Ok, I admit it. I have a dog in the race. I have now watched nine debates, have watched many interviews, both short and full length, and have come away from all of it with a strong affirmation. My dog, or candidate, is Ted Cruz. Cruz has shown himself to be, time and time again, a voice of reason and thoughtfulness. When asked about how he would govern this country, he articulates his positions clearly and eloquently. He is consistent in his stances because his positions are based on core principles of Constitutional conservatism, and he steadily draws upon this core. When challenged to prove it, he points to times when he has stood up in Congress to oppose policies that stray from these principles, and likewise, he has stood for policies which have supported these principles.
While Cruz has had to endure accusations of being a liar, of being nasty and of being dishonest, these characterizations couldn't be further from the truth. While other candidates have pointed to inconsistencies in his positions, one need only dig a little to realize that sometimes what appears to be a reversal in position, is merely one that is nuanced - perhaps too nuanced for public consumption which feeds on sound bites.
One example of this is the amnesty issue Cruz and Rubio spar over in every debate. Rubio accuses him of changing position, while fully knowing that his accusation is a sound bite taken out of context. Even Megyn Kelly (no obvious fan of Cruz) admitted on air to Cruz in a post debate interview a couple of weeks ago, that she did a lot of research on this subject to investigate this apparent 'lie' of his. She came away, however, agreeing that Cruz has been very consistently against amnesty. Yet in every debate, Rubio brings it up as though this issue wasn't settled. And Rubio, in a blatant lie that was on display for all to see, was when he stated quite affirmatively, (after Cruz accused him of saying one thing about amnesty in Spanish on Univision, and another in English), that Cruz doesn't even speak Spanish. Embarrassing for him, was when Cruz responded to him in Espanol. Rubio just smirked and had to swallow his lie whole. Such is the dishonesty at these debates.
The controversy over the Cruz campaign trying to attain Carson's Iowa voters, was due to the Carson campaign putting out the information in the first place of their candidate not moving on to the next couple of states. CNN, in turn, reported as "Breaking News" that it was odd that Carson would do such a thing, unless he was dropping out. And while one could argue that Cruz's campaign should've confirmed this (proving now that CNN cannot be trusted for information), Cruz took full responsibility and apologized to Carson both privately and publicly; no one was fired because of it (as Carson desired) because the campaign was merely doing its job of securing voters. Let's not even mention that Rubio's supporters did the same but that wasn't talked about at all, except on social media. Nothing to see there, of course, for Carson or anyone else that continues to call Cruz a liar. Carson, much to his own dismay if he would admit it, has become political. And Carson himself, while seemingly aligning with Trump who praises him at every turn, has evidently forgotten when Trump accused him of being pathological and a child molester. Those accusations cost Carson the most votes of all, for it was after that his numbers started dropping precipitously.
While there doesn't seem to be any fighting between Cruz and Bush, Kasich, and the other candidates who have since dropped out, the Cruz vs Trump fights are turning out to be quite sensational.
Which brings me to Donald Trump; the worst candidate in this race.
Donald Trump employs the politics of destruction. At this point, that seems to be a fact. His anger, which is justified when speaking about the state of the union over the past several years, has instead been focused on his GOP opponents.
If you wonder where Trump stands on issues, you can listen to him in debates, or you can go back to interviews and listen to him there. If you do that however, you will find that his positions have been inconsistent and very much dependent on where, when and with whom he is speaking. He doesn't seem to have a true ideology, no political philosophy, no core from which he takes positions. This is why he is all over the map with opinions.
When Cruz points this out, as he did in the most recent South Carolina debate, Trump goes beserk over it, and in his fieriest of fiery exchanges, then starts his trademark name calling, interrupting and shouting, as if the person who shouts the loudest wins. Trump simply cannot stand to be called out on his own lies and reversals. And when he yells out that Cruz is nasty and lying, the irony is just too much to bear.
When Cruz really becomes a thorn in Trump's side, Trump vows to sue him over his eligibility to run for President (Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother). So far, two courts have struck this down, but Trump himself keeps threatening to sue if Cruz doesn't behave like a nice little boy. Although a non-issue, as it has been looked at many times, Trump keeps it alive merely to cast doubt and to try to silence him.
Of course, Cruz isn't the only one who has had to put up with Trump's overbearing and narcissistic behavior. To date, it's been Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. At this point, we await the attacks on Rubio if he gets too close to Trump's numbers. And the attacks have all been personal. Why? Because Trump cannot debate on substance. He has none. So the politics of destruction sets in. To date however, that strategy seems to work for him, as the masses seem to want blood. The debate stage has become his Coliseum.
For many of us, Donald Trump has been exposed for the person he is. There are no more excuses for his behavior. There are no more excuses for his tantrums and no more excuses for his personal attacks on his GOP opponents. There are also no more excuses for his shallow and repetitive responses on issues. He has proven over and over he is not presidential by any means; he is unpredictable, vicious, and uneducated on many issues. How would he govern? Hopefully we will not find out.
