For whatever reason, probably profits, FoxNews decided that it was in somebody’s best interest to schedule ANOTHER “debate.” After the first two, a lot of us quit watching, actually, and caught the highlights – or lowlights as the case may be – on YouTube. With the prospect of another two hours under hot stage lights being yelled at for more or less spending a successful career in international business with all its highs and lows rather than in politics, journalism, and law, when he learned of the plan, Donald Trump said, “Enough with the debates” and citing a previous commitment withdrew.
This, naturally, has been used by Ted Cruz to make the blanket statement that Trump is “scared” to debate. Admittedly, Trump is not the best debater, and frankly, the first few “debates” were not debates at all but first impression vehicles, but when a candidate is used as a punching bag for no other reason than the people running the show and the other participants can, there is no incentive to continue on. Not that anyone was watching anyway.
In an interview with Megyn Kelly…don’t get this writer started about her…Ted Cruz said the following:
“And, you know, he just, he looks down on the voters,” Mr. Cruz said. “He thinks they’re gullible and will believe whatever he’s saying. So I’m going to be in D.C. for AIPAC as well since Donald is running away from the debate. I’m happy to debate him there. If he wants, we can debate foreign policy, but the problem is, Donald doesn’t do very well in foreign policy [because] he doesn’t have even a basic modicum of knowledge.”
Mr. Cruz has the advantage on military topics within foreign policy due to being a member of various senatorial committees, but he’s never negotiated a contract with a foreign company. Trump has. Trump has demonstrated quite well that he can learn on the fly, but that isn’t the most objectionable part of this statement. “Trump looks down on voters”…uh, Ted, Trump isn’t the one telling the people that their votes won’t count come time for the convention. He also speaks in their language, not above it. His issues are the ones the people care about – including reforming the Veterans Administration – and really that’s what the debates are supposed to be about, not shouting FOREIGN POLICY important as that may be.
If one wants to talk about the issues, and how Trump compares to Cruz, just take the statements on each campaign website on the second amendment: the right all Americans have to keep and bear arms. Ted Cruz’s website gives a litany of endorsements of his past actions, and his defense of the second amendment during his legal career as well as links to a few op eds. Trump’s website says:
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
And then it goes on to explain HOW Trump plans to protect that right. Well, Ted, what are your plans?
While Ted is thinking that one over, WHAT he would do rather than who he has defended in court, how about this issue: repealing ObamaCare, the one thing that is on most Americans’ wish list almost before securing the southern border. In looking for that topic on Cruz’s website, this writer could not readily find it. If it is there, it’s buried under a number of other social issues that are important, but are not holding back economic development like ObamaCare is. Trump, on the other hand, has “Healthcare Reform” as one of the leading two topics on his positions page. On the Healthcare Reform page, there is a seven step plan that includes completely repealing ObamaCare, setting up Health Savings Accounts, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and other common sense action items that “conservatives” have been pushing for.
How about it, Ted, are you serious about repealing ObamaCare? We’ll give Ted a minute and shift focus to the southern border and immigration.
Both candidates, actually, have sections on these topics. Cruz splits them apart, Trump puts them together under the title “Immigration Reform“. On Cruz’s “Secure the Border” page, there is a list of high minded action items that does mirror Trump’s, actually, but without the declarative statements common on Trump’s site. Why would one approach work over the other? That’s what most of us would like to see in a “debate” and that is not what was happening.
Why would a voter need a debate to find out the differences between the candidates if they are laid out on publicly available websites?
There are some topics within Trump’s site that do fall short of what imaginative conservatives would like to see happen, and there are glaring omissions on Cruz’s site despite discussion on the social issues that are truly threatening to the culture, but really are not the realm of government despite federal meddling. However, there is something to be said for the STYLE of each that directly contradicts the idea of Trump “talking down” to the people. Trump’s site is laid out like a business proposal – something most Americans are familiar with – in plain language, and Cruz’s is far more intellectual with a good dose of the man’s curriculum vitae thrown in. Trump’s is very simple and easy to use (fully functional) with position papers available via PDF. Cruz’s is pretty, but can be a walk in the weeds. Really, to the average person which is more American?
Really, to get to the basics of information about any one candidate, we no longer need the debates in the form we know them. In that, Trump is right. We’re debated out. If there was substantive discussion about the issues, that might be another matter, but have another shout and “GOTCHA” fest and call it a debate? Yeah, thanks, we’ll pass.
Oh, and Ted, you can call it something else and transfer the burden to another part of the economic chain, but a VAT is still a VAT.