Enough with the Excuses & Rationalizations

I’ll begin with a few comments about the debate last night, but I will then move on to what I consider to be a more important subject.

First, it was satisfying to see Hillary Clinton on the defensive, which is where she should always be. I also didn’t mind seeing women in the audience who have accused Bill Clinton of unwanted sexual advances—rape, in one instance—as well as one who was raped by a man whom Hillary defended in court and got him acquitted in spite of the fact he was guilty. She’s on tape, laughing about that afterward.

trump-clinton-debate-2

Trump’s debate performance was better than his disaster (his favorite word last night) the first time around, but that’s not saying much because the expectations bar is already set so low. The best I can say is that he didn’t spontaneously combust (although I sensed he was on the verge of doing so a number of times).

His performance will embolden his most devoted backers, but I doubt he won over the kinds of voters he will need to win this election. He categorically stated he never pushed himself on women or sexually abused them. I predict that declaration will boomerang on him very soon. In fact, there are already accounts out there that show it’s a bald-faced lie.

Enough on the debate itself.

What has really occupied my thoughts over this weekend is the way evangelicals have come to Trump’s defense after witnessing the indefensible. I’m appalled, frankly, by the excuses and rationalizations being put forward on his behalf. Certain ones come to the forefront, and I would like to address them.

Bad actions vs. bad words

pick-your-poisonThere’s a meme floating around Facebook that gives a list of all the bad things the Clintons have done compared to what Trump has done. On the Clinton side of the ledger, there are many bad actions noted. I have no problem with that; they are all true. On the Trump side, it says only “said mean things.”

The goal, of course, is to contrast a well-documented list of Clinton behavior (as I said, all true) with Trump’s words. “See,” we’re told, “he hasn’t done anything; he only steps out of bounds sometimes with the way he says things.”

Anyone who thinks Trump hasn’t done evil, vile things in his life is living in a dream world. His life is just as much an open book as the Clintons and just as seamy. His business dealings are shady at best, he treats people as commodities for his own advancement, others suffer from his malfeasance—not paying contractors, closing down failing business ventures, conning people with phony enterprises like Trump University (coming to a courtroom near us all very soon), etc.

His comments in the video released last week are not just words. They were bragging comments about how he actually has treated women and how he views them overall. As Trump might say in one of his tweets: BAD. SAD. NOT GOOD.

Those comments also reveal what should have been obvious to everyone by now: he thinks of himself as a privileged individual—a “star”—who can do whatever he wants.

This is what you want in a president? He has gone far beyond “just words.”

All men talk like that

Baloney. Next.

The Clintons are worse

I might agree. I might not. It’s beside the point. Bad is bad. Corrupt is corrupt. It exists on both sides. Whenever anyone tries to excuse bad behavior on one side by pointing to the other, it’s merely a deflection and a desire to change the focus.

No matter what the Clintons have done, Trump must answer for what he has done. Pointing out all the Clintons’ sins (and there are so many one can easily lose count) doesn’t change one bit what Trump has done and the essence of his character.

Trump defenders who use this ploy are unwilling to face the facts about him. They hope that by highlighting the evil on the other side that the rest of us will erase from our minds the evil on the Trump side. That’s not going to happen with me; his evil is just as prominent.

Trump used those women abused by the Clintons to try to show how great he is because he is on those women’s side. Go back in history. At the time those accusations against Bill Clinton were made public, what was his response? Trump, at that time, ridiculed the women and defended the sexual abuser. Now he wants us to believe he is the staunch protector of the weak? Get serious. This is all political show.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone/judge not lest you be judged

phariseesUsing scriptures like these to try to shame those of us who are attempting to shed light on Trump’s character is unjust. First, it is a none-too-subtle accusation of Pharisaism. It puts us in the crowd of Pharisees who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. Apparently, we are harboring our own sins and have no right to point out Trump’s.

That, in itself, is offensive. It implies that anyone who ever expresses concern about sinfulness has no standing to say anything because of one’s own sins. We’re not allowed to warn others about the sins of a man who wants to lead a nation?

By the way, what did Jesus say to that woman caught in adultery after everyone else left? He made it clear she had sinned indeed and warned her: go and sin no more.

judging-othersAs for not judging, go to Matthew 7 where that passage is found. Read it carefully. It’s not a prohibition on passing judgment; rather, it’s a prohibition on judging if you haven’t taken care of your own sins first. Take the log out of your own eye, but then it is fine to take the splinter out of another’s. Judgment does happen, all the time, as it should. We are to be a discerning people. This is merely a warning against hypocrisy when you do judge.

By the way, aren’t those who are telling us not to judge Trump judging us? If you take your own words seriously, you should stop telling me to stop judging Trump.

We’re not electing a pastor-in-chief

Agreed. But does that mean instead that we elect an unrepentant serial abuser of women, a man who spins conspiracy theories for his own political benefit, who insults anyone who stands in his way, who lies blatantly about anything and everything, and who considers himself a privileged person who can get whatever he wants?

Seriously?

The saddest part of this past weekend for me is that the stoutest defenders of Donald Trump have seem to come from his cadre of evangelical supporters. I agree with what Dr. Russell Moore said:

The damage done to the gospel this year, by so-called evangelicals, will take longer to recover from than the ’80s TV evangelist scandals.

I also agree with Rich Lowry at National Review:

Someday they will wonder how a man representing the worst excesses of the entertainment world and our elite culture became not just the Republican nominee, but the candidate of the religious right.

It’s well beyond time for Christians to untangle themselves from Donald Trump. Damage to the Christian witness has been considerable, but through repentance and a renewed commitment to righteousness, perhaps some of that can be reversed.

Enough with the excuses and rationalizations.

Debating My Conservatism

I’m going to begin this blog today with what some might consider an audacious comparison, but I hope you won’t misunderstand. In the current political climate, I find myself feeling kind of like how the apostle Paul must have felt when his apostleship was questioned. He had to provide a list of his bona fides to the Corinthians to show that he was the genuine article.

That is strange to Christians today because we take Paul’s word as authoritative. Yet in his lifetime he had to defend himself from accusations of being inauthentic.

No, I’m not like the apostle Paul in my ministry, neither in my effectiveness nor in the type of direct experiences he had with Christ. So let’s lay aside any thought that I am trying to say that.

However, I, like Paul, practically feel constrained to prove my bona fides now that I am opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy. To some critics of my position, I appear as a pseudo-conservative, perhaps even a closet supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Perish that thought immediately, please!

I have been a conservative long before many of you took your first breath. From the first vote I ever made (I won’t give the year—it will come across as ancient history to some readers) I have always supported the Republican candidates, not only at the national level, but in all state and local elections as well.

I was defending conservatism in the liberal atmosphere of my master’s and doctoral programs at very liberal institutions.

I wrote a book on the Bill Clinton impeachment that gives the House Managers’ side of the story when I realized that the media had no desire to give them any credibility. My concern over media bias is longstanding.

book-cover-1My academic research has focused on conservatism and how it plays out in society. For evidence, I give you my book published last year on Ronald Reagan and Whittaker Chambers.

Further, I teach a course on Chambers and another on Reagan and the development of modern American conservatism. I do that in order to educate students in that history so they can have a degree of balance in their intellectual life, knowing that if they proceed into graduate studies, they need a firm foundation as they tackle the worldview they will be given there.

So I take a back seat to no one with respect to my foundational conservative beliefs.

This is all background for what I want to say about the first presidential debate, and I trust this will be my final comment on that.

While I had little desire to watch this debate, I’m glad I did. It only magnified what I already think and feel about the options offered us this year.

growing-ulcer

Trump’s advocates were hoping he would be such a change agent in this kind of format that he would take Hillary off her game. That didn’t happen, primarily due to his juvenile behavior.

trump-rattles-hillary

What I’m beginning to see now on social media and from pro-Trump commentators is a resort to conspiracy theories as to why he didn’t perform well. Hillary got the debate questions ahead of time. Her people sneaked a folder filled with who-knows-what to Lester Holt. She gave Holt little signals so he would know it’s time to help her out.

What a bunch of baloney (you may use that academic term anytime you need it). Hillary didn’t need any conspiracy to help her; she had Trump.

He lost this round big time. His advisors implicitly admit it. They are openly talking about how they have to change strategy for debate #2. You know, things like “prepare for the debate.”

Don’t succumb to the conspiracies. Face the facts.

champ

What distresses me most about this election cycle is the loss of intellectual integrity and the reactionary mood emanating from what I had hoped was a well-grounded, principled conservatism. Anger, fear, and personal attacks on those who continue to oppose the descent into constitutional nihilism has saddened me.

I’ve been accused of self-righteousness because I won’t board this Trump Train. I’ve been told I’m supporting Hillary simply because I find both candidates abhorrent. Am I really pro-life? Am I even a Christian if I can’t find the wherewithal to be on Trump’s side?

I’ve done my best not to accuse fellow believers who are planning to vote for Trump of not being Christian. Yes, I’ve laid out my reasons for why I think that’s a bad move, based on the Biblical principles I’ve taught for many years. But I do not question their faith nor will I ever castigate them for their vote. It’s not personal. I hope they will continue to be my friends.

After this first debate, what is the mood of the country?

dead-heat

Trump might win, although I think that less likely than a Hillary victory. If he does win, I will pray earnestly that he will turn out better than I thought. Be prepared, though, to be bitterly disappointed.

Debate Debacle

I did it. I forced myself to watch the debate last night. Well, I’m not sure debate is the proper term for what I witnessed, but I’ll go with the conventional term for now.

clinton-trump-debate-1

I will now begin my exercise in futility by offering my take on what happened. Why call it an exercise in futility? Because probably no one’s mind will be changed by what I say today. Minds were made up prior to the debate. No matter what, Hillary supporters will say she won and Trump supporters will say he emerged the victor.

Yet here I go anyway.

What I saw at the beginning of the debate was two calm candidates, both trying to impress upon the vast audience that they can be trusted to lead the Free World. Throughout the debate, the usual lies reared their ugly heads: Hillary with her e-mails, Trump with his business dealings and his birtherism, just to name a few.

truth-fairy

Hillary’s demeanor was smug most of the time, and she really pandered to her base with her comments about how the justice system is replete with systemic racism and police need to be retrained. Her statements about the administration’s wonderful deal with Iran were cringe-worthy.

But at least she kept her cool and didn’t have a physical breakdown from whatever ailments she suffers.

Trump was in familiar territory at the beginning when talking about the economy and jobs. For the first 15-20 minutes, he seemed to be in control and looked as presidential as it is possible for him to look.

Then Hillary attacked his business ethics. The game changed.

She apparently learned that the one way to get his goat is to attack the Trump Brand. He never lets that go, but will defend himself endlessly. And “endlessly” is how I can best describe his ramblings for the rest of the evening.

He started to constantly interrupt (his trademark tactic during all the primary debates), he became irritated, pretty much lost his cool, and practically came off the rails by the time the debacle was over.

Some of you will think I’m just projecting my dislike for Trump into my perception of how he handled himself, but honestly, how can anyone have watched the last 45 minutes or so and not seen him disintegrate before your eyes? It takes blinders of magnificent proportions not to admit that he melted down publicly.

And then, after all his incoherent ramblings, he had the lack of self-awareness to pontificate on how he had the “best” temperament. It was like watching a comedy routine.

All Hillary had to do for the final 20 minutes was stand there and let him demonstrate his incoherence. You could see the smile on her face and practically feel her relaxing. He was doing her job for her.

Please, listen objectively to this man. He never really answered the questions put to him but just repeated incessantly that things are awful and we need to do better. How? Where are the specifics? And when it came to foreign policy, he was in uncharted territory, showing the world that he didn’t even bother to prepare for this debate.

The birtherism issue was the most painful to watch. I won’t go into the details, but I dare you to make sense of what he said on that topic.

And please, don’t try to blame it all on the moderator. That’s a cop-out.

David French commented that after the first 15 or 20 minutes, it was like the SS Trump hit the iceberg, then backed up and hit it again just for fun.

French also said that if we hadn’t just lived through the first nine months of 2016, he would have to say that Trump was toast after this performance. What did he mean? Only that Trump should have been toast long ago, but this year we have entered into some kind of alternate reality in which somehow it doesn’t matter anymore that a presidential candidate is bonkers.

What bothers me the most is that people that I normally would trust to be intelligent will look at what happened last night and come away saying that Trump did fine. That is depressing.

So we have, on the one side, a failed secretary of state who put the nation’s security at risk with her e-mail server and who will continue the disaster of the Obama years if she is put in charge—and on the other side a clueless, self-absorbed pathological liar who will take us on his own unique downward path.

other-debate

If sanity were to prevail, neither of these people would be allowed to ever enter the White House, even as visitors.

Last Night’s Miami Showdown

The Republican debate in Miami last night was a substantive event, especially for Cruz and Rubio. They ran rings around Trump when it came to knowledge of policy while he repeated his tired old lines about how everything in a Trump presidency will be “great” and how he will ensure that all the deals he will make will be “good.” Thesaurus anyone?

Trying very hard to look presidential, Trump refrained for the first time from interrupting the others (except for one swipe at Cruz). That actually allowed a genuine debate to take place.

March Miami Debate

For Rubio, this may have been the last gasp, and he took advantage of it, having his best debate ever. He was relaxed and confident, at ease in his home territory and schooling Trump on the problems with Cuba, in particular.

Cruz turned in a fine performance—solid, steady, and knowledgeable, as always. He may have stumbled a couple of times when appealing to people to join his campaign as the only one that can beat Trump. Not that he wasn’t correct, but it was a departure from the issue orientation of the evening.

In the same way as Rubio gave a lesson on the Cuban dictatorship to Trump, Cruz showed the frontrunner that a senator with a sharp legal background knows more about trade and tariffs than the supposed successful businessman. The Frank Luntz focus group gave Cruz a 100 on their dials when he explained how he would deal with the corrupt Washington establishment.

Cruz also scored with his impassioned support of Israel and the foolishness of being neutral between Israel and Palestinian terrorists. Trump then declared that he was the greatest supporter of Israel on the stage—without any corroborating evidence other than having Jewish friends and relatives. It was kind of humorous, in a sad way.

I’ll even admit that Kasich was better than usual, less annoying overall. But even if he wins his home state of Ohio, that will be the high point of his campaign.

Although Trump did put on a more presidential veneer, his constant air of superiority never diminished. It’s just so hard to watch that demeanor without wanting to shake the man and remind him he’s only a human being, not a mini-god.

And he apparently couldn’t help himself when he decided to step on Ben Carson’s news, to be broken today in a press conference, that he will support Trump. He couldn’t wait to allow Carson to make that statement first; he announced it in the debate.

So Ben Carson, whom Trump basically accused of being a child abuser, has no problem forgiving him for such comments, yet somehow can’t forgive Cruz for what overeager supporters did in Iowa?

Carson, the one who constantly called for civility in the campaign, is now endorsing the chief proponent of incivility?

I’ve always respected Carson, but this endorsement, following on his unwillingness to accept Cruz’s apologies, has diminished the man considerably. I hope he will eventually see the error of his ways.

Will this debate have any effect on Tuesday’s primaries? Will it give Rubio the surge he wants in Florida? Will Kasich hold off Trump in Ohio? Will Cruz be able to grab the huge delegate pool in North Carolina (larger even than Ohio’s)?

We await the results. The future of the republic may depend on what transpires next week.

Cruz, Trump, & the Turning Tide

How should we analyze the voting in Saturday’s Republican caucuses and primaries? We could do it the conventional way and simply say it was a draw between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz since both won two states. That would also be the superficial way.

While I was in the Atlanta airport Saturday evening, I was taken captive by the monitor broadcasting CNN (since Atlanta is the home base for that network). I don’t normally watch CNN because I prefer actual news, but sometimes it’s good to hear what’s being said on faux news stations, if only to know what silliness is being spread around.

One commentator rather breathlessly stated that Trump’s apparent victory in the Kentucky caucuses was somehow a foothold in the South that marked some kind of important milestone for the candidate. Since I was in a public place, I refrained from laughing too loudly.

Going beyond the superficial, here’s what I see. If you look at the margins of victory for both Cruz and Trump, you see quite a difference. Cruz took 48% in Kansas, more than doubling Trump’s 23%. In Maine, Cruz had 45%, Trump 32%. Those victories were astounding, especially considering polls had shown Trump to be ahead in both states.

Ted Cruz at KS Caucus

Trump’s victories were somewhat less convincing. He took Kentucky 35-31% and Louisiana 41.4-37.8%, which is only a 3.6% spread. Again, polls had shown him well ahead, not indicating how close the races actually turned out. In fact, those who voted in Louisiana the day of the primary gave the edge to Cruz over Trump; the only reason he won was due to absentee ballots turned in weeks ago.

One wonders if Cruz would have won Louisiana if no one had been allowed to vote early. The last two debates were awful for Trump. The one last week, in particular, revealed him at his worst: making a sexual reference; changing his position on immigration (and having to “clarify” it later); and declaring that the military would obey him if he ordered it to kill women and children of terrorists (another one he had to walk back afterwards).

Those kinds of displays of waffling, budding dictatorship (interesting how they co-mingled), and vulgarity are making the more sensible erstwhile Trump supporters have second thoughts.

By the way, it’s the delegate count that matters, not how many states one wins. Trump’s delegate lead is 382-300 over Cruz. That’s hardly a done deal for the nomination when 1237 are required to become the nominee.

There’s another factor I hate to mention, but feel I must. Without Marco Rubio in the race, it is more than conceivable that Cruz would have won both Kentucky and Louisiana. Many are calling for Rubio to withdraw now, not only for the good of the Republican party but for the political salvation of the nation itself.

Rubio is determined to stay in, thinking a win in his home state of Florida will turn everything around. I’m not convinced. I don’t believe there is a viable path to the nomination for him even with a Florida win. All his continued participation is doing (and the same can be said for John Kasich—perhaps even more) is making a Trump nomination more likely.

I would be more than pleased for a Cruz-Rubio ticket to emerge from this, but in order for that to happen, there must be a meeting of the minds and a willingness on Rubio’s part to take the second spot. Or Cruz could promise him a cabinet position such as secretary of defense or secretary of state, especially since Rubio is so articulate on foreign policy.

Meanwhile, I believe Trump is becoming increasingly exposed as an easily ruffled bully who is, in his core, basically insecure. Most braggarts are. One evidence of his insecurity unveiled itself in an Orlando rally a couple of days ago when he asked his followers to raise their right hands in a pledge to stay loyal to him and vote.

Donald Trump Swear to Vote

When’s the last time a candidate felt he had to make his supposed supporters swear publicly that they will come out and vote? That’s not the action of a secure man.

I’m beginning to see the tide turn against Trump and toward Cruz. I’m rather perturbed by comments that imply the last debate was a total disaster for Republicans. Those who take that view are promoting a false moral equivalence: that all the candidates were a disaster. Not true. Only one was. Cruz, in fact, in much of the commentary I saw, even from those who are not public Cruz fans, was seen as above the fray and more strikingly presidential, seeking to explain policy rather than merely turning the tables on Trump.

I’m looking for Christian character and constitutional consistency. No one has a perfect record in that regard, but I’m convinced that Ted Cruz is the closest we have to that in this race.

Short Takes on the NH Debate

I’m just going to offer a few thoughts on last night’s GOP debate in New Hampshire, taking the candidates in alphabetical order.

New Hampshire Debate 2016

Jeb Bush: I do believe this was his best debate, particularly when he challenged Trump on eminent domain. For the first time, he didn’t seem cowed and overwhelmed by Trump; he more than held his own. It’s probably too late for him, though.

Ben Carson: Unfortunately, he took Iowa personally and it shows. My opinion of him as a fine Christian man is unchanged, but his campaign is virtually over. Eventually, he will have to face that fact.

Chris Christie: He took on Rubio forcefully and made his point about robotic answers when Rubio seemingly couldn’t break away from his pre-programmed response. However, Christie leaves me cold with his rudeness. That may work in New Jersey, but not across the nation. Then his belief that a child conceived in rape should be killed absolutely killed any positive thoughts I might have had of him. Take the life of an innocent child who did nothing wrong to be conceived? Sorry, but I don’t want a president who believes that.

Ted Cruz: Handled another public apology to Carson quite well, although some thought it was awkward for him. I disagree. I’ve seen opinions that he was “flat” in his answers. I disagree again. If you were listening at all, you heard well-informed, crisp policy comments. His personal testimony about his half-sister dying from a drug addiction was the most poignant moment of the evening. Some didn’t like it, but I consider it a high point. In my opinion, he was presidential in his manner and knowledgeable in his responses.

John Kasich: Yes, I get it that he has done some successful things as governor. He tells us continually. Yes, he sometimes makes valuable points. But there’s the other side: he wants to be conservative-Republican-light, rejoicing in a New York Times endorsement. Also, he still comes across as the kid in the room who wants to get the teacher’s attention. Bottom line: I find it hard not to be annoyed with him.

Marco Rubio: This was his big moment to shine, but in his exchanges with Christie, he stumbled badly. Did he not realize he was making Christie’s point by constantly repeating a memorized speech, no matter what the question was? He missed every opportunity to hit Christie on his real record on such matters as appointing judges. Why, oh why, did his advisors not prepare him for what was coming? It should have been obvious what Christie was going to do. Later, he settled down and gave some sterling answers when he got away from his talking points, especially about abortion, yet you have to wonder if those who saw the beginning of the debate saw the strong finish. This was Rubio’s moment, but, sadly, he wasn’t up to the challenge. I say “sadly” because I like him and hope he will learn from this experience.

Donald Trump: For a while, he was steady and unflappable, but then the real Trump showed up in the eminent domain argument. His criticism of the audience was either bold or stupid, depending on one’s perspective. His final comment about Cruz taking Carson’s votes was snarky, especially as it immediately followed Cruz’s final statement when he had no chance to respond, but that’s no surprise; that’s classic Trump. Those who say he won the debate apparently have no concern for his general answers that provide little in the way of policy other than boasts of making everything “great.”

One more point: Trump may have been right about the nature of the audience when he said it was bought and paid for, in a certain sense. I was struck from the start that the audience seemed to wildly applaud everything Bush and Christie said while remaining silent or offering tepid applause for the other candidates, no matter how solid their answers. A packed audience for those particular candidates? It’s worth asking.

On Tuesday, we’ll find out if this debate made any difference.

Random Debate Thoughts

I’m just going to do a bit of stream-of-consciousness writing today with regard to last night’s GOP debate. As thoughts come to me, I’ll put them down in no particular order or preconceived outline.

January 2016 Debate

Ted Cruz took the center spot, so he was subject to the greatest scrutiny. Great start with his humorous swipe at Trump, but he mystified me by his complaint about the questions. Was he serious or attempting humor again? If the former, stop complaining. If the latter, it didn’t work.

Too bad he had that little hiccup because he was superb on certain questions later, particularly on how to replace Obamacare and with his explanation to an Iowa audience why no one should support subsidies. That was risky in ethanol country, but it showed his knowledge of limited government and sound economics. It also revealed his willingness to stand on principle. Hope people in the audience learned something.

Marco Rubio, despite not doing very well in his back-and-forth with Bush on immigration, was otherwise excellent. Many think he “won” the debate, as much as anyone can “win” any debate. Sometimes he comes across as too intense, but he had some great laugh lines along the way to relieve that tension.

I’m impressed, of course, by Rubio’s strong Christian faith but not sure his insertion of Jesus as his Savior fit into that one answer. I understand he was responding to the question about how many in the GOP had been looking at him as their “savior,” but I don’t think anyone really was confusing the two.

Back to Cruz: afterwards, in a sit-down with Megyn Kelly, he got some good news from her. She said she and her colleagues had combed over all his comments about illegal immigration and that they came away impressed he truly has been consistent throughout his Senate tenure. I’m sure he appreciated that affirmation.

Bush was stronger than at any other debate. He came across as very comfortable in his own shoes for the first time. I don’t despise Jeb Bush; I think he is a good man. But I won’t be voting for him.

Likewise, Ben Carson is a good man who deserves much praise for his life and faith. I just don’t believe he should be president.

Chris Christie always has some good lines, and he was quite up front about the murder of innocent children via abortion. However, I think he made sure he said that to counter his past support for Planned Parenthood. He might be a fine attorney general in a Republican administration, but he should not be president.

Rand Paul offered some valid comments along the way and appeared relaxed and confident. That might be because he knows the end is near for his campaign and he still has his Senate job. While I have always disagreed with his basic worldview with respect to foreign policy, I do believe he is a man of principle. His voice is welcome, if not in the presidency.

Did I forget anyone? Oh, yes, John Kasich. Well, nothing to add there.

I watched the first debate of the evening also. I’m always impressed with Carly Fiorina’s ability to cut to the chase and offer intelligent commentary. I hope she gets a high-level position somewhere in the government.

I was saddened by Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum’s decision to go the Trump event after the first debate. Regardless of their reasons, I think that act may have ended both of their campaigns.

The Fox moderators were fair to all. I actually liked that they used videos of what Rubio and Cruz had said earlier to make them answer for what appear to be inconsistencies. They need that practice, and they have to be able to offer solid rationales for what they have said and done.

As I said in a previous post, my two top candidates at this time are Cruz and Rubio. What I really hope for is a decisive Trump defeat on Monday and a 1-2 finish for those two. Then I will continue to watch them closely and be able to come to a personal decision by the time the Florida primary comes around in March.