Thursday GOP debates: who “won”?

Posted on Friday, January 29, 2016 by BZ

1. Small Table Debate:

The small table debate, held first, was moderated by Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum and consisted of Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore.

There is only one clear winner: Carly Fiorina. Period. The three others simply need to go away as rapidly as possible. I think that may be a self-fulfilling prophecy within, say, two weeks max. None of them are going to pull Iowa.

2. Main Debate:

In the second debate, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly moderated, and the big table cast included Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Jim Gilmore. Who?

As expected, Gilmore was entirely unimpressive. One must also question his sanity as, at this late stage, he somehow thinks he has a chance at becoming the GOP nominee for president.

Kasich was acidic and unlikeable. Carson was likeable but vastly over his pate. Paul is going nowhere. His fans are even more annoying than he is. All three need to go away.

Christie was the healing assembler he’s tended to be in the past. I could live with Christie. “The days of the Clintons in public housing are over.” “That is why you need the Washinton-to-English converter.”

The focus this time around revolved around the nascent sorting-out of Cruz and Rubio. Both made points. Both were confronted by Megyn Kelly with prior statements in conflict with their current positions. Both stammered and both came through. Conventional wisdom is that Rubio is ascending. I go along with that.

Jeb Bush did well overall; certainly better than previous debates. But Bush is still who he is, a squish. I will not put another Bush in the White House as I will never put another Clinton in the White House.

I am biased. I just like Cruz. He’s extremely smart and even pisses off Republicans because he is single-minded. Yes, Cruz got bopped, Cruz got testy, Cruz got booed. Cruz had his opportunity to shine more, but didn’t quite pull that off. Call me wacky. I am biased.

My top three descend in this order:

Cruz
Rubio
Christie

Statistics from a current Drudge Report poll post-debate.

Drudge Report GOP Poll Cruz #2, Rubio #3.

Finally, did Trump leaving the debate affect the results? In terms of the debaters themselves, not so much. Ted Cruz got the insults out of the way early. However, for Fox News, they now state Thursday’s FNC debate was the second highest rated telecast in the channel’s history with 12.5 million viewers. Conventional wisdom said this wouldn’t occur. Though not present, the moderators and debaters still mentioned him. And people say the “entertainment” factor of Trump was missed.

But one thing most definitely: Trump would not have cared for the way Megyn Kelly would have gone after him, if her tenacity with Rubio and Cruz was any indicator. Megyn Kelly can indeed shred.

Did Trump pull off his tactic? In a word, yes. I don’t think he “lost” anything by not attending. But I still enjoyed the debate because it was substantial and topic-driven for the most part.

Thursday GOP debates: First Debate

Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2016 by BZ

1. Small Table Debate:

The small table debate, held first, was moderated by Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum and consisted of Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore.

More after the main debate.

Thursday GOP debate: no Trump

Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2016 by BZ

Donald Trump NOT In Thursday 1-28-2016 Debates Donald Trump has stated he will not appear at Thursday’s Fox News GOP debate due to perceived slights by Megyn Kelly.

This stems from the first Republican debate on August 6th of last year, co-moderated by Megyn Kelly.

She asked Trump at that time, “One of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downside, in particular when it comes to women. You have called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Your Twitter account. . .”

Trump: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

Kelly: “No it wasn’t. Your Twitter account. . .for the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

Trump: “Yes, I’m sure it was.”

Kelly: “Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how will you answer the charge with Hillary Clinton who is likely to be the Democratic nominee that you are part of the war on women?”

Mr Trump believes that question evidenced bias on the part of Megyn Kelly. He said that Roger Ailes (Chairman and CEO of Fox News) should have Megyn Kelly banned from Thursday’s debate staff.

In my opinion, Trump has made a serious mistake by showing his skirt, so to speak. If Megyn Kelly offended him then and offends him during the debate, then he needs to stand there and defend himself, and to dish back as he sees fit.

It’s what he does and what people expect to see.

The retort “if he can’t handle Kelly then how would he handle Putin” is trite but has a semblance of accuracy. For history, at one point early in her McCain/VP campaign I was in support of Sarah Palin. However, once she resigned as Alaska governor in 2009, I knew she couldn’t take the heat. At least she did the right thing and got out of the kitchen. Since then I’ve known that Palin is a poseur. And no, she never said she could see Russia from her house.

With that in mind, Trump takes the easy or cowardly way out. Yes, you can readily reply that Trump is a bit in Hillary’s position where any further exposure can be deleterious to his campaign. But that would be wrong, because Trump absolutely thrives in a clashing and adversarial environment. He enjoys it. What he doesn’t enjoy is being faced with his own statements.

If Trump made various statements he should either own them or refute them.

But stepping away from a debate because he doesn’t like someone who asked him a tough question smacks of “taking his toys and going home.”

The Iowa caucus is next Monday, February 1st. (Go here to see how the Iowa caucuses work.)

Because of that I’ll be watching the debates anyway, as I want to see how Cruz, Rubio and Christie conduct themselves tonight, and how the interplay goes between them.

Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly will moderate the Thursday debate, whose big table cast will include Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Rand Paul.

The small table debate, held first, will be moderated by Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum and will consist of Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore. I’ll believe that Jim Gilmore thingie when I see it.

I’ll be watching the debates and then posting about them later tonight.

Hillary: put her in handcuffs now

Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2015 by BZ

Is this a face that resonates with Millennials and teen voters?

Hillary is a serial liar, and has been lying for years. I believe she truly lacks the capability to tell the truth, even when it would tend to save her.

But it’s too convoluted now. And it’s way too late to save her, or even remotely think about saving her. She is beyond saving just as she is beyond telling the truth. The truth is, first, relative, and it is — as she would tell you — in the eye of the beholder. There is no Real Truth, there are only shades of the truth and the precipice of the truth. The truth is a concept to be wrapped and folded and cloaked and hidden away, aided and abetted by the Leftists populating today’s general American Media Maggot newsroom which is, by the way, bleeding readers and viewers. [As an aside: gee, I wonder why?]

With that preface, take it away Trey Gowdy:

Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton wiped her server clean

by Lauren French

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

But does no one read the next two paragraphs?

Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.

PERMANENTLY ERASED.

In law enforcement, this is called an “admission.” An admission is the first step towards a confession.

The only thing left to be done, in truth, is for Hillary Clinton to be “perp-walked” in front of a bevy of ENG hacks adrip with stark lights and the AMM jostling and bumping and shouting at Hillary.

Wouldn’t that be just grand?

Hillary Clinton: we must “empathize” with our enemies

Posted on Monday, December 8, 2014 by BZ

Of course. We all want Kim Jung Il, Raul Castro, Vladimir Putin, Hassan Rouhani, Bashar al-Assad, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and Xi Jinping to sleep like babies at night, comforted in the knowledge that we care about their feelings.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Hillary Clinton hammered for insisting U.S. should ‘empathize’ with enemies

by David Sherfinski

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting pushback for saying this week that smart foreign policy should include empathizing with one’s enemies.

Mrs. Clinton spoke at Georgetown University about what she called “smart power,” which entails “using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.”

I don’t believe, however, that Clinton anticipated pushback from a female Demorat, however:

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Hillary Clinton Backer Jane Harman Questions Her Suggestion We ‘Empathize’ With Our ‘Enemies’

Long-time Hillary Clinton supporter, former Rep. Jane Harman (D., Calif.) tore apart Clinton’s claim that the U.S. needs to “respect” and “empathize with” its enemies.

Harman said she did not know what Clinton meant by “enemies” in her controversial statement.

“I take issue with the word ‘enemies,’” Harman told Fox’s Chris Wallace on Sunday. “I think we have to respect people with different points of view in order to win the argument with them. I don’t exactly know what she was saying.”

Harman, who has thrown her support behind a 2016 Clinton candidacy, said the U.S. does not have to “respect” terrorists ever.

“I don’t think we have to respect members of terror groups ever,” Harman said. “I think we have to have harsh policies against them.”

Please notice, however, Harman parses her words carefully. She didn’t object solely to the word “empathize.” She objected to the word “enemies” principally. As in: it is harsh and judgmental to call any other nation an “enemy” of the United States.

Words matter. Again, as in: we losing the ability to even identify our enemies.

Bloviating Zeppelin

Right thinking from a Left brain.

Tag Archives: Chris Wallace