Type to search

In Arid Fourth GOP Debate, Rubio Shines, Kasich Grumbles, And Jeb Disappears

Featured Post Politics Top News

In Arid Fourth GOP Debate, Rubio Shines, Kasich Grumbles, And Jeb Disappears

Share

Remember what Marco Rubio said at the first debate back in August — that the election “cannot be a résumé competition,” because if it were, Hillary Clinton would win?

That remark has reverberated throughout the Republican primary, which has been characterized by the astonishing rise of political amateurs like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina, and the fall of party luminaries and experienced GOP statesmen, like Rick Perry and Scott Walker, who dropped out; or Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal, who were relegated to the warmup debate; or Lindsey Graham and George Pataki, who didn’t even make that humble cut.

From his very first campaign speech, Rubio has arranged himself in opposition directly with Clinton — with the senator from Florida casting himself as a new force for change, challenging the old, ineffective power structures in Washington, embodied by Clinton. He has successfully transposed his Senate absences and relative inexperience into an articulate message — that he is the candidate for the 21st century. In the fourth Republican primary debate, which aired Tuesday night on Fox Business Network, he communicated his narrative clearly, plainly, with minimal interference from his fellow candidates — and without having to open fire on his onetime mentor, the erst-frontrunner Jeb Bush, whose anemic performance can only spell bad news for the former Florida governor’s already flagging campaign.

Given the somewhat less crowded stage and more wonkish theme of the evening (a focus on tax policy and economics), there were fewer fireworks than in past GOP debates, but one moment stood out as a vintage piece of Trump-Jeb scuffling. As usual, Jeb had almost nothing to say when it occurred. By way of ignoring John Kasich, who repeatedly tried to get a word in edgewise in a conversation about budgeting — he once was, after all, chairman of the House Budget Committee — the magnanimous Trump deigned to play moderator and shut both men down succinctly: “You should let Jeb speak.”

Kasich resumed his role as the exasperated adult not only in matters of the budget, but also immigration, where he admonished voters not to believe Trump’s fantasy of mass deportation: “We all know you can’t pick them up and ship them back across the border,” he said. “It’s a silly argument. It’s not an adult argument. It makes no sense!”

Defending his immigration policy, Trump invoked President Eisenhower’s forced deportation initiative in the 1950s: “Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower. Good president. Great president. People liked him. I liked him. I Like Ike, right? The expression, ‘I like Ike.’ Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country.”

Trump failed to mention the operation, which is best remembered as “Operation Wetback,” was neither particularly humane nor effective.

Ted Cruz, as he did at the last debate, took aim at the debate format itself, and neatly served his social and economic conservatism in one (sound) bite-sized package: “There are more words in the IRS tax code than there are in the Bible,” he said.

Dr. Ben Carson, who has come under fire recently for reports that he may have fudged the truth to add gloss to the salvation narrative of his biography, emerged uninjured from the debate. No one seemed particularly inclined to discuss whether or not the retired neurosurgeon had lied about a scholarship to West Point or actually been violent as a young man, except for Carson himself, who in his opening remarks transmuted the controversy into a limp joke at the media’s expense.

Rand Paul beat the libertarian drum — accusing his fellow candidates of being false conservatives if they planned to place additional military spending on a credit card.

When Rubio responded, “I know that the world is a better and safer place when America is the strongest military force in the world,” Paul shot back that military action “wouldn’t keep America safe from bankruptcy court.”

As she did in the last debate, Carly Fiorina touted her business record, despite the damning reviews of her performance as a CEO that have come to light, and seemed to cite her own desire to challenge Hillary Clinton in a one-on-one debate as a qualification to be nominated. When asked why Democrats seem to have a better record at job creation, she slid back easily into a narrative, studded with talking points, which concluded, without explanation: “And yes, the Democrats do make it worse.”

They spent most of the evening affirming that very point, with varying shades of — and success at — charisma, but not disagreeing on much. And Marco Rubio did what he came there to do: He shone through as the fresh, young, best new hope for establishment.

Of course, it had less to do with substance than smiles.

Photo: Republican U.S. presidential candidate and former Governor Jeb Bush (L) speaks as U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R) looks on during the debate held by Fox Business Network for the top 2016 U.S. Republican presidential candidates in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 10, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young

This post has been updated.

Tags:
Sam Reisman

Sam Reisman is the former managing editor at The National Memo, where he still writes the weekly "This Week In Crazy" column. His writing has appeared in Flavorpill, The Huffington Post, Columbia Daily Spectator, and Bwog. He was the publisher of the 2010 edition of Inside New York, an annual guidebook to the city for students and young professionals.

Since 2011, he has co-curated and hosted Peculiar Streams, a showcase for NYC-based writers, musicians, comedians, and filmmakers. He is a staff writer at Mediaite, and blogs at SamReisman.com.

  • 1

70 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila November 11, 2015

    I am betting on Trump and Rubio to slug it out and dominate the upcoming GOP debate. Trump is riding hiding after his entertaining SNL appearance, and Rubio is probably the most qualified among one of the most pathetic field of candidates to the nomination of any party.

    Reply
    1. Jinmichigan November 11, 2015

      Not saying much for rubio to call him the most qualified considering the field.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila November 11, 2015

        My comment was not meant to be an endorsement. Having said that, Marco has exhibited qualities that, with the possible exception of Kasich, seem to be absent from the rest of the Republicans running for the GOP nomination. Unfortunately, for the GOP and for those who would welcome a substantive debate over important issues, Marco also exhibited the same political survival cowardice demonstrated by the rest of the Republican field. That is, he succumbed to the reality that taking a pragmatic position on issues such as immigration is suicidal for anyone running for office as a Republican.

        Reply
        1. Eric Bischoff November 11, 2015

          Substantive GOP Debate is a bit of an oxymoron don’t you think! Is Rubio the next clueless puppet like Reagan to be manipulated by powerful wealthy outside forces?

          Reply
          1. jmprint November 11, 2015

            He is already molded, all they need to do now is get him in office and they are ready to continue chiseling down the middle class.

            Reply
          2. CrankyToo November 11, 2015

            Here’s an off-topic tidbit for you:

            In Germany, every town (seemingly) has it’s own brewery, and while stationed there for four years in the mid-70s, I lived near the village of Winnweiler (pronounced “vin viler”), which could, IMHO, legitimately lay claim to brewing one of the world’s finest lagers – Bischoff Pils, one of the many treasures of der Vaterland. (Google Winnweiler + Bischoff)

            Reply
          3. Robert Hodge November 11, 2015

            I’m putting my money on “YEP!”

            Reply
        2. Jinmichigan November 11, 2015

          I didn’t take your comment as an endorsement. rubio is a pure opportunist who has zero accomplishments other then getting elected.

          Reply
      2. CrankyToo November 11, 2015

        In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

        Reply
    2. yabbed November 11, 2015

      Rubio has absolutely no qualifications to be President of the United States.

      Reply
      1. plc97477 November 11, 2015

        But then, neither does any other of those clowns.

        Reply
      2. Dominick Vila November 11, 2015

        None of the Republicans currently running for the Republican party nomination are qualified to be President. However, he, Kasich, and Jeb are the most intelligent among them.

        Reply
    3. Robert Hodge November 11, 2015

      Rubio Qualified??? How? You need a mind, a brain, perhaps some compassion and a bit of savvy to do this job. (not to mention showing up!) He (as well as the rest of the Klown Kar Krazy) have NONE of that.

      Reply
    4. DEFENDER88 November 11, 2015

      My guess has been Rubio for some time now. We will see.
      Now I am thinking Rubio/Carson – that could give Hillary a run for her money. And probably a Repub win.
      The Right is much more motivated this time around, especially about the gun issues. Which we “know”(not a guess) she will try to ban-again.
      Rubio has very good/low negatives(unlike Trump whose negatives are pretty high) and Rubio makes sense to most and reminds me a bit of Jack Kennedy at that age(yes I was around then)(Rubio – Intelligent, good looking, most could imagine as Pres, etc)(Almost always makes sense). Carson(also very good negatives) to siphon off some of the Black vote.
      For those who don’t know – “Negatives” exa(Who would you definitely “Not” vote for).

      Reply
  2. charleo1 November 11, 2015

    So, they didn’t disagree much on economics. How could they? Their economic plan is a simple one. Take what little a disappearing Middle Class has managed to hang onto. And then, make sure things stay that way. What Con, non-politician, Koch Libertarian, or charismatic upstart, would be allowed to disagree?

    Reply
  3. Jinmichigan November 11, 2015

    I cannot disagree with your headline any more. Rubio shines? Please. In that field a 12 watt bulb would blind them all. rubio is such a neocon every time he sees his shadow he wants to add another trillion to the defense budget.

    Reply
    1. Robert Hodge November 11, 2015

      Excellent!!! That ‘headline’ had worried me, but seeing your comment made it all better, thanks!! Yeah, I guess its pretty easy to ‘shine’ when you’re the only dim bulb in the marquee even ON! Good one!~

      Reply
      1. Jinmichigan November 12, 2015

        The sad thing is, the repubs whine about media bias, and the media backs off. It’s hard to believe anyone who wrote that headline truly thinks that “rubio shined”, but they apparently don’t want to offend anyone by telling the truth. No one shined, they all lied, there was no fact checking by the moderators and there wasn’t one tough question. This was more of a GOP infomercial than a debate. Of course the repub candidates thought it was “elegant”. It was a joke.

        Reply
  4. FT66 November 11, 2015

    To me that was not what we call a DEBATE, it was rather: tell us what you know or what has been your stump speech. Candidates needed to comment on what the first speaker said and forth and backwards. There were also little of follow-ups questions.The woman moderator, Maria, tried at the beginning and later she gave up. The size of the field contenders doesn’t allow a genuine and full of life debate.

    Reply
  5. Paul Bass November 11, 2015

    The debate took place on Fox News, THE Republican media. Of course they are only going to throw softballs.

    Any questions about Carson LYING in his book? No. Any questions about Rubios use of GOP credit cards? No. Any question to Trump about exactly HOW will he deport 12 million people? No. These clowns couldn’t stand up to a puff of air much less, Russia, China, or ISIS.

    Do we seriously want ANY of these nimrods to have their hand on the nuclear button?

    Reply
    1. jmprint November 11, 2015

      NO we don’t seriously want any of these clowns as president, but they can keep the stage, it makes for a good laugh and gagging at times.

      Reply
      1. Paul Bass November 11, 2015

        Gagging, and trying not to throw my drink at the TV!

        Reply
    2. Andrew Armstrong November 11, 2015

      How to deport 12 million people? With the military, the same folks who are constitutionally charged with protecting the border.

      Reply
      1. jmprint November 11, 2015

        All while children are scratching and gnawing because they are taking their parents away, because only some US citizens have rights.

        Reply
        1. paulyz November 13, 2015

          What if their ILLEGAL parents brought them, or gave birth to them here, they are the responsibility of the parents, not American Citizens or Legal Immigrants? They are ALSO Citizens of other countries.

          Reply
      2. Paul Bass November 11, 2015

        Hitler was “only” able to “deport”/murder about 6 million Jews, how did that work out for Germany?

        And Trump, you, and other RWNJ, propose “deporting” TWICE as many people? Are you crazy? How are you going to do that?

        Most Americans are not willing to live in a country where we start to round up people, and ship them off in a cattle car.

        Reply
        1. latebloomingrandma November 11, 2015

          Can you imagine the visuals of this obscenity going around the world on YouTube? Americans putting people in cattle cars, and children crying for their parent s. It would be the 21st century’s Trail of Tears.

          Reply
          1. Paul Bass November 11, 2015

            It’s amazing to me that the average GOP/TP says “deport 12 million illegals!”, then if you ask THE NEXT QUESTION, How?

            “Uh, uh, but we can use the military!” Gee, just like Hitler, and how did that work out?

            To scream so vehemently and yet be so clueless, shows astonishing hypocrisy.

            Reply
          2. paulyz November 13, 2015

            Nope, it will be done orderly & humanely with them registering, how else do we even know who is in this Country Illegally. They will also be given a chance at entering Legally, like Millions patiently are.

            Reply
          3. Robert Hodge November 11, 2015

            On a smaller level, its ALREADY happening. You’ve seen the pictures of priests ministering THROUGH the stupid assed wall to relatives on the other side, in ..say.. Nogales, right? It’s America’s shame that will live longer than WE will.

            Reply
          4. Irishgrammy November 11, 2015

            First time I have read someone on TNM use the Trail of Tears as an example of government cruelty! My mother’s grandmother was a full blood Choctaw which was one of the main tribes “relocated” by the government to Indian Territory (Oklahoma) so The Trail of Tears has special meaning to our family! But this country has a history of doing some pretty awful things to “others” who don’t fit the mold or are “in the way” or others who are easy to “vilify” for whatever insane reason of either race, religion, ethnicity the usual judgmental criteria by those in power……and there are some in 2015 apparently still determined to do even more outrageous acts of cruelty per these contemptible Republican candidates with Mr. Obnoxious, Donald Trump leading the way!!! Anyway great reference latebloominggrandma! We’ll see if this country has grown over the last 400+ years or NOT…….I am all to well aware there are many who have not and never will unfortunately!

            Reply
          5. latebloomingrandma November 11, 2015

            I just can’t stand that the party of family values and Christian principles say and do what they do. Taking a class of people and dehumanizing them with their rhetoric and desires to rip families apart, deny the hard backtracking work that many of them do, etc., etc. I want no part of Republican values.
            In this day and age there has to be a better way. It may require putting some money into it with technology or people such as social workers rather than a disgusting wall.

            Reply
          6. Independent1 November 11, 2015

            What’s sad is that just the fact the GOP is hyping up all this immigration nonsense, has already brought out a great deal of animosity by many foreigners against America. Some articles I’ve read suggest that what the GOP is doing has already created significant negative PR for our country. (Without even what you described happening yet – just because it’s become such a political issue for the right.)

            Reply
      3. Paragryne November 11, 2015

        That would be unconstitutional, the Military is prohibited from operating inside the U.S. That makes it the perfect idea for the law and order, Constitution-loving Republicans.

        Reply
      4. CrankyToo November 11, 2015

        Two words for you, dipstick: Posse Comitatus.

        Reply
      5. Independent1 November 11, 2015

        Some great rebuttals to your nonsense all ready, and none of them even included the great fallacy in what you suggest – that doing something so nonsensical, would create absolutely catastrophic chaos in the U.S. economy which would throw America and the world into another Great Depression.

        Why is it that millions of Americans have no clue to just how big a part illegal immigrants play in driving the U.S. economy. Some experts estimate that each illegal actually supports 1.25 native-American jobs. Notg to mention the billions of dollars that illegals pour into our government’s tax coffers – including over 12 billion per year into Social Security (a benefit they can’t get) which has help extend even the life of SS. And that includes Medicare – cutting the deficit that Medicare puts on the budget.

        All people like you do is look at the lies that GOP politicians are spewing about how terrible illegals are – they never admit that illegal immigrants are a very integral part of driving America forward. Without them America’s population would have been decreasing over the past 2-3 decades, and if you we’re having economic problems today – you have no idea how much worse that would be had our population decreased by 20-30 million since Reagan was in office instead of increasing by 75 million due to the influx of immigrants and even the millions that have been born to illegals.

        One suggestion as to why Putin is trying to bring back some of the ex Soviet satellite countries into Russia, is because he’s aware of the calamity that will strike Russia if its population continues to decline at its current pace. He’s trying to suck back in these ex Soviet Union countries because there’s little to no immigration into Russia AND RUSSIA NEEDS MORE PEOPLE to drive its economy!!!!!

        Reply
        1. Paul Bass November 11, 2015

          Russia is likely in a death spiral, which unfortunately usually means military aggression with your neighbors.

          The population is in decline, birthrate vastly lower than death rate. Also no one is immigrating into Russia. (Why would anyone, would you move to Russia?).

          China is also in world of hurt, no more “one child’ policy, but it is too little too late. Who is moving to China? No one. They are all sending their children here to get them out of China.

          It’s funny, the Cons are so down on America, but it looks like everyone in the world wants to get here, I wonder why?

          Reply
        2. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

          Illegal immigrants do not play a big part in the economy, Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that “the immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP”, and notes “Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.”

          Reply
          1. Independent1 November 11, 2015

            I’m not getting into a discussion with the 6-year old again; but just for your benefit, numerous studies have proven that George Boras should keep to opinions he knows something about because he has no clue about the impact that immigrants have on the American economy!!!

            Reply
          2. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

            He’s one of the world’s leading labor economists.

            Reply
          3. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

            You’re a sucker who has fallen for One Percenter propaganda about immigration.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 November 11, 2015

            From TheStreet.com

            The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy institute based in Washington D.C., estimates that immediately and fully enforcing current immigration law, as Trump has suggested, would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion. It would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months).

            “It will harm the U.S. economy,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. JohnMcCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Immigration is an enormous sourceof economic vitality.”

            The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.

            A number of industries that depend heavily on cheap immigrant labor would be devastated — especially agriculture. “There would be an abrupt drop in farm income and a sharp rise in food prices,” said John McLaren, professor of economics at the University of Virginia with expertise international trade, economic development and the political
            economy.

            Companies that sell to the immigrant population would be affected as well, leading to decreased revenues for local businesses and a loss of American jobs.

            “Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, always spend a
            portion of their earnings in the location where they have their jobs,” McLaren said. “And in a lot of our urban centers, this is actually an important part of the economy.”

            Reply
          5. Otto Greif November 12, 2015

            George Borjas is a leading academic economist, American Action Forum is a One Percenter propaganda operation.

            Reply
          6. Otto Greif November 12, 2015

            It’s hilarious they cite Postville, Iowa as an immigration success story, go look up what happened there.

            Reply
        3. @HawaiianTater November 11, 2015

          “Why is it that millions of Americans have no clue to just how big a part illegal immigrants play in driving the U.S. economy.”

          A: They are too stupid to understand it.
          B: They choose willful ignorance because brown people are scary.

          Take your pick.

          Reply
          1. Independent1 November 11, 2015

            I’ll go with both A and B; and I didn’t even bring out the fact that if we got rid of the illegals, many immigrants who are citizens would move out too – just like they did in Alabama when those GOP idiots passed the strictest immigration law in the nation.

            And with millions of immigrants gone, food prices in America would skyrocket, not only because farmers who could survive would need to jack up their prices for the 2-4 times increase in wages they had to pay; but also because a large percentage of farmers would give up their farms and there would be severe food shortages.

            Reply
          2. @HawaiianTater November 11, 2015

            I’m a white guy and I left Alabama of my own free will because Alabama freakin’ sucks. 20 years growing up there was enough. I’ve been gone over a decade and have no intentions of even visiting.

            Reply
          3. paulyz November 13, 2015

            Absolutely false as I have told you before. Besides, most seasonal migrant workers are here Legally, or are supposed to be. But they are supposed to be by definition, seasonal, not permanent.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 November 13, 2015

            Here’s some excerpts from an article I posted for your friend Otto which is an assessment by a right-leaning organization which says that, as usual, you’re full of BS!!!

            From thestreet.com

            “It will harm the U.S. economy,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. JohnMcCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Immigration is an enormous sourceof economic vitality.”

            The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.

            A number of industries that depend heavily on cheap immigrant labor wouldbe devastated — especially agriculture. “There would be an abrupt drop in farm income and a sharp rise in food prices,” said John McLaren, professor of economics at the University of Virginia with expertise
            international trade, economic development and the political
            economy.

            Companies that sell to the immigrant population would be affected as well, leading to decreased revenues for local businesses and a loss of American jobs.

            “Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, always spend a
            portion of their earnings in the location where they have their jobs,” McLaren said. “And in a lot of our urban centers, this is actually an important part of the economy.”

            He pointed to the case of Postville, Iowa, where in 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a
            slaughterhouse and meat packing plant, detaining 389 undocumented workers (and jailing 300 of them). The raid caused most of the more than1,000 immigrants not caught to leave the town of 2,300, devastating thelocal economy in the process.

            He also noted his own research, which suggests each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of which go to U.S. natives. “Obviously, those jobs would disappear if the undocumented were just yanked away,” he said.

            Reply
      6. bobnstuff November 11, 2015

        These people are not at our border and the military can’t enforce laws inside our country. Add in the fact that the law is so weak that they are almost imposable to enforce. Being in the country illegally is the same level of crime as a parking ticket. Coming in illegally get you $250 fine and up to six months in jail if the government can prove you jumped the fence. To make things even harder to deport someone many have to by law have a hearing in front of a judge which we don’t have enough of to handle the cases right now.

        Reply
      7. Robert Hodge November 11, 2015

        Hey Andrew…Isn’t our military ALREADY just a bit busy at the moment?

        Reply
      8. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

        You don’t have to deport them all, most will self deport in response to enforcement.

        Reply
        1. Insinnergy November 11, 2015

          Idiot troll is an idiot.

          Reply
          1. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

            Mup da doo didda po mo gub.

            Reply
          2. Insinnergy November 12, 2015

            Ah good… you’re now making more sense than usual.

            Reply
  6. CrankyToo November 11, 2015

    The author lost me in paragraph two when he used the term “GOP statesmen” to describe Rick Perry and Scott Walker. Notwithstanding the fact that those two losers are dirtbags of the first order, these days one is more likely to encounter unicorns that “GOP statesmen”.

    Reply
    1. CrankyToo November 11, 2015

      Cheers to you, Mr. Reisman. Now I know you were just being ironical with your application of the term – and I do love me some irony. Keep up the good work…

      Reply
  7. 1Zoe55 November 11, 2015

    This was not a debate, but rather a forum for the idiotic ideas of the Republican/TeaParty group. Personally, I am tired of the so-called debates held in front of a friendly crowd who are programmed to applaud or to boo at appropriate times. This holds true for the Democrats too. Let them debate to the “red eye” of the camera and thus to the watching audience at home or in bars or wherever. Yes, there should be tough questions about some of their cock-a-mamie ideas and they should be called to task for these ideas. What bothers me about this group of nutcases is that they get away with controlling the parameters of the debate to avoid the tough “gotcha” questions, demonstrating just how weak they are.

    Reply
  8. yabbed November 11, 2015

    Once again Hillary Clinton won that debate.

    Reply
  9. paulyz November 11, 2015

    When Kasich mentioned the 1986 bipartisan Amnesty LAW under Reagan, he should have been reminded that that didn’t include the 12 Million people that entered ILLEGALLY “after”! Him & Bush should have been asked what they will do with the many Illegals that will continue to enter “after” yet another Amnesty. Will they demand they leave, or grant another Amnesty? Rubio had previously dropped quickly for his Gang of 8 “comprehensive” Amnesty, which had been rejected by most Americans, why he remained silent on the discussion. Bush, Rubio, & Kasich basically want to continue that “promised” security but give Legal status, (Amnesty), to Millions. Trump, Carson, & Cruz have the correct policy of fully securing the border, Mandatory E-verify, & stop/track people that overstay their visas first & absolutely. Then non-criminal Illegals can register & apply from their home countries, Legally.

    Reply
    1. bobnstuff November 11, 2015

      Just how do you secure the borders? In case you haven’t noticed there is more then just the Mexican border. Close that off and they will use boats. Half the illegals in the country came in legal and then over stayed their visa’s. Are we going to stop letting students and tourists in? Once a person is in the country it’s easy for them to vanish. Who is going to enforce the mandatory E-verify laws? Are we going to increase the size of the government? Who’s going to pay for all this, don’t say we will save money because of the services the illegals get because that is a myth. Those illegals pay taxes. Even the ones paid under the table still pay tax on everything they buy. There is a bunch of other taxes they pay. 80% have jobs and work. It’s easy to say throw them out but if it was that easy it would have been done by now.

      Reply
      1. paulyz November 13, 2015

        It is very easy to enforce Mandatory E-verify, simple few second check for most employees, but it has been opposed by Democrats, Obama, & the GOP “leadership”. Visa overstays aren’t tracked, which could be done. The WALL or 2-layer fence would be very effective in stopping most. Of course a small number mat get through, but if our government had the will to enforce our Laws, the problem would be extremely smaller & manageable.

        Multiple studies have been done for years showing the results of Millions of Illegals and their huge burdens far outpacing any gains. That is the myth the pro-Amnesty crowd deceive you with to stall on solving this mess. With our high, long-term number of unemployed, underemployed, part-time Americans, we must stop Illegal “immigration”. If we need seasonal migrant workers, that must be enforced as well, (& they are working Legally), but most Illegals aren’t doing those jobs.

        Reply
        1. bobnstuff November 13, 2015

          I will address only one part of your thinking, E-verity. each year there are 30 million new hires in the US. That would mean 30 million hits on a government site. Next someone still needs to checked to makes sure that it’s being done. We have 20,000 employees at ICE to handle that job while also handling the borders, customs and legal immigration. Do you see a problem here?

          Reply
  10. bcarreiro November 11, 2015

    God Bless Our Veterans …..an all of us if anyone of these hypocrites were in office.

    Reply
  11. RetDem November 11, 2015

    If Ted Cruz wants to give younger people just entering the Social Security roles a lower monthly income from the money they paid into the system, I think Senators and House Members being elected the first time should also be given a lower salary. Paying these “do nothing but hurt the poor and middle class” newbies $174,000/year is ridiculous. Why not pay them $75,000 with increases toward the other $100,000 as they prove their worth as a legislator. The money saved could go back into the SS fund to repay the amounts that were taken out of that fund in the past.

    Reply
    1. Irishgrammy November 11, 2015

      In addition to the obscene income for these representatives, it was just announced by Paul Ryan, that the House will work 110 days for the entire calendar year of 2016. So basically they are going to get $174,000. plus a year for working less than a 1/3 of the year, and that IS AN OBSCENITY!!! I want to know what other job in America pays almost quadruple the average salary in the country with ridiculously great benefits, and still the “employee/representative” GETS NOTHING DONE and pisses everyone off in the country at the same time??? Am certain they would ALL complain they need to “touch” base with their constituents and beg/solicit contributions for their campaigns taking up so much of their precious time! Frankly, they could eliminate the money issue if they did something on Campaign Finance REFORM and undoing the damage of Citizen’s United!!! But they won’t, that would take co-operation and compromise, especially dirty words in the Republican caucus in the House.

      Reply
  12. Otto Greif November 11, 2015

    The questions were a lot more substantive than the CNBC debate.

    Reply
  13. Insinnergy November 11, 2015

    Keep in mind Rubio just hired Eric Teetsel, an evangelical nimrod, who believes it’s the loving thing to discriminate against gay people in the name of Jesus.
    He was also instrumental in pushing for laws that allow Christians to use their beliefs in their invisible sociopathic friend to diminish or impinge other people’s rights.

    Totally going for the win there.

    Reply
  14. DIE_BankofAmerica_PHUKKING_DIE November 11, 2015

    Will Jeb secretly be sodomized by Victor Ashe in the oval office like W when he is president?

    Reply
  15. terry b November 12, 2015

    I’m still having a problem as to which candidate most resembles Adolph Hitler via there speeches. Rubio is battling to be the front runner in that area. All of them, with the possible exceptions of Trump and Kasich don’t seek that comparison Lets hope that a Hitler clone, as Rick Perry was frequently called, will not occur. Our current version of the Nazi party will definitely nominate someone worse then Romney. 75% of Germans referred to him as Hitler Lite. Apparently, the GOP prefers a clone.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.