Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
When is a Debate NOT a Debate?
FOX News held another political forum under the guise of its being a "debate". What transpired in Detroit bore as much resemblance to a debate as Hillary Clinton bears to an honest woman. Plenty of opinions being tossed around with an occasional nugget of useful information. But certainly not a debate.
Once again, FOX moderators asked both uninspired and inappropriate questions of candidates, clearly trying to get a bicker session started. This was not an informative evening for those interested in having the many issues on the mind of viewers addressed. But no, FOX News moderators asked questions designed to be just so much more entertainment.
Right from the start, moderators tried to pit one candidate against another. Is there an adult anywhere in the FOX News debate team? Doesn't FOX have someone with the maturity to filter the kind of nonsensical questions that were asked in Detroit? Evidently not.
This was not a shining night for either FOX News or the candidates, particularly Marco Rubio, who seems to develop yet another personality each time he gets in front of an audience.
Rubio's performance was at times immature and irritating while at other times he put forth substance. But the substance was overwhelmed with his immature antics that saw him constantly interrupting Trump.
It is clear that the "usual suspects" have purchased Marco (Robo) Rubio to try to take down Donald Trump's candidacy so that the "usual suspects" can create a brokered convention where the will of the people can be ignored.
How else to explain Rubio's many personalities? At one moment, he speaks as a Tea Partier, making strong appeal to fundamental conservative constitutionalist views. At the next moment, at the direction of his handlers in the establishment GOP, he's carrying on like a school child, constantly yammering nonsense about Trump, as if he hasn't yet learned manners and he thinks he knows everything.
Rubio and his handlers have a very low opinion of viewers. But what they fail to understand is that viewers are very familiar with the "usual suspects" typical approach to politics, i.e., say anything to get elected, especially by claiming to be a "conservative", and then govern any way they choose in order to advance their own agenda.
Well, the people are fed up with that approach. And they are wise enough to see through this charade being orchestrated by the national GOP. It will not work!
Rubio will learn that the more you behave as a little brat, the lower your vote totals will drop.
Now the GOP is trying to convince candidates to work together against Donald Trump to deny him the requisite delegate count before the convention.
The biggest problem for the insider donor-class is that if they get rid of Trump, then they must contend with Cruz, since they have been overall 1-2 in votes and delegates. If Trump is knocked off, then they must get past Cruz. No problem, once they get to a brokered convention, they'll pull as much dirty politics as they can to deny either Trump or Cruz the nomination, despite their being the two most popular candidates with the people.. Both Rubio and Kasich could well be snubbed in favor of a more reliable insider.
But that isn't going to happen, because Cruz and Trump will continue to dominate the delegate count, and Ted Cruz is NOT going to work with the "usual suspects" to deny Trump the nomination.
Those who claim they cannot vote for Trump need to get a life and grow up. For all the warts he may have, Trump is still far superior to anything the Marxist Party will likely nominate (assuming Hillary is indicted by the grand jury convened to hear her case). And Trump's appeal is widespread which lays the groundwork for expanding the GOP base in future years. No other candidate is doing that.
Why not try to work WITH Trump rather than against him? Trump has enormous appeal that crosses party lines and ethnic groups. The GOP would benefit immensely from the new enthusiastic voters who will come to vote for Trump. Why not try to work with that for the future of our nation?
Just some parting advice to candidates: Don't rise to the bicker bait. Stick to the issues. Nobody wants to hear you trying to take down another candidate. Keep the process civil. And, above all, remember who the real opponents will be.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.