he had run ask the man who was against nationbuilding. he had run as a man who wanted a humble foreign policy come in a sort. 9/11 changed that. that wasn't his fault. there's only so far you can make that argument. bush also ran for compassionate conservatives. it wasn't because we had to invade afghanistan or iraq or at least it wasn't the we chose to invade afghanistan and iraq. it wasn't because the planes into the twin towers. it wasn't because of 9/11 that republicans in congress with control of the senate and the house and the white house expanded medicare. i think to an extent bush and his team early on that they could buy off some of the key constituent part of the electorate, older people, medicare and suburban especially women with no child left behind. that's not just bad policy but that's bad policy that doesn't work. it is encouraging in my view, that whenever republican party where those maneuvers would yield a significant pushback. not just in the tea party which i think has to have been a good force for economic, prominen

ted cruz says let's go in and not the heck out of them but i don't want to do a nationbuilding.conomy, who presented the best case for themselves? hunt: this may shock you, but my answer is john kasich. his budget and tax plan is the only one that really holds together. the others do not have plans like that. john: what you think was the biggest flub of the night? interesting one made a mistakez on the five agencies he was going to eliminate. rick perry could remember them. crews said commerce twice. but it showed how quick he was. and they talked about the sugar subsidies. mark: the other fight they had was on the bank bailout. should banks be too big to fail? who got the best of that? hunt: i think ted cruz did. a lot of people hate big banks and hate wall street. when ted cruz said no, no more bailouts, i'm not sure it's a realistic policy but he won over the crowd with it. mark: ted cruz is touching on the hot buttons of the party right now. is there any position where he is vulnerable? hunt: i'm not sure he's vulnerable within the base at all. it's a different question abou

cruz says let's go in, but i do want to do any nationbuilding.k: on the economy, which is being presented as understanding the good economy? al: mark, this will shock you, but if you look at it substantively, the answer would be john kasich. his budget, his tax plan, is the only one that holds together. bute of it is unrealistic, l it holds together. the others do not. but john kasich not have a good night last night, and he will be remembered more for some slips like the banking issue. john: stylistic problems overshadow the substance. al: absolutely. mark: what do you think was the biggest flub of the night? al: well, there were a number. of the most intriguing flub was the way ted cruz made a flub saying he was going to eliminate rick perry did that for years and couldn't read them. cruz, instead of stalling, basically just said commerce twice. ey, didn't you-- h double count commerce? it showed how quick he was, that he was able to segue to sugar subsidies. he joked about that today. mark: the other big fight was on the bank bailout question,

will be needed. 58, so they are preparing, and they make it very clear that they are not into nationbuilding. it's not a black nationalist movement. they makelo-african, it very clear whether objectivists. -- objective is. our objective is something holier than building a nation. it is stooped purify christianity and the state. purify christianity and the state. we are going to help turn them away from the sin of slavery. this is there clear objective, to end the tyranny of slavery. helping to create a more perfect union. working in concert, if you will, with the constitution. in 1863, a commission was put together by president lincoln. they traveled around, they interviewed african-americans in this commission. these are three commissioners. the three commissioners, one of the things they noticed is that when dealing with the african population,scent there is a spiritual and religious sentiment that was very important. this commissioners would that the officers that might take charge of these, that they need to have this sentiment as well that they are fighting for god and liberty. saying,

we should deal with threats as they arise and drop the pretense that we must succeed at nationbuildingbroad in order to be safe at home. if we revisit the other possible rationales for a large standing army, if we reduce our overseas presence, encourage other countries to defend themselves, we could rely more heavily on reservists here stateside. in conclusion is assumed the roles and missions that we assign to our military will grow more onerous. it is unreachable to expect our military to do more with less. many would solve this means and mismatched by increasing the means. we should reconsider the end as well. the military's roles and missions are not handed down on stone tablets from heaven. they are chosen by policy makers right here on earth. strategy must take account of the resources that can be made available to execute it. increasing the military budget in order to put a primacy strategy until to the american people to accept cuts in popular programs, higher taxes, or both so our allies to neglect their defensive. it seems unlikely americans will embrace such an approach. the

no more nationbuilding, things of that nature.racticeneeds to due diligence, be alert, be aware, and understand when past presidents sent our troops over there, it was so we could fight them over there, and not over here. that is the only reason i oppose. this guy getsil out of office, and then we will have somebody up there that does not just play politics all the time. we need more than that. that is all i have to say. has this point of view. he says, do we expect reluctant the sunni states to join fight against isis what we have been supporting israel for years? good morning. my opinion is that we cannot politicize the entire issue, for one. two, we are not fighting the state. we are fighting people that, as the lady mentioned earlier, do not wear any uniforms. weese individuals are not -- can obviously see them. it is a matter of strategizing. coming from a military veteran, sending troops blindly to attack someone that we do not know, per se, is just completely ignorant. this is a matter that has to be handled carefully. send

fiorina: this does not mean that we repeat all the nationbuilding and naivete, the mistakes of the iraq wars. [applause] ms. fiorina: but it does mean that we must deny isis territory. we cannot permit them to rape, to subjugate, to terrorize, to crucify, and behead their enemies. we cannot permit them to use their territories to train and prepare for jihad around the world. and so we must gather allies and lead. france, britain, germany all are threatened, as is every nation in europe. jordan, kuwait, turkey, saudi arabia, egypt, the kurds all are fighting isis on the ground as we speak. and all, every single one of them, have asked the united states of america for support, weapons, material, intelligence sharing. mostly this administration has said no. i will say yes. [applause] ms. fiorina: russia and iran represent real threats over the medium-term. china is our rising adversary over the long-term. whether we confront near-term threats and enemies or rising adversaries over the longer-term, america must always stand with our allies and confront our adversaries because when we fail t

[applause] meaniorina: this does not that we repeat all the nationbuilding as naÏvetÉ, the mistakes ofrritory. ,e cannot permit them to rape to subjugate, to terrorize, to crucify, and behead their enemies. we cannot permit them to use their territories to train and prepare for jihad around the world. and so we must gather allies and lead. allce, britain, germany, are threatened, as is every nation in europe. jordan, kuwait, turkey, saudi kurds all are the fighting isis on the ground as we speak. and all, every single one of them, have asked the united states of america for support, weapons, material, intelligent sharing. mostly this administration has said no. i will say yes. [applause] ms. fiorina: russia and iran represent real threats over the medium-term. china is our rising adversary over the long-term. whether we confront near-term threats and enemies or rising adversaries over the longer-term, america must always stand with our allies and confront our adversaries because when we fail to do so, our allies lose courage and our adversaries press forward. [applause] and so, on day