Citizens of Florida got to witness a debate tonight between the 3 candidates running to represent our state in the Senate, and as is the norm for such debates, we saw a lot of fluff and no substance-from any of the candidates.
What we witnessed in this debate was a battle of 3 entrenched politicians-one of which is supported by a group who is vociferously against the status quo politician in this country. To be fair to Mr. Rubio, he spoke a very good game and obviously did his homework, but all he could honestly do was partake in the game of one upmanship displayed by all 3 parties during this debate. From 2 of the 3, we constantly heard about how broken D.C. is and how it needs to be fixed but; and as usual, we heard not one solution-viable or otherwise-from either of them.
Of the 3, Meeks obviously stands for nothing but the status quo-between his ignorant support of "Obamacare" and his insistence the he stands for the "working man"-a person he seemed incapable of actually defining, it was obvious that his only real position is that of an"anti conservative" and basher of the elite...Of the 3, he is the most obvious "politician" of the 3, and, in my view, definitely represents most of what is wrong with politics in Washington today.
Rubio, the Tea Party poster boy, spoke well, but supports positions which are anti individual-positions which are blatantly hypocritical to his general position on the Constitution. He gets credit for understanding economic theory and why the current tax cuts placed into law by Bush work(ed), but he failed to do little else but place personal attacks on his main rival, Charlie Crist, throughout much of the debate. Rubio, in my opinion, failed to prove any of his positions beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to prove (to me) that he would do what was in the best interests of the state of Florida.
Crist, the "npa" candidate who left the Republican party due to ideological differences, was the only one, at any time, who provided any actual solutions to any question at all. It was only one time-when speaking about how to shore up Social Security-and I disagreed with his answer, but he at least provided something of an idea to one of the problems facing our society today. Placed between such extremes, all Crist really had to do to win this debate running away, was avoid falling into the typical bickering that happens during all such debates-something he either couldn't, or refused, to do...
Personally, I saw nothing out of these 3 candidates, in this format, which gives me any hope that any of them could do the job of a Senator properly. But, if I had to grade the 3 on a pass/fail system, only one would pass-Crist.
Why? Because the position of Senator has nothing to do with the people of this country. The position of Senator has to do with the states, and states rights, in our country. 97 years ago, the 17th amendment went a long way to stripping the individual states of our country of their states rights-which is one of the primary reasons why our national political scene is in the mess it is today; and throughout this debate, the moderators continuously made the mistake of asking these men questions which had nothing to do with states rights. They continuously asked questions trying to pull at the heart strings of people and all 3 continuously fell into the trap-showing that they really have no clue what the position they are essentially applying for is supposed to represent...I digress; Crist wins because, of the 3, as a (soon to be former?) governor he is the only one truly capable of understanding what "states rights" really means-whether he was given a chance to show that in this debate or not...
Before this debate, I was certain of who I was going to vote for to represent Florida in the Senate, after this debacle, I'm not so sure anymore. I did, however, learn one thing from this debate that my more conservative friends won't like seeing me say: when you get down to it, Rubio really isn't any better than Meeks. The only difference between the 2 is that, too Meeks, the Federal Government is a God capable of solving all our nations problems; and to Rubio, God is an intangible entity defined by the religion of his choice, and should lead our government in the direction of solving all our nations problems. Both of these ideologies become anti individual when "push comes to shove", and therefore I cannot support either of them...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment