GOP candidates set sights on South in presidential debate
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republican presidential candidate, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks during a campaign stop, Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016, in Fountain Inn, S.C.
GREENVILLE, S.C. >> Republican presidential candidates turn their sights on the South in Saturday night’s debate, with Marco Rubio looking to right his campaign after a costly stumble that gave new hope to some of his rivals.
Just six contenders will take the stage in Greenville, South Carolina, far from the long line of candidates who participated in earlier GOP debates. But even with a streamlined field, the Republican race remains deeply uncertain.
Jeb Bush and John Kasich are vying with Rubio for the support of more traditional Republican voters. But all three are chasing Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Having split the first two voting states, Trump and Cruz are hoping to add to their win total in South Carolina’s Feb. 20 primary.
The relationship between the billionaire and the Texas senator has become increasingly acrimonious in recent days. Cruz released a television advertisement before the debate accusing the real estate mogul of a “pattern of sleaze,” spurring Trump to fire back on Twitter with another round of questions about his Canadian-born rival’s eligibility to be president.
If Cruz “doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen,” Trump wrote.
While Trump will be standing at center stage, signifying his lead in national preference polls, Rubio will be the center of attention.
Florida’s junior senator entered the last debate facing criticism from rivals who said that while he delivers a good speech and sharp answers in debates, he lacked depth. He played into that characterization when he repeated the same practiced line multiple times under pressure from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, contributing to his fifth place finish in the New Hampshire primary.
While Rubio has sought to shed some of his reliance on well-rehearsed talking points in recent days, the debate will be a prime test of whether he can rebound.
Rubio’s poor performance has created a potential opening for Bush, the former Florida governor, and Kasich, the current governor of Ohio. Bush in particular will need a solid showing in South Carolina, given his prominent political family’s ties to the state, while Kasich is just hoping to remain viable until the race heads to friendly territory for the Midwestern governor.
Katon Dawson, former chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he expects the debate to have more of an impact on his state’s voters than the results in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
“In the last couple of races, we have seen our voters hold their final pick until a couple of days before,” Dawson said. “After the church bells ring on Sunday, people are going to start paying a lot of attention.”
Also on stage Saturday will be Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who has struggled to stay relevant in the debates as his standing in the race sharply slipped. Carson pledged that he wouldn’t allow himself to be ignored.
“I’m going to be much more boisterous,” he said on Fox TV.
Poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire led some frequent debate participants, including Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, to end their campaigns. Nearly all lower polling candidates who have populated undercard debates have also all ended their White House bids.
16 responses to “GOP candidates set sights on South in presidential debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hillary’s email scandal will be the topic tonight.
You are probably right while one of the republican’s top contenders is given a pass even though he is a Canadian. Oh that is right. He renounced his Canadian citizenship so is now a man without a country. What jokes republicans have become.
The length of time Hillary should spend in prison should be a main topic. Treason used to be a crime. Why is the FBI taking so long? Where’s Vince Foster?
It used to be that to run for president of the United States, one had to be a naturalized citizen. Now we have a Canadian running for president. Are you against the constitution Sarge? The emails is petty compared to having a Canadian anchor baby running for our highest office. But I understand. Its ok if you are republican. Right Sarge? lol you guys are so funny.
Mr Trump was born in the good old USA. End of story. No lol
May the Republican with the best lie win.
Between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, they both act as if they should be crowned president. Same attitude Fat Ted Kennedy had before he was slapped down.
It’s a family tradition.
Scalia passing will take center stage at to nights GOP debate. Focus will be on the critical importance of electing a True Conservative President to appoint a Conservative Justice with a Republican Senate.
Obama’s choice for the next Justice will be rejected.
Republicans are such jokes. To think a Canadian is now a major contender for the republican nomination. Come on republicans, do you really want an anchor baby representing your party? lol
Peter, the Presidential choice between the two political parties has changed today with the death of Justice Scalia. I believe the citizens who vote will think about the Supreme Court and its future decisions. The Democrats across the Nation lose on this issue. As in a former post, I believe the next President will have the opportunity to appoint four Justices, and it’s coming to pass. Huge impact on the United States and its citizens for the next 50 years. Sen. Cruz, being born of an American born mother is an American, period.
You forget his mother must have become a Canadian citizen as she voted in Canadian elections. So yes, Ted might still be an American but if he is why won’t he ask Canada to release the form that was filed to keep him American? This is just another reason why people should vote democratic this year. Democrats have made better appointments to the SC than republicans. The last decent republican nominee was probably Sutter.
Hey Peter, the Canadian government confirmed that Mr. & Mrs. Cruz, Sen. Ted Cruz parents, never registered to vote in Canada. They were on a list as non-registered residents. Better check your data source. Or, are you just posting statements without backup, as most of your posts.
I’m sure you don’t see the hypocrisy in you, probably the most brainwashed democrat here, criticizing a political figure for not releasing records.
You have a source for that? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/report-ted-cruz-entered-us-illegally-1974/
In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.
According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.
There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.
First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?
Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.
It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.
Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.
If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.
It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.
3695