Tonight, there is yet another Republican debate within the party, to select the Republican presidential candidate. As if it were still unclear to most of us who we now must nominate, there is the jockeying tonight in Colorado. That makes money for television… but prolongs results for us. If there is anything more clear with this debate, it is the separation of the more lucid policies presented, from those of the more sentimentally motivated candidates and lesser experienced, such as Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz. They are perhaps more “moldable” by the old establishment? After the first few minutes of the debate, it was already clear: the separation, between those with dwindling resources more desperate to edge ahead, and who is most qualified to lead the nation, increased. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz had some rehearsed strength. Regardless, the best remain the best, even if some bite at their heels as they did tonight. If it were not already clear [as polls correspondingly maintained], constituents like me… before the debate, feel that long debates are sensational, while the first few sentences of each candidate today proved to be more indicative than anything after the first 15 minutes! We don’t want all these debates to continue; and the candidates should not become sadists before the RNC finally saves us by nominating. The candidates looking to define the party as it once was, or the ones trying to convey how they can be new actors in the old script, were less demonstrative of ability to be the next commander in chief even if they gained points today. They increasingly disqualify themselves in that way, despite their gains. The sincerity of voices was heard tonight, in several passionate instances; but, moreso was heard the sincerity communicated in this particular debate dynamic, by the very lack of exerted passion & lack of speech.
This debate focused on economy. Or, so it was supposed to. And, the best speaking candidates did not resort to calling to a generation, the same old scripted sentimentality of responsibility for the next generation, or imitating sentimentality likened to past presidential speeches. Rather, the best had the more pertinent message to deliver. Economics, is based on simple approaches like those outlined by the two highest polling candidates [poll results of just prior this debate]. There were a few voices on this need for common sense and simplification in tax code. Carly Fiorina was one such voice, for instance. It’s a big surprise to me that her polling percentage is so low as 1% and weaker than Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio who compete with her. While questioning of candidates did not focus entirely on economy, Mr. Trump opponents tried to “burry” him, on one of his strongest suits. So too was Dr. Carson called out on a social issue for which he very effectively countered. We recognize those who know how to boost it [the economy] though. We saw acuity, preparedness, and proper self defense. Many of the competitors within our own party [wanting to climb], instead used the alternative in certain key answers: fear scenarios, laced with sentimentality. They did this, to suggest that career politicians (even if only junior ones) know better than the trailblazers how to serve us. But we know better. They confuse, and may excite some constituents in our party, who like to see blood instead of a TKO. Insincere compliments made by the juniors, to the highest polling candidates and party, did more harm than good however in many of our views as demonstrated by some static polling results. That kind of desperation is not helpful in setting policy and defeating the opponent in the best way possible. We also have to be sure that the white house gets the leader who is least establishment ties – even if he can defeat any of the Democratic candidates, including the weakest one of them [democrat]. Unfortunately this night’s debate, is the first way to invite the handing over of political victory, to our competing party’s ideas. We should all know that to be wrong, probably do, and we don’t want that. The winner speaks most sincerely, and the first to make real sense is only one of them – right from the start and unflinchingly so. Second place did quite well also. Eve the third, but my third pick should not be in third. As for the rest? Not even close, despite opportunities to shine. But we’re looking for the best among them, and we’re not settling for second place.