RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.”

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.

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.

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 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.

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.