Republican candidate Donald Trump speaks during last week’s GOP presidential debate in Boulder, as Sen. Marco Rubio and Ben Carson look on. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)
Re: “In Boulder, GOP debate top candidates unite against common enemy,” Oct. 29 news story.
The gloves came off Wednesday night at the Republican presidential debate and real issues took center stage. It was what people have wanted to hear. Unfortunately, a very important question still remains that never is discussed in any debates.
All of the candidates are aware of the need to challenge the failures of government. What we don’t hear from any of the candidates is how they intend to deal with Congress if elected, when Congress is responsible for many of the problems. It won’t be easy when the fox has the key to the henhouse. Possible solutions have been mentioned, such as term limits. This could lessen the effect of influence from special interest groups who help members get elected. But guess who would be deciding whether or not to have term limits?
We can keep looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.
Glenn Blair, Denver
This letter was published in the Nov. 2 edition.If it was the purpose of the CNBC debate moderators to bind the GOP candidates together against the mainstream media, they sure accomplished that. I literally groaned when the first question they asked was that hoary job-interview question: “What is your biggest weakness?” Did they really expect a candidate to answer, “I’m obnoxious and loud and tend to blame everyone but myself for any shortcomings”? And it culminated in the question regarding regulation of fantasy football. Gov. Chris Christie put it well when he answered that we have way bigger problems in our country than that. People who watch these debates deserve better.
Susan Mueller, Boulder
This letter was published in the Nov. 2 edition.After watching the debacle by CNBC, can there be any doubt that the bias by the mainstream media is not a figment of Republican imaginations? Even the Democrats had to wince at this performance, especially that of John Harwood, who came across as nothing more than a left-wing hit man who thought he was part of the debate.
Will the powers that be at CNBC have any regrets about the performance of their moderators?
L.W. Hunley, Grand Junction
This letter was published in the Nov. 2 edition.Surreal. There is no other way to describe the Republican presidential debate in Boulder.
On stage, several of the candidates attacked big government and super PACs as benefiting the rich and the powerful to the detriment of everyone else. These are odd positions for any Republican candidate to take, since there is a party in America which is dedicated to increasing the prospects and prosperity of the wealthy — and it is not the Democrats.
Guy Wroble, Denver
This letter was published in the Nov. 2 edition.Is this the best we can do? Not the candidates themselves, but the process for vetting a seemingly endless line of candidates in a debate. I’ve listened to what I could so far, and feel like I’ve learned nothing, except that those seeking election haven’t changed — they present canned answers, cannot talk intelligently off the cuff, and pretend that only they have the answers. And here’s the saddest part — the media seem more focused on Twitter feeds, who zinged who, and polls, polls, polls.
We’re all voters, itap our opinion that counts and we have 12 months to decide. It sounds like ample time, but letap all be reminded of the historically low voter turnout metrics in this country. Debate is good and even healthy, but for goodness sake, letap focus on the top three or four issues that matter most to us as a country. If you’re unhappy about anything else, write to your congressman, donate to a cause, whatever makes you feel better. We all share responsibility (and credit) for the state of things.
Gary Rauchenecker, Thornton
This letter was published in the Nov. 2 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
