Regardless of the number of participants, the questions should become more pointed and the follow-ups more exacting. As for the top three contenders, there are plenty of issues to probe.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), for example, has said John Bolton would be the kind of secretary of state he would favor. On the National Security Agency, however, Bolton has made clear he opposed the restrictions on metadata gathering that Cruz championed, saying:

AD

AD

Well, I would have voted against [the USA Freedom Act]. I think that it really is being portrayed as better than it is. I would have favored a straight reauthorization of the Patriot Act to get this debate into what I hope will be a Republican presidency so we can have an informed discussion rather than the hysteria and hype, and just outright deception that we’ve seen that has characterized the debate the past couple of years ever since the traitor, Edward Snowden, made these revelations. You know, the Freedom Act does not require the phone companies to keep these records. It imposes new burdens on the government. It leaves even when the phone companies keep the records, I worry that they’ll be subject to external manipulation and alternation. It’s a very sad day. It’s a triumph of demagoguery over good common sense.

Someone should ask Cruz why Bolton is wrong.

Likewise, Bolton also has favored a steep increase in defense spending. Cruz’s vote for Sen. Rand Paul’s budget would have moved defense spending in the wrong direction. Does Cruz regret that vote?

When it comes to Donald Trump, someone should call him out on his preposterous notion that cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse will save Social Security. Furthermore, if his tax plan adds $10 trillion to the debt and he wants to spend more on defense and spare entitlements from any cuts, how does he avoid a massive expansion of the debt? He operates in the realm of fantasy, and those with hard figures in hand need to grill him. Likewise, how can he accuse President George W. Bush one day of lying about weapons of mass destruction and the next say he doesn’t know if Bush lied?

AD

AD

At his town hall with MSNBC, Trump opined on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “Let me be sort of a neutral guy. I have friends of mine that are tremendous businesspeople, that are really great negotiators, [and] they say it’s not doable.” Does he mean a deal is not possible or that he would be neutral with regard to the interests of Israel and the Palestinians? If it is the latter, the electorate might as well vote for a left-wing Democrat. Which is it, and is it a problem for a president when his words are so confusing that clarification is constantly required?

As for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), hard questions remain: If he won’t raise taxes at all, how does he get majorities for a substantial increase in defense spending? How is he going to respond if a Russian plane takes down one of NATO ally Turkey’s fighters? How does he treat a critical ally like Egypt, which also has a terrible human rights record? Rubio says he would favor a constitutional convention. Given voters’ sentiments on gay marriage, background checks for guns, restrictions on campaign finance and more, why does he think this is a good idea?