Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

The Dynamic GOP Debate Fox Business Network lets the candidates speak for themselves. Matthew Vadum

In the fourth televised GOP primary debate last night, eight Republican candidates for president laid out their positions as they sparred over taxes, immigration, government spending, and to a lesser extent, foreign policy.

They clashed heatedly over what it means to be a conservative and the immigration issue, particularly amnesty.

The debate venue was the same storied Milwaukee auditorium where Theodore Roosevelt gave a 90-minute speech Oct. 14, 1912 after being shot in the chest by a deranged saloonkeeper. Roosevelt, who served as president from September 1901 to March 1909 as a Republican, was campaigning at the time for president on the Progressive Party ticket.

Last night’s debate was — fortunately — less eventful.

It was also the best, most business-like of the four GOP primary debates so far.

It stood in stark contrast to the televised firing squad 10 Republican contenders faced on CNBC on Oct. 28. That was the debacle of a debate in which moderators acted like prosecutors cross-examining hostile witnesses and obnoxiously playing candidates off against each other.

Unlike left-wing CNBC charlatan John Harwood, the moderators of Fox Business Network last night recognized it was their job to elicit answers and facilitate constructive conversations, not oversee gladiatorial combat. FBN anchors Maria Bartiromo and Neil Cavuto, along with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, were well-behaved, reasonable, and professional. (The main debate transcript is available here.)

One of the evening’s more interesting multi-debater exchanges came when Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) trolled Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) over foreign policy and child tax credits.

After Baker told Rubio his tax plan includes a significant expansion of child tax credits that would raise the incomes of struggling parents, the moderator asked if there was “a risk you’re just adding another expensive entitlement program to an already over-burdened federal budget?”

Rubio stressed the paramountcy of the family in American society and said he was “proud” of his child tax credit increase, which he said was part of a “pro-family tax plan” that would strengthen the family unit.

Paul interjected, perhaps thinking of himself an an ideological gatekeeper like William F. Buckley Jr., saying,

We have to decide what is conservative and what isn’t conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We’re not talking about giving people back their tax money. He’s talking about giving people money they didn’t pay. It’s a welfare transfer payment … Add that to Marco’s plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative.

Rubio shot back, saying “this is their money” that Americans have paid. Using an argument often employed by left-wingers, the senator said his program would allow parents to “invest” in their children, “in the future of America and strengthening your family … [the] most important institution in society.”

Paul replied, “Nevertheless, it’s not very conservative, Marco.”

Rubio said he wanted to rebuild the military and slammed Paul as “a committed isolationist.” Rubio added, “I’m not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.”

Policy Finally Dominates a Debate, but No Knockouts in Milwaukee By Eliana Johnson & Tim Alberta

Milwaukee — It was, at last, a debate about policy. If the emergence of Donald Trump and the efforts of previous debate moderators to pit candidates against each other have forestalled the policy arguments that typically characterize Republican primary contests, Fox Business Network’s debate on Tuesday brought them to the fore.

Less than three months before voters go to the polls in January, the candidates clashed on some of the major issues that have divided the Republican party over the past six years: The night’s big moments did not come from one candidate trashing another, but from policy exchanges, first on immigration and then on defense spending. After months of headlines dominated by a real-estate mogul-cum-reality-television star, it was a welcome change of pace.

The event was steady and studious, and the upshot was predictable — an evening that did little to alter the trajectories of individual candidates or the broader narrative of the race. In the course of two hours there were no knockout punches, no major gaffes, no made-for-opposition-research moments. Each of the candidates went silent for a stretch, but none completely disappeared as in previous debates — perhaps because the stage had shrunk to only eight, the smallest primetime grouping to date.

Rubio’s Excellent Energy Policy The Florida senator understands that vigorous development and competition will make America stronger, more prosperous, freer, and more secure. By Robert Zubrin

A war for the future of the world is going on right now. It includes some regular military action, but the outcome is going to be settled by control over the global supply of fuel and funds. That is why there can be no more important issue facing our next commander in chief than energy policy.

The Democrats are worse than hopeless in this respect, and unfortunately, many of the GOP campaigns have been mired in atmospherics and irrelevancies. But at least one of the Republican aspirants has risen to the challenge: Marco Rubio.

In a word, Rubio’s energy policy is excellent. It consists of three major thrusts; optimize America’s resources, minimize government bureaucracy, and maximize private innovation. I discuss each of these in turn.

Five for Freedom Bringing government spending under control. By Ted Cruz

At the last Republican presidential debate, I presented the Simple Flat Tax — which, for a family of four, exempts the first $36,000 from all income tax, and above that amount collects one low rate of 10 percent for all Americans. It eliminates the death tax, the payroll tax, the corporate income tax, and the Obamacare taxes; ends the corporate carve-outs and loopholes; and requires every business to pay the same simple business flat tax of 16 percent. That plan will unleash unprecedented growth, create millions of new jobs, raise after-tax incomes for all income levels by double-digit percentages — and abolish the IRS as we know it.

But eliminating the IRS is only the first step in my plan to break apart the federal leviathan that has ruled Washington and crept into our lives. We can’t stop there. In addition to eliminating the IRS, a Cruz administration will abolish four cabinet agencies. And we will sharply reduce the alphabet soup of government entities, beginning with the ABCs that should not exist in the first place: The Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to American households and businesses. It’s time to return to a federal government that abides by our constitutional framework and strips power from unelected bureaucrats.

What I Learned at Tuesday’s Debate by Roger L Simon

Here’s what I learned at Tuesday night’s Fox Business Republican debate.

1. If John Kasich is elected president, I will sell my television set. I’ve already seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame at least a dozen times.

2. Carly Fiorina is a good debater. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are even better debaters.

3. I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with Rand Paul.

4. The biggest spendthrifts in America are Jeb Bush bundlers.

5. Ben Carson talks slowly.

6. Donald Trump likes to hang out in green rooms.

In other words, nothing much new. Still it was entertaining. Moderators Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo and Gerard Baker did a fine job, devoid of self-promotion and thus far superior to their predecessors at the other networks. It wasn’t their fault it wasn’t all that substantive in the end. It never is. It’s the nature of the format. Eight is still too many people. How about four or five next time?

Who won? The New York Times said Rand Paul, which means he didn’t. Frank Luntz’s focus group of actual New Hampshire Republican voters gave it to Rubio in a walk. I tend to agree, with Cruz a close second. Marc Thiessen said on The Kelly File that Rubio would be the strongest GOP candidate in the general because he would seem like JFK debating Hillary’s Nixon. Actually, I think Hilary’s worse than Nixon, but he’s got a point.

Signs emerge FBI investigation of Hillary emails has moved to a new, more serious stage By Thomas Lifson

Momentum is a concept that applies to criminal investigations almost as much as it does to sports teams. And from the signs available, it looks as if the probe into potential criminality in the Hillary email scandal has got the Big Mo.

Despite the FBI’s efforts to remain tight-lipped over the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, it looks as though substantial resources are being devoted, so that a political kill of the query would be difficult to justify if push comes to shove. Politico has been interviewing as many people as it can, both on and off the record, to get a sense of where theinvestigation is leading, and the indications are that Hillary should be worried. Rachel Bade writes:

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and DOJ officials inteviewed [sic] by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

Ted Cruz proposes eliminating Energy, HUD, Commerce, Education, IRS By Ed Straker

It’s sad watching most Republican candidates promise to make cuts in federal spending without ever actually telling us where the cuts would occur. They mention some big number and then promise us that over eight or ten years it would be cut. But their claims have about as much credibility as Carly Fiorina’s vague tax plan, which is mysteriously floating somewhere on YouTube.

All that changed last night, however, when Ted Cruz called for the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, and Education, as well as the IRS. The liberal media will be focusing on the fact that he mentioned eliminating Commerce twice. I prefer to focus on the merits of what he has announced.

The Department of Energy. We have a Department of Energy that generates no energy. Instead, the DOE distributes nearly $30 billion (as of 2012) to research “clean” energy. In other words, it’s a slush fund for Democratic cronies like Solyndra who want taxpayer funding for windmills and solar panel technology that is hopelessly uneconomical. Here’s an idea: let the private sector research energy alternatives. They did a fine job of it long before the DOE came along. Cruz is right to call for its elimination.

The GOP on Economics The good, the bad, and the ugly at the fourth presidential debate.

Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate wasn’t the most entertaining, but it was by far the most educational. The two-hour session gave the candidates a chance to critique the Obama record, as well as tease out some policy differences in illuminating ways.

Start with trade, which showcased Donald Trump. “I love trade. I’m a free trader, 100%,” said the businessman, after declaring that he opposed the only free-trade deal currently on offer, the U.S. agreement with 11 other Pacific nations.

Mr. Trump called it a “terrible deal,” though it wasn’t obvious that he has any idea what’s in it. His one specific criticism was its failure to deal with Chinese currency manipulation. But it took Rand Paul to point out that China isn’t part of the deal and would be happy if the agreement collapsed so the U.S. would have less economic influence in Asia.

Mr. Trump said on these pages Tuesday that he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day as President, triggering tariffs on thousands of Chinese goods. The businessman thinks economic mercantilism is a political winner, but we doubt that starting a trade war that raises prices for Americans would turn out to be popular. Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters care more about his take-charge attitude than his policies, but GOP voters are going to have to decide if they want to nominate their most protectionist nominee since Hoover.

Reported EU Trade Rule Singles Israel Out for Discrimination By Marco Rubio —

The European Union is poised to make a significant mistake this week — one that will harm its relations with the United States, politicize international trade, undermine economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, and reward Palestinians who reject peace with Israel.

The EU will reportedly release a new trade rule that singles out Israel — and only Israel — for discriminatory treatment. The rule requires products sold in Europe and produced in what the EU considers “Israeli-occupied territories” to be specially labeled. The labels are intended to encourage Europeans to boycott Israeli products, and to stoke European animosity toward Israel — which is already at disturbingly high levels. There are more than 200 disputed territories worldwide and yet European leaders have chosen to single out only the Jewish state for this economic sanction.

The rule is grossly unjust. It makes a mockery of the EU’s claimed commitment to international law. It punishes Israel for Palestinian leaders’ repeated rejection of statehood offers and for their ongoing refusal to negotiate. In the midst of a new wave of Palestinian terror, the EU seeks to punish Israel while taking no action against Palestinians inciting and perpetrating murder.

Why would Bill Kristol want to make a Hillary victory inevitable? By Mike Ford

Last week in an article titled “Ben Carson Reconsidered,” destined for the November 16 print edition of The Weekly Standard, “conservative” pundit William Kristol shows just how willing he is to risk a Hillary Clinton presidency and all its concomitant damage. He’s willing to risk such simply to prevent an outsider from ascending to that office. In a two (internet)-page article, Dr. Kristol excoriates Donald Trump while damning Dr. Ben Carson with faint praise. Here is his final statement:

So while Carson probably won’t and likely shouldn’t be the nominee, the Republican party is better for his candidacy. And if the unthinkable happens and Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, we may take off a few days next year to gather ballot access signatures for the 2016 independent ticket of Carson-Webb, or Webb-Carson.