THE FIRST AND SECOND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES — UPDATE

UPDATE:  Found an active link => Republican Presidential Debate – 6 August – Fox News

ORIGINAL COMMENTARY

Frankly, I am a bit annoyed the 2016 presidential election is already getting this much airtime.  Why? I am supposed to be something of a political junkie, right? Well, here in Virginia we will have elections in 2015 for state and local offices. Shouldn’t we be focusing on that? Instead, we have to study up both for elections in 2015 and 2016.

Keep in mind that among the first tier candidates we have some Conservatives. I think Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Scott Walker, and Senator Ron Paul our best choices. Unfortunately, the corporate news media and our nation’s “elites” have little interest in electing Conservatives.

How does that work?

  • The corporate news media will cast smoke bombs over the candidates, clouding their positions and their records. Instead of a serious discussion of the issues and the candidates, they give us a juicy story, “The Donald.”  Consider, is Donald Trump a serious candidate or a smoke bomb? Does anyone in the corporate news media think he has a chance of winning? Not likely. Trump polls well. However, because “The Donald’s” also has high negatives, his polling numbers may already be near their maximum.  Nevertheless, because of free news coverage and The Donald’s “frankness,” none of the other candidates has had an opportunity to stand out.
  • The big money “elites” fund RINOs. The big money “elites” feed off government spending, and RINOs buy their support with our dollars. That leaves Conservatives a difficult task. We must correctly identify the best Conservative candidate and unify behind that candidate as soon as possible. Otherwise, once again we have a dismal choice, voting for a RINO or simply not bothering to vote.

As President Barack Obama has demonstrated, our president can exercise power, including power never authorized by the Constitution. Hence, we must pay attention to 2016 election now. We must closely examine the candidates and choose the genuine article. We cannot rely upon the corporate news media or big donors to choose our candidate for us.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “THE FIRST AND SECOND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES — UPDATE

  1. Pingback: My Article Read (8-8-2015) | My Daily Musing

  2. I agree with you that the horse race for this is starting way too early. I listened to only the second half of the first debate (thanks a lot Fox for not offering free streaming for U.S. cable cord cutters!) and could only stomachs about 45 min of the second one. I didn’t mind at all the tough questions of Trump as he is not on any list of mine, short or long to vote for.

    I was just really annoyed by the aggressive attempts by the moderators to pit the candidates against each other instead of talking policy. Gu so that’s just how it’s done though, sigh. My favorites at this point are Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz and even Perry if he steps up his game a bit. Ben Carson should be our next Secrteary of Health and Human Services. Seems like an honorable and smart man but I feel like he would get eaten alive in a general election.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It is funny. When reporters are famous enough to be selected to moderate a presidential debate, there is not much they can do to become more famous. But that does not stop them. They do whatever they can to attract more and more viewers. Confrontational questions help, and personal confrontations with the candidates help even more. Unfortunately, such confrontations help very little to select a good president.

      Your short list differs little from mine. I don’t know how Ben Carson will do, but I suspect he is learning and getting tougher.

      Trump is learning the hard way the difference between show biz and politics. So long as it suits their purposes, the national press will give Trump all kinds of publicity. It is just not likely to be favorable.

      Carson’s climb into the national spotlight has been more gradual, and I suspect he was already much more discrete. Therefore, Carson won’t get as much publicity, but he may earn more respect.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When reporters are famous enough to be selected to moderate a presidential debate, there is not much they can do to become more famous.

        This affair shows that there is still something. Megyn Kelly’s line of questioning and misdirection did manage to enlarge her profile — and not necessarily in a positive way. Fox’s behavior in recent months has been disappointing to me; they seem solidly in the Jeb Bush camp.

        I am much inclined at this point to a Cruz/Fiorina ticket. I followed Fiorina when she and I were both CEOs of tech companies. (She had hundreds of thousands of employees, I had merely hundreds. But we both had to survive the dot-com crisis, and we did.)

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Like

        1. A Cruz/Fiorina ticket might be a good one. I wish I know more about Fiorina, but I guess there is time.

          As I indicated, I do not think all the publicity the corporation owned mass media is giving The Donald is accidental. Why do I think it works that way? Individuals may have morals, but I think corporations are generally amoral. A corporation is not exactly an organism, but a large corporation is a very complicated system. What a large corporation is designed to do is survive and grow. Hence, Fox acts in ways designed to increase its profits, reduce the threat of competition, and gain it the protection of the government.

          Consider, for example, how Trump reacted when questioned about his donations to politicians. If he had been more honest, he would have given two reasons. The first would have been the reason he gave, to get them to help his business. The second? That would have been to keep them from hurting his business. The CEOs of any large corporation have the same concerns.

          Because a large corporation owned mass media outfit like Fox is heavily regulated, such companies, even though they wield considerable power of their own, tiptoe warily around the establishment. They have no illusions about the ability of RINOs and Liberal Democrats to collude together to bring them to heel.

          Obama is not unique. When it comes to the acquisition of, the retention of, and the exercise of power, politicians of all stripes can be ruthless.

          Like

        2. Carly Fiorina is perhaps the best-sounding candidate out there currently. She handles the press extremely well, which a number of media progressives have discovered to their grudging admiration. I like all of her current positions on the issues.

          But Ted Cruz has been more consistent in his policies — with the notable exception of the trade agreement fiasco. Carly Fiorina has taken a few unfortunate past positions, dating from her time advising and supporting McCain to not long prior to her presidential explorations. In some cases, these put her more in Boehner’s camp than Cruz’s.

          If she believes what she’s saying now, I completely support her. But I confess to being disappointed at her support for Boehner’s collapse on the debt ceiling, and her opposition to Cruz on the government shutdown business. These incidents were not that long ago.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

        3. The fact Ted Cruz is smart, capable and relatively consistent is why he is my favorite.

          When I have considered Carly Fiorina in the past, she struck me as a bit too Liberal. She is certainly no Sarah Palin. On the other hand, Palin lacks the ability to dance pass the corporation owned news media’s efforts to trip her up.

          Whoever we nominate has to be willing to do the right thing, and they have to be able to get people to vote for them. Sadly, it is not easy to find such people. Either not enough of our politicians care enough to fix our country’s problems, or not enough of them know enough.

          Like

        4. There is no trace of liberal in Carly’s recent speeches and discussions. Nor was she ever a leftist or progressive, it seemed to me. Rather, there were instances in which she had bought into the Republican establishment party line. And even then, she was merely like well over 90% of visible Republicans at the time.

          Now, all of that is gone — and has been for the past year or so. I just listened this morning to a speech by Carly to the Federalist Society last year, which was nicely done and had some material about her father, a conservative justice on the Ninth Circuit Court.

          From other speeches and my own readings: Carly dropped out of law school after one semester, and pursued business instead, rising from secretary/typist/receptionist/Kelly Girl to sales to sales manager to head up increasingly important divisions of AT&T and Lucent to eventually CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The timing of that last was unfortunate, but not within her control. Since she was a conservative Christian, it became very fashionable for leftist business media¹ to hate her as CEO. Previously, at AT&T and Lucent and Phillips, her politics and faith were not well-known, so she was lauded.

          If her statements are to be believed (and I generally accept them), she has shaken off her traces of statism for a full Constitutional conservative outlook. She’s just better at presenting it than most. She is devoutly Christian, and not shy about it, but seems to manage not to alienate her interviewers on this point. For example, she is as pro-life as Ted Cruz, but it probably would not occur to the now-temporarily-relieved Megyn Kelly to ask her if she’s hearing God’s voice in her head. And I’ve seen several interviewers go after her on abortion; she states clearly that she believes in life at conception but “can’t we all reach common ground that taking the life of a baby after twenty weeks is bad?” Often she’ll get agreement on this. When pushed on Roe v Wade, she asserts, “Let’s get to a point of common ground first. Our goal should to move ahead where we agree, not merely create contention.”

          She handles global warming similarly adroitly; she doesn’t call it a fraud but downplays its significance and believes that it should be addressed through innovation, not coal shutdowns.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          ¹ Note that, outside of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial opinion page, it is generally mildly left-leaning. And even the “Opinion Journal” is establishment/statist Republican (and very pro-amnesty) rather than conservative or Constitutionalist. As an aside, it’s interesting to compare the conservative Investors’ Business Daily with the hard-left Business Insider, and how they cover the same ground.

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.