The Right Wing–Winners and Losers: The Second Republican Presidential Debate,Part 2

The Right Wing–Winners and Losers: The Second Republican Debate  Part 2

As I said, I gave each candidate 1 point for making a point, for answering the question well.  And among the values previously listed, I also subjectively decided which was more Presidential, credible, and assertive overall.  If you missed the beginning of this discussion please check the blog/post that preceded this one: The Right Wing, Part I

So who won and why from my spiritual point of view? Well, there were close competitors and there were poor scorers. Below I list the best debaters in alpha order as I have no favorite because I am no Republican even though I appreciated the Presidential quality, informed preparation, passion, and fair-mined courage of  Marco Rubio.

Jeb Bush 10

Ben Carson   2

Chris Cristy 11

Ted Cruz 3

Carly Fiorina 9

Mike Huckabee 4

John Kasich 3

Paul Rand 8

Marco Rubio 10

Donald Trump 3

Scott Walker 2

Chris Cristy (11)  bashed Hillary Clinton and President Obama, but talked an unifying theme. That seemed hypocritical and though he had the most points, his energy was vituperative.He spoke best on the need for rehab for marijuana users not jail.

Jeb Bush (10) was very dignified,brought a mollifying energy and I appreciated that he is politically seasoned. He is fighting the perception that he will not be seen as “his own man” because both his brother and father already held the office., but he countered that his brother kept us safe after 9-11. He was composed

Marco Rubio (10) was present to the moment, had his facts and was informed. He was prepared studied, and astute. He spoke on immigration and the Iranian deal calling Putin “that gangster in Moscow” for his interference in the Ukraine. His tone was bitter in regards to Obama’s seeming rebuff of Netanyahu and his warmth and welcome to the Iranian spiritual leader by contrast.

Carly Fiorina (9) was prepared,intense, and assertive. She advocated upgrading and restoring the US military. She focused on policy, advocated for us standing with our allies. She brought a personal revelation on the drug rehab issue. It balanced the sharpness of her edge in trying to slice through the combative male energy.

Paul Rand (8) had considered ideas, the confidence of his political experience, and a passionate, well-thought out response to most question. He was attentive and unflappable. He was a leader by example spoke on the Tenth Amendment, and also advocated for less incarceration of drug users.

Mike Huckabee (4) was exemplary and grounded by his sense of right. He spoke against same sex marriage even though the law validates it now. He was passionate and unabashed. His stand was moral and he embodied the electorate who think like him without venom.

John Kaisch (3)–He seems easy, honest, authentic with his talk of unifying and his record in Ohio as governor. He said more than once America’s strength lies in in unity, abroad as well with our allies. His carriage or body language was easy and stood out from the rest,but his assertions were simplistic by contrast.

Donald Trump (3)–He was out of his depth in this debate, holding back on the usual argumentative hyperbole and name calling.  He seemed to have pulled back and was less sophomoric about name calling, taking back his insult to Fiorina about her looks. He advocated for English as the national American language and spoke again for his intention to raise a wall against Mexican illegal immigration. When asked which woman he’d put on the new US ten dollar bill, he said his  wife. He repeated, he wants “to make the country great again”.

Ted Cruz (3) With every chance to speak, he bashed Obama, and argued against planned parenthood and abortion, advocated for war, and strict constitutional. He said he’d tear up the Iran deal on his first day in office. He’d repeal Obama health care program.  He’d abolish IRS. He did a great deal of fear monger. He was ineffective.

Ben Carson(2)–His views come in from left field, in a sleepy, cracker barrel style. His persona is sweet, and understated. He has strong views on the Syrian war now, saying if we (Obama) had gone into Syria after Afghanistan was, the current displacement of Syrians (refugee) crisis wouldn’t be happening. He is a quiet controversial candidate, saying he’d not want a Muslim in the White House.

Scott Walker(2) He spent the debate selling himself, and the Reagan legacy as it lives in him. Of all, he bashed the president each time he had a chance to speak.He had no authority of his own.,even though he had his Wisconsin governorship to recommend his ability to take a hard line. It was not evident this time. *[Since September 16, he has dropped out of the race.]

The Right Wing–Spiritual Commentary on the September 16, 2016 Republican Debate, Part I

The Right Wing–Spiritual Commentary on the September 16, 2016 Republican Debate, Part I
It has not been my practice in writing on new thought topics to mix my political views and my spiritual views, except as metaphors or similes to clarify a point. I have adhered to a general separation of Spirit and State, writing, instead, about spiritual principles as guidance for our social and civil transformation, but given the political climate that has evolved –from a “moral majority” to a more vociferous individualized religious right– that is the appearance of candidates and high profile politicians who openly confess their religious faith as they address the moral questions that impinge upon the political dialogue, it comes to me that now is the time to respond, to channel some of my energy as a healer and seer.
The recent second Republican Debate of September 16, 2015 provided those of us following the candidates another chance to consider their positions. Though I am not a Republican, I have in my voting history voted that party, as well as leaving my usual Democratic leanings to support a rare Independent. As an American citizen I believe it is my responsibility to be open to the various points of view from those questing for my vote, or at very least to know what they believe to be the failings of the incumbent party whom I helped elect.
As always, we are being asked to compare and contrast those running for office, and to assess what we hear and choose,eventually, the one most qualified– often under the influence of the news media. It comes to me as a seer and healer, that the principles upon which my work are based, authentic compassion, divine direction, and caring, arise from fundalmental and new thought spiritual teachings. I have, via Christian experience and spiritual development, become a member of a global community of light workers here to aid in humanity’s transition as a species into higher consciousness ,i.e a better and more humane , less contentious humanity. As one of many light workers, the great understanding that we share is that all things are connected, i.e all things work together for good (to them that love the Lord and seek to do His will). There is no codex, but our purpose is written on our hearts. We each have found our work and calling in our own way. We must also balance our ideals and purpose against the demands of life, partcipating without compromsing Truth .
So before I share with you how I went about assessing the debate last Wednesday, using rhetorical and spiritual tools, I need to reveal my biases. I have 6. First, I am a Christian which has inculcated a sense of self-sacrifice, weighed me down with judgmental vagaries, and inspired in me a hopeless pursuit of ideal love. Second,I am an African-American, a product of racism and discrimination that has fostered a defense mechanism and suspicion that are under constant review. Third, I am a woman activist and heir to the age of liberation and self-empowerment ,and I believe women are still subject to socialized female behaviors that undermine their equality. Fourth, I am a lesbian,veteran of GLTB advocacy for visibility, and same gender marriage. Fifth, I am a senior citizen and have a stake in the survival of Social Security, national health care and the size of the national debt. Sixth, I am an emeritus English professor, and hence upper middle class, a voter informed by the Net,newspapers, and magazines and televised news networks.
In order to better weigh the impact and gravity of a given candidate’s response to a given question, I decided to keep a simple tally of their “spot on” responses, as well as their well- handled follow-up. In this way, no one could later tell me who won the debate or who did best or poorly. I could decide based on my own system. So I awarded the speaking candidate 1 point for any of the following demonstrations in general terms:
high rhetorical content authentic self
leadership knowledgeable
informed opinion avoided generalizations
passionate view astute/witty
experienced direct
In specific terms, I kept a separate tally for the candidate who, at the end of the evening could be said to embody all of the above. That person(those persons) ought to have emerged in general terms as well.
Please watch for Part Two during this week. Shariananda