The 2016 debates are showing us the REAL character of the GOP candidates. Last night's numerous petty squabbles between Trump and Rubio may have made good CNN ratings and media copy, but it showed U.S. voters that those two candidates are more interested in their personal quarrels than they are in sticking to the greater issues. We do NOT need a president who is so caught up in petty interpersonal arguments and repeated name calling that he or she cannot function civilly in public, keep her/his word to obey the rules, and stick to the REAL issues and business at hand.
Last night, Trump and Rubio set a very bad example for every American, and their misbehavior repeatedly reminded this blogger of young children down in the dirt pummeling each other bloody simply because they couldn't agree to work on how to learn to tie their shoelaces. This Nation CANNOT afford an egotistical, emotion driven president. Tied for the bottom four and five spots in last night's debate list, Trump and Rubio are now OFF my preferred candidate list, UNLESS they somehow end up as the ONLY GOP candidates left standing against Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg, or any other socialist or attacker of our Constitution.
The improper behavior did not stop with just those two candidates, as the moderator, himself, seemed pleased by their outbreaks of intemperate, inappropriate, on stage behavior. Moderator Wolf Blitzer was caught, on camera, smiling amusedly during at least one of the Trump-Rubio melees. Moderators are supposed to be... moderators... and NOT enablers of bad behavior. I have to wonder if Blitzer was possibly also laughing at the GOP and any voters who might seriously consider the name calling candidates. I thought that Trump and Rubio showed great disrespect for the simple rules of the debate, for their fellow candidates, for the moderator, AND for the voters of the USA.
Those two candidates seemed more like a couple of cats (with their tails tied together and thrown over a clothesline), as they did NOT appear very presidential. Whenever they felt irritated with each other, or felt like irritating each other, or threatened, they threw out the rules and did whatever they wanted... JUST LIKE OBAMA DOES! Based on their repetitive, squabbling, misbehaviors, U.S. citizens dare NOT trust either Trump or Rubio, despite the candidates' bold claims that they will uphold and defend our Constitution. How can those candidates dare to protest that they will obey, support, and defend our Constitution when neither Trump nor Rubio can control his own behavior in a two hour debate? BUT... either of them would be a BETTER President than anyone coming from any socialistic or unconstitutional political frame of reference.
In the middle of last night's debate was Ted Cruz, who let himself get slightly sucked toward the destructive Trump-Rubio vortex. But, Cruz kept himself far more in control and much better able to deal with the real issues of the debate. Cruz stood more on the facts, than did the first two, and engaged far less in the emotionalism of the first two. Cruz' deliberate, clear, constitutional, direct approach to the issues is very favorable. He just needs to control an apparent urge to dabble in the edges of limelight of the battle between the first two candidates. IF Cruz wants to win the voters and the GOP nomination, he can and should ignore all other candidates and stick to the issues that concern voters. Period.
Cruz' positive TV ads are a WELCOME RELIEF from the damaging spitball political negativism that is too often used to drive fear into voters. Cruz' constructive ads are also informative for the public, letting us know what he has really done, proving himself to us instead of wasting time and money attacking other candidates. Strong positive image and strong positive character is what our GOP candidate needs and shall need to beat the socialists, a candidate with a strong, reliable, accurate, constitutional image and track record. Cruz has all that, and comes in at number three. I believe that Cruz would make a VERY EFFECTIVE President of the USA.
Ben Carson is my next candidate, four up from the bottom, and in the number two spot. To me, Carson edged Cruz out of the #2 spot because, 1) Carson did not engage in the on stage melee, other than to comment a couple of times that he was being left out, 2) Carson's calm strength and patience was consistent in the face of the other candidates' inappropriate public emotionalism and political chaos, 3) Carson did finally insert himself and hold the floor demanding and taking more time to explain his platform and values (refusing to be shut out, Carson demonstrated a strong improvement in his public presence and image).
I was disappointed that neither the moderator nor the other candidates seemed to care a hoot whether Carson ever said anything on most of the issues. In this respect, it seemed that the moderator facilitated attempts to marginalize Carson. THAT is a shame on Moderator Blitzer. Carson is thoughtful, careful, balanced, deliberate, caring, accurate, plan oriented. Voters must be careful to NOT mistake Carson's politeness for timidity, or his soft spoken careful speech as insecurity. If voters really LISTEN to Carson, they shall find that, with respect to all the issues threatening our society and Nation, Carson is more like Teddy Roosevelt, who was fond of the expression, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Despite Carson's excellent history and his excellent character, his deliberate and careful thoughtfulness can give the false appearance of a reticence to engage boldly, at times. My concern is whether that misreading of Carson might cause voters to question whether Carson might appear reluctant to act decisively, if he were President. Given Carson's amazing history, I have no problem trusting him to make the society saving, life changing, and life saving decisions with which a President of the USA can be faced daily. Carson would be a FAR BETTER President of the USA than any of the other party candidates now or ever, given the extreme socialistic and unconstitutional leanings of the Democratic Party, at large, in recent decades.
Now, for number one winner of last night's debate, Governor John Kasich. Yes, I admit, I never heard of Kasich until I started listening to the debates. Yes, I did not care much for Kasich during the earlier debates, compared to some other choices. BUT, last night Governor Kasich demonstrated the cool, clear, calm, confident, strong, deliberate leadership that our Nation needs. Candidate Kasich ignored virtually all of the fracas and stuck to THE ISSUES.
Kasich clearly backed up every one of his platform promises with demonstrable working history from his past and present work in responsible positions. He was on the Conservative board with almost every topic, and he minced no words about how he planned to accomplish his goals. Kasich did not need to attack anyone on the stage because he was right in his statements, he was confident of his position on those statements, and he was confident of his right and responsibility to get the necessary work done to move the USA forward and out of the socialistic mess into which we have drifted since the days of FDR.
I salute Governor John Kasich as THE only real winner of last night's debate, the only candidate who has consistently and publically demonstrated his ability to get people to work together and to get jobs done. The resurrection of the State of Ohio is THE prime recent evidence of Kasich's abilities to "Git'er done!"
My BIG issue with Kasich, despite his energy and practicality, is that he is NOT a strict Constitutionalist on all the issues. There are some parts of the Bill of Rights that seem to him to be somewhat negotiable, such as our Second Amendment, as evidenced by some of the gun control laws that he has signed. Approving and signing laws that infringe on our Constitution and our Rights is not a good thing, and shows a willingness to negotiate away some of the Principles by which we say we are bound together.... BUT, even Kasich would be a better and more constitutionally minded President of the USA than any Socialist, neo-socialist, or quasi-socialist.