The big debate for Nebraska Republican Senatorial candidates came and went without substantial and specific dialogue about how any of the candidates would solve the nations’ problems.
Deb Fischer, Jon Bruning and Don Stenberg spent the entire hour with the tired old position statements, “I’m for this,” or “I am against that.” The debate began flat, stayed flat and ended flat.
Here they were, debating at a college campus, and not a college student in sight. No live audience, very little pressure from the panel to seek out specifics, and voters had to come away with more questions than answers on who best will go to Washington with a plan and a vision to fundamentally change this country.
All three candidates said time after time they supported a balanced budget amendment. All three do not want to increase taxes. That means we would have to cut a trillion in spending each year to balance the budget. Folks, that is cutting one third of our government.
Here’s a question that wasn’t asked. “What specifically would you cut or eliminate that would add up to a trillion dollars a year?”
All three said they are against illegal immigration, and do not support amnesty for millions of illegals who are already here. Here’s a question that wasn’t asked. “What would you do with the millions of illegal immigrants who are in the United States right now?”
Would they deport millions of people? Would they aggressively go after employers who are illegally hiring immigrants? They all want a secure border. Are they in favor of a fence? How would they secure the border?
Instead we got questions about who could they work with in the senate or explain a mistake you made and regret. We got questions asking about opponents’ weaknesses which to his credit, Bruning refused to answer.
All three candidates want to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. My question would be, “Please explain and be specific!”
All three want to drastically reduce the regulatory burdens of federal agencies. My question would be, “Please explain and be specific!”
The panel that questioned these candidates missed a heck of an opportunity to dig past the “position statements” and uncover the candidates’ real solutions to problems facing America.
The voters were left empty handed with no more knowledge of the candidates and their solutions, if any, than when the debate began.