so you can't get a job without proving you are here legally.
We'll put in place a biometric exit-entry system on visas, because 40 percent of illegal immigration comes not over the border illegally, but people coming on visas and overstaying."
So thats militarize the border, give donald trump a blowjob, and then give Christie a reach around on his idea of placing tracking chips in ALL immigrants.
Speaking of weird answers, we have his answer to is water boarding torture?
CRUZ: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems, so under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.
MUIR: If elected president, would you bring it back?
CRUZ: I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use. And indeed, I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels.
But when it comes to keeping this country safe, the commander in chief has inherent constitutional authority to keep this country safe. And so, if it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe.
No its not torture....but that said we cant just let ANYONE do it, cause they might do in a way that it is torture. but its not. So Id use it. but only when I absolutely have to cause you know it might be torture.
Its weird too, Cruz is the only guy to win a primary so far....so why was he running away from everything and trying to look like Trump? (AKA the guy he beat)
#4 Donald Trump (1/wet his pants in fear of Megyn Kelly so didnt show up)
In fairness to Trump this was probably his best debate yet, so good in fact his performance was already made into a highly successful video on youtube:
Seriously if you take a shot every time Trump said win we'd all be dead.
But in between mentions of how he was "Duh. Winning" Trump did have a few stumbles.
For example he got the same question Rubio did about preemptive strikes against North Korean missiles and his answer was:
"We have -- tremendous -- has been just sucked out of our country by China. China says they don't have that good of control over North Korea. They have tremendous control. I deal with the Chinese all of the time. I do tremendous -- the largest bank in the world is in one of my buildings in Manhattan.
I deal with them. They tell me. They have total, absolute control, practically, of North Korea. They are sucking trillions of dollars out of our country -- they're rebuilding China with the money they take out of our country. I would get on with China, let China solve that problem."
Which isnt surprising really..China is Trump's go to word anytime something vaguely Asian sounding comes up.
Then there was the whole exchange on eminent domain, in which he got in fight with Jeb....and I tend to think Jeb got the best of it.
Trump: Well, let me just tell you about eminent domain because almost all of these people actually criticize it, but so many people have hit me with commercials and other things about eminent domain.
Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have hospitals, you wouldn't have anything. You wouldn't have schools, you wouldn't have bridges. You need eminent domain. And a lot of the big conservatives that tell me how conservative they are -- I think I'm more than they are -- they tell me, oh -- well, they all want the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, without eminent domain, it wouldn't go 10 feet, OK? You need eminent domain. And eminent domain is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And what a lot of people don't know because they were all saying, oh, you're going to take their property. When somebody -- when eminent domain is used on somebody's property, that person gets a fortune. They get at least fair market value, and if they are smart, they'll get two or three times the value of their property. But without eminent domain, you don't have roads, highways, schools, bridges or anything.
So eminent domain -- it's not that I love it, but eminent domain is absolutely -- it's a necessity for a country. And certainly it's a necessity for our country.
MCELVEEN: So would that be yes on the Northern Pass project?
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Yes.
BUSH: The difference -- the difference between eminent domain for public purpose -- as Donald said, roads and infrastructure, pipelines and all that -- that's for public purpose. But what Donald Trump did was use eminent domain to try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City. That is not public purpose, that is down right wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
And here's the problem with that. The problem was, it was to tear down -- it was to tear down -- it was to tear down the house...
TRUMP: Jeb wants to be -- he wants to be a tough guy tonight. I didn't take the property.
BUSH: And the net result was -- you tried.
TRUMP: I didn't take the property.
BUSH: And you lost in the court.
TRUMP: The woman ultimately didn't want to do that. I walked away.
BUSH: That is not true. And the simple fact is to turn this into a limousine parking lot for his casinos is a not public use.
(APPLAUSE)
And in Florida, based on what we did, we made that impossible. It is part of our Constitution. That's the better approach. That is the conservative approach.
MCELVEEN: Mr. Trump, take 30 seconds.
TRUMP: Well, let me just -- you know, he wants to be a tough guy. A lot of times, you'll have -- you'll have -- and it didn't work very well.
BUSH: How tough it is to take away property from an elderly woman?
TRUMP: A lot of time -- let me talk. Quiet. A lot of times -- a lot of times...
BUSH: How tough it is to take away a property from an elderly woman?
TRUMP: ... you -- let me talk. Let me talk. Quiet. A lot of times...
(BOOING)
... that's all of his donors and special interests out there.
(BOOING)
So -- it's what it is. That's what -- and by the way, let me just tell you, we needed tickets. You can't get them. You know who has the tickets for the -- I'm talking about, to the television audience? Donors, special interests, the people that are putting up the money.
(BOOING)
That's who it is. The RNC told us. We have all donors in the audience. And the reason they're not loving me...
(BOOING)
... the reason they're not -- excuse me. The reason they're not loving me is, I don't want their money. I'm going to do the right thing for the American public. I don't want their money. I don't need their money. And I'm the only one up here that can say that.
Eminent domain, the Keystone pipeline -- do you consider that a private job? Do you -- do you consider that...
BUSH: I consider it a public use.
TRUMP: No -- no, let me ask you, Jeb.
(BELL RINGS)
Do you consider the Keystone pipeline private?
BUSH: It's a public use. It's a public use.
TRUMP: Is it public or private?
BUSH: It's a public use. TRUMP: Real -- a public use?
BUSH: Yeah.
TRUMP: No, it's a private job.
BUSH: It's a public use.
TRUMP: It's a private job.
BUSH: Established by the courts -- federal, state courts.
TRUMP: You wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline that you want so badly without eminent domain.
lets break that down. Trump didn't have the greatest response to trying to take the elderly woman's house (his excuse being basically, "I failed"), and assuming everyone who disagreed with him in the crowd were basically paid Bush lackeys I dont think won him any fans with people watching at home or undecideds in the crowds. Then the weird bit at the end where he starts badgering Bush to give him an answer....even though Bush already did.....apparently the word "use" threw Trump off and confused him.
Then there was this bit, in a reply about what we should do about ISIS:
"We actually have a case where we don't want to bomb the oil, because we don't want to hurt -- pollute the atmosphere. Can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur or General Patton saying we can't bomb because we're gonna hurt the atmosphere?"
Actually as a matter of fact....yes I can. So can pretty much anyone else. Cause most military generals dont want to do something that could get their own men....or even worse their own civilian populations killed......like say poisoning the breathable air.
I guess Trump figures he's rich enough to buy canned air when it all runs out
But probably the strangest oddest thing Trump has said yet was here:
But we will galvanize the people of this country, and we will beat Hillary Clinton. Because -- assuming that she runs, by the way, how she gets away with the e-mail stuff is hard to believe. So, I don't know that she's going to be running. But on the assumption she runs...
Assuming she runs? shes been running for like a year or so now.....and its not like its an obscure fact, Im pretty sure EVERYONE in the country is aware of this.......or well ALMOST everyone it seems.
---------------------------------------------UPDATE---------------------------------------
So I missed this the original few times I watched the intro mishaps. But Donald Trump also didnt enter when called. I had thought he'd come out to try to help out Carson (who I assumed hadnt heard the stage hand).....but instead it appears he made the intentional choice NOT to enter the stage, as he wanted to go on last cause you know biggest spotlight.Anyways had I correctly caught this rather ugly display of pure ego and self centerism by Trumo BEFORE I published this this morning, Id have swapped him and Cruz in the rankings. Cause while it makes him look confused when going to help Carson, when viewed correctly it makes him look petty and insecure.....which he is but still
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 John Kaisch (7/5)
And now we finally reach the 1st of 3 candidates who had a stellar debate.
Kasich managed to do a great of expanding on his usually "i did great shit for ohio" by actually explaining some of his national policy ideas.
For example, what he would do on immigration:
"Well, you know, David, I -- I've just spent a lot of time here in this state, as I mentioned earlier, and we have to have practical solutions, just like we were just talking about a few minutes ago on North Korea. Look, the situation is, we need to finish the border. It has to be completed. Just like we lock our doors at night, the country has to be able to lock its doors. And we can have a guest worker program, where people can come in and out in an orderly way.
And then for the 11.5 million that are here, if they have not committed a crime since they've been here, I believe they ought to pay some back taxes, pay a fine, never get on the path to citizenship, but get legalization. It is not -- I couldn't even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they've been here, leaving their children in the house. I mean, that is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.
And secondly, I think at the end of the day, that Americans would support a plan like this. I think Congress would pass a plan to finish the border, guest worker, pay a fine, a path to legalization, and not citizenship. And we've got to get this done. And I will tell you this, within the first 100 days that I am president, I will put that proposal to the Congress. And I will tell you, as a former Congressman, and an executive, in Ohio, I can promise you that I believe you'll get the votes to pass that, and we can move on with that issue and protect our border. That's what I think.
Or policing, in which he actually made a case for bipartisanship:
"I wanted -- I wanted to say, look, this -- there can be a win-win here. I have formed a collaborative between police and community leaders because people have to respect law enforcement. A family doesn't want dad or mom going home in a box. And for our community leaders, many of them think the system not only works -- not only doesn't work for them, but it works against them.
And I created a big collaborative in Ohio made up of law enforcement, community leaders, the head of my public safety and a former Democrat, liberal Senate senator Nina Turner, run it. They got together, they made recommendations on recruiting, on hiring, on the use of deadly force and what we're about to do is to bring community and police together so we can have a win-win.
We need more win-wins in America and we don't have to pick one over another divide. We love the police, but we've got to be responsible to the people in the community. We have to do all of that."
Or his VA plan:
Josh, I mean, clearly, when a veteran comes home, they should get health care anywhere they want to go. In our state, which is what we should do in the country, you know, if they drive a truck from Kabul to Kandahar in Afghanistan, we say, you can drive a truck from Columbus to Cleveland, and you don't have to go get a license. We're going to hand you one.
And if you've got expertise in the military, we're going to give you college credit or community college credit for the things that you did for our country. And in addition to that, I'll tell you, one of the biggest things I think has to be done -- and I would do it as president -- the Pentagon has got to work with the returning soldier, sailor, along with the family, and we -- they're the most valuable employees in the country. I call them golden employees.
Everybody wants to hire a veteran. But there is a disconnect between the job openings and the veteran when the veteran comes back. The veteran is a leader. The veteran is strong. The veteran is drug free. There should be no unemployment among veterans.
And if the Pentagon will work with the veterans' services agencies all across this country, Josh, we can get people jobs and we can get them jobs quickly, get them their health care get them their college education. Let's lift them. They're the greatest people defending the United States of America and we need to take care of them, and we will. We will.
Really the only thing that hurt was his lack of speaking time. I havnt checked the numbers but I wouldnt be surprised to find out only Dr. Carson spoke less than he did. That said, I think he made a really positive impression with the time he did have.
Well except when he missed his intro.....but to be fair that was the theme of the night.
#2 Jeb! Bush (5/2)
There wasnt too much that stood out about Bush's performance this time around. At least outside of the whooping he gave Trump that I showed above. Other wise he more or less followed the usual "how to sell yourself in a debate" playbook and did a pretty good job playing up his personal accomplishments, but most of his "non Trump's an idiot" opinions sounded the exact same as Kaisch's and Christie's.
Which since they all had great debates, and gave strong answers means Bush did well. But it also means I cant give him the win since he didnt do much else to stand out.
#1 Chris Christie (6/1)
Christie is now the first person to be declared [by me] the winner of back to back debates this entire campaign season. And its mostly because he ate Marco Rubio for lunch (and I dont mean that as a fat joke, its the only expression that really conveys how badly he beat up Rubio).
He came across strong, never really said anything stupid, made no mistakes. Only real weakness was like most of the not Kaisch candidates he never gave any details. Still given that their is no real difference on many issues in the primaries this isnt a huge flaw, so I give him the edge over Bush, since his mauling of Marco Rubio was much much much more effective and more delivered in a way the voters will remember it than Bush's spat with Trump was.
Though if I did have to pick a "not killing off Marco Rubio" high light for Christie it would be this:
"Well, [John Kasich] deserves credit for his record on jobs. He's done a very good job as governor of Ohio. Never said that John hasn't. He's done a very good job.
But -- but unfortunately, John's been so busy doing over stuff, he's using old statistics. That's OK. New Jersey had its best year of job growth in the last 15 years under five different governors this year in New Jersey. New Jersey cut spending over $2.3 billion and we have 10,000 fewer employees than we had when I walked in the door. John has a bigger government now and more employees than he had when he walked in the door."
This is that 11th commandment all republicans are always talking about....where they dont attack each other in a way that would hurt the entire party....but also done in a way in which Christie can also strengthen himself.
If you believe the 11th commandment rule, I would say this should now be your textbook example.
And now we finally reach the 1st of 3 candidates who had a stellar debate.
Kasich managed to do a great of expanding on his usually "i did great shit for ohio" by actually explaining some of his national policy ideas.
For example, what he would do on immigration:
"Well, you know, David, I -- I've just spent a lot of time here in this state, as I mentioned earlier, and we have to have practical solutions, just like we were just talking about a few minutes ago on North Korea. Look, the situation is, we need to finish the border. It has to be completed. Just like we lock our doors at night, the country has to be able to lock its doors. And we can have a guest worker program, where people can come in and out in an orderly way.
And then for the 11.5 million that are here, if they have not committed a crime since they've been here, I believe they ought to pay some back taxes, pay a fine, never get on the path to citizenship, but get legalization. It is not -- I couldn't even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they've been here, leaving their children in the house. I mean, that is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.
And secondly, I think at the end of the day, that Americans would support a plan like this. I think Congress would pass a plan to finish the border, guest worker, pay a fine, a path to legalization, and not citizenship. And we've got to get this done. And I will tell you this, within the first 100 days that I am president, I will put that proposal to the Congress. And I will tell you, as a former Congressman, and an executive, in Ohio, I can promise you that I believe you'll get the votes to pass that, and we can move on with that issue and protect our border. That's what I think.
Or policing, in which he actually made a case for bipartisanship:
"I wanted -- I wanted to say, look, this -- there can be a win-win here. I have formed a collaborative between police and community leaders because people have to respect law enforcement. A family doesn't want dad or mom going home in a box. And for our community leaders, many of them think the system not only works -- not only doesn't work for them, but it works against them.
And I created a big collaborative in Ohio made up of law enforcement, community leaders, the head of my public safety and a former Democrat, liberal Senate senator Nina Turner, run it. They got together, they made recommendations on recruiting, on hiring, on the use of deadly force and what we're about to do is to bring community and police together so we can have a win-win.
We need more win-wins in America and we don't have to pick one over another divide. We love the police, but we've got to be responsible to the people in the community. We have to do all of that."
Or his VA plan:
Josh, I mean, clearly, when a veteran comes home, they should get health care anywhere they want to go. In our state, which is what we should do in the country, you know, if they drive a truck from Kabul to Kandahar in Afghanistan, we say, you can drive a truck from Columbus to Cleveland, and you don't have to go get a license. We're going to hand you one.
And if you've got expertise in the military, we're going to give you college credit or community college credit for the things that you did for our country. And in addition to that, I'll tell you, one of the biggest things I think has to be done -- and I would do it as president -- the Pentagon has got to work with the returning soldier, sailor, along with the family, and we -- they're the most valuable employees in the country. I call them golden employees.
Everybody wants to hire a veteran. But there is a disconnect between the job openings and the veteran when the veteran comes back. The veteran is a leader. The veteran is strong. The veteran is drug free. There should be no unemployment among veterans.
And if the Pentagon will work with the veterans' services agencies all across this country, Josh, we can get people jobs and we can get them jobs quickly, get them their health care get them their college education. Let's lift them. They're the greatest people defending the United States of America and we need to take care of them, and we will. We will.
Really the only thing that hurt was his lack of speaking time. I havnt checked the numbers but I wouldnt be surprised to find out only Dr. Carson spoke less than he did. That said, I think he made a really positive impression with the time he did have.
Well except when he missed his intro.....but to be fair that was the theme of the night.
#2 Jeb! Bush (5/2)
There wasnt too much that stood out about Bush's performance this time around. At least outside of the whooping he gave Trump that I showed above. Other wise he more or less followed the usual "how to sell yourself in a debate" playbook and did a pretty good job playing up his personal accomplishments, but most of his "non Trump's an idiot" opinions sounded the exact same as Kaisch's and Christie's.
Which since they all had great debates, and gave strong answers means Bush did well. But it also means I cant give him the win since he didnt do much else to stand out.
#1 Chris Christie (6/1)
Christie is now the first person to be declared [by me] the winner of back to back debates this entire campaign season. And its mostly because he ate Marco Rubio for lunch (and I dont mean that as a fat joke, its the only expression that really conveys how badly he beat up Rubio).
He came across strong, never really said anything stupid, made no mistakes. Only real weakness was like most of the not Kaisch candidates he never gave any details. Still given that their is no real difference on many issues in the primaries this isnt a huge flaw, so I give him the edge over Bush, since his mauling of Marco Rubio was much much much more effective and more delivered in a way the voters will remember it than Bush's spat with Trump was.
Though if I did have to pick a "not killing off Marco Rubio" high light for Christie it would be this:
"Well, [John Kasich] deserves credit for his record on jobs. He's done a very good job as governor of Ohio. Never said that John hasn't. He's done a very good job.
But -- but unfortunately, John's been so busy doing over stuff, he's using old statistics. That's OK. New Jersey had its best year of job growth in the last 15 years under five different governors this year in New Jersey. New Jersey cut spending over $2.3 billion and we have 10,000 fewer employees than we had when I walked in the door. John has a bigger government now and more employees than he had when he walked in the door."
This is that 11th commandment all republicans are always talking about....where they dont attack each other in a way that would hurt the entire party....but also done in a way in which Christie can also strengthen himself.
If you believe the 11th commandment rule, I would say this should now be your textbook example.
No comments:
Post a Comment