The Republican presidential debate just ended. It had a few surprises, but for the most part it came out as expected. Some things were clear.
Let's start with the two clear losers. John Kasich was once again a rambling speaker who often made no sense. Rand Paul took a basically isolationist position even in the face of the recent terror attacks here at home. On top of that, Paul was less than clear in many of his answers.
Donald Trump was better than Paul and Kasich, but not by much. Trump actually advocated that the USA kill the families of terrorists in order to dissuade those terrorists from attacking America. More than any other answer tonight, that was a major mistake and a truly horrible idea. It is one thing for their to be civilian casualties in war; such deaths are inevitable in conflict. It is quite another thing for civilians to be targeted for death. It's called a war crime. Think about the full meaning of what Trump is saying. In San Bernardino, Syed Farook and his wife killed 14 in a terror attack on behalf of ISIS. They left behind a six month old baby. Trump is now advocating killing that child in revenge. Now I know that many people who just read that will say that Trump wasn't referring to the baby, but he really was. Imagine, for example, that our intelligence agencies find out the location of the families of the leaders of ISIS. Let's assume that there is a house in Raqqa in which two wives and eight children of al-Baghdadi, the ISIS "caliph", are living. Al-Baghdadi is not there. A president Trump would order the bombing of that house and the killing of those two women and eight little children, not to get the ISIS leader, but just to kill his family and inflict some pain on al-Baghdadi by their deaths. It is a totally indefensible position. The United States has not and should not adopt killing innocent civilians who are guilty of nothing but sharing DNA with a terrorist.
Beyond this terrible answer, Trump was also confusing in many of his answers. He clearly did not know understand the question about America's nuclear forces. He got lost on some of the other questions as well. He did not have a good night.
Jeb Bush tried mightily to project more strength and control than in previous debates. He failed miserably. The best one can say of Bush is that he outshone Kasich and Paul, nothing more.
The other candidates all had good performances. Carly Fiorina was her usual concise, clear and forceful self. Much of what she said was a rehash, though, of her past answers. Ben Carson had a much stronger performance than in the past. He no longer seemed uncertain in his answers about foreign policy. Still, the debate will not be enough to bring his former supporters back. Chris Christie has some good answers. His shot at Rubio and Cruz for being senators who debate rather than people who have had to actually do things was very sharp. Christie repeated too many times, however, that he fought terrorism in the past. He was, after all, a government lawyer. Christie's description sounded good, but it's hard to accept the US Attorney as a major fighter against terrorism.
That leaves the night's two winners: Rubio and Cruz. Each presented his points well and each differed with the other substantially. Rubio got hit again and again by the other candidates on privacy, immigration and regime change issues. He never backed down and showed a steady nerve and competent response which demonstrated his control of the issues. Rubio doesn't get rattled. Cruz relied repeatedly on claiming that others were not telling the truth. The first time, it seemed effective. By the third time, it seemed more like a ploy to avoid answering the question. Even so, Cruz was also clear, forceful and well reasoned in his answers.
If people listened to what was said during the debate rather than looking at the style, tonight's debate ought to mark the end of Trump's rise in the polls. Most Americans will be horrified by the prospect of American forces being ordered to kill innocent family members because of the crimes committed by their relatives. It sounds more like Mafia tactics than the actions of a civilized country.
Let's start with the two clear losers. John Kasich was once again a rambling speaker who often made no sense. Rand Paul took a basically isolationist position even in the face of the recent terror attacks here at home. On top of that, Paul was less than clear in many of his answers.
Donald Trump was better than Paul and Kasich, but not by much. Trump actually advocated that the USA kill the families of terrorists in order to dissuade those terrorists from attacking America. More than any other answer tonight, that was a major mistake and a truly horrible idea. It is one thing for their to be civilian casualties in war; such deaths are inevitable in conflict. It is quite another thing for civilians to be targeted for death. It's called a war crime. Think about the full meaning of what Trump is saying. In San Bernardino, Syed Farook and his wife killed 14 in a terror attack on behalf of ISIS. They left behind a six month old baby. Trump is now advocating killing that child in revenge. Now I know that many people who just read that will say that Trump wasn't referring to the baby, but he really was. Imagine, for example, that our intelligence agencies find out the location of the families of the leaders of ISIS. Let's assume that there is a house in Raqqa in which two wives and eight children of al-Baghdadi, the ISIS "caliph", are living. Al-Baghdadi is not there. A president Trump would order the bombing of that house and the killing of those two women and eight little children, not to get the ISIS leader, but just to kill his family and inflict some pain on al-Baghdadi by their deaths. It is a totally indefensible position. The United States has not and should not adopt killing innocent civilians who are guilty of nothing but sharing DNA with a terrorist.
Beyond this terrible answer, Trump was also confusing in many of his answers. He clearly did not know understand the question about America's nuclear forces. He got lost on some of the other questions as well. He did not have a good night.
Jeb Bush tried mightily to project more strength and control than in previous debates. He failed miserably. The best one can say of Bush is that he outshone Kasich and Paul, nothing more.
The other candidates all had good performances. Carly Fiorina was her usual concise, clear and forceful self. Much of what she said was a rehash, though, of her past answers. Ben Carson had a much stronger performance than in the past. He no longer seemed uncertain in his answers about foreign policy. Still, the debate will not be enough to bring his former supporters back. Chris Christie has some good answers. His shot at Rubio and Cruz for being senators who debate rather than people who have had to actually do things was very sharp. Christie repeated too many times, however, that he fought terrorism in the past. He was, after all, a government lawyer. Christie's description sounded good, but it's hard to accept the US Attorney as a major fighter against terrorism.
That leaves the night's two winners: Rubio and Cruz. Each presented his points well and each differed with the other substantially. Rubio got hit again and again by the other candidates on privacy, immigration and regime change issues. He never backed down and showed a steady nerve and competent response which demonstrated his control of the issues. Rubio doesn't get rattled. Cruz relied repeatedly on claiming that others were not telling the truth. The first time, it seemed effective. By the third time, it seemed more like a ploy to avoid answering the question. Even so, Cruz was also clear, forceful and well reasoned in his answers.
If people listened to what was said during the debate rather than looking at the style, tonight's debate ought to mark the end of Trump's rise in the polls. Most Americans will be horrified by the prospect of American forces being ordered to kill innocent family members because of the crimes committed by their relatives. It sounds more like Mafia tactics than the actions of a civilized country.
No comments:
Post a Comment