How bad were the moderators at the GOP CNBC debate? So bad that even left-wingers were calling the CNBC panel a train-wreck.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called out “perhaps the most comically poor debate prep we’ve ever seen in a national debate. Are these folks even journalists?” Adam Nagourney of the New York Times asked mid-debate: “Would it be hard to do a panel swap-out during the break? Is Jake Tapper or Chris Wallace in the wings?” Think Progress, which almost functions as Hillary’s personal blog, admitted the debate “was kind of a train wreck.”
I didn’t watch. (Went for a massage, then for a nice moonlight walk followed by a Qdoba taco salad. I really like living here better than the DC area. The other day, we went for lunch at a Thai place and I discovered I had left my wallet at the office. The proprietor, “Don’t worry about it. Eat your lunch. Pay me later.”)
I didn’t watch because I really don’t find political debates informative or worthwhile. The Democrat “debates” are more like infomercials. (“Tell us more about how your plan for totally free college will boost the economy!”) The Republican ones are like 60 Minutes interviewing the corrupt CEO of a Health Insurance Company that was caught selling fake insurance policies to old people through a telemarketing scam while simultaneously running a child prostitution ring and puppy abattoir.
The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale. Since you’re a champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?
This assertion was an outright falsehood. A reputable news organization would fire him. Fortunately, he works for NBC.
From what I am told, Ted Cruz won the night.
“Let me say something at the outset,” the Senator from Texas said. “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”
“This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues,” Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience.
“Do we get credit for this one,” Quintanilla asked Cruz?
…
“Let me be clear,” Cruz said. “The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than ever participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.”
“The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.
I think Rubio won the debate, but barely over Cruz. Christie had a very good night, although the moderators ignored him for the most part. Kasich was hyped up on something and was too liberal for my taste. Carson was out of his league. Trump was pomp with little substance. Fiorina had her talking points, but she was less specific than the previous two debates. She was good but not great. Bush was dismal as usual. Huckabee and Paul ought to just leave.
Why is Jeb Bush even running?
Actually, he’s not running. He’s sauntering.
He’s got the Bush name. He’s got the Bush family money-machine. He’s got a resume’ that looks Presidential. But he’s just not “there”.
I love my state.
I hate that my Gov is the lesser of two evils.
Cheer up. Most elections ultimately boil-down to the lesser of two evils.
And if you REALLY LUCKY, either candidate’s administration is survivable.
I am skeptical of the interpretation of the panelists questions as biased. (I didn’t watch). Maybe everyone is overrating their competence. I don’t get the impression that journalists in general are well informed. Many have no idea what conservatives want and why, or liberals either. Their brains have been marinating in the liberal = smart, good, caring. Conservative = stupid, racist, greedy. Maybe they really thing those were good questions.
You can read the debate transcript and decide for yourself.
But remember, this was an event that was telecast on what was once the nation’s premier business channel and should have been focused largely on economic issues. Anything else should have been extraneous, but instead was given the gravitas that a nuclear arms treaty discussion was in the 70s and 80s. The outright lie by Obama-kisser and perennial Hillary-licker John Harwood was telling. If any of the three were truly doing their job, this debate would have been so boring one could sell copies as sleep aids (given the fact that only a few people find economic issues interesting and anything other than a necessary evil).
Instead, due to their bias and incompetence, they made it almost a referendum on the media and enabled everyone (save perhaps George’s Little Brother) to get in a good line and sparkle for a shining moment.
In reality, who the moderator/s are shouldn’t be anything more than a mention beforehand and should blend into the woodwork once the event begins. Instead, they’ve become potential star vehicles for up & coming talent or a way for long-toiling lesser workers to get some primetime before they are sent out the door to the retirement home.
That was a disastrous debate. The “moderators” were openly hostile and contemptuous towards the candidates.
This just illustrates why honest discourse between conservatives and liberals is basically impossible: conservatives are typically charitable enough to assume that your rank-and-file liberal is misguided but well-intentioned. Liberals typically think that conservatives are closest Nazis, with shrines to Emperor Palpatine in their bedrooms. How can a country survive when one half of its populace (speaking figuratively here) thinks the other half is pure evil?
Sean L has nailed it; the answer is that our enemies must be utterly DESTROYED. There’s no getting along with them. There! I said it.
I wonder if those lib moderators want to be in the spotlight because they are as egotistical as Trump or our Comrade-in-chief.
According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% will see a 27.9% increase in after-tax income, while the middle of the income scale will see an increase of between 15 and 16%.
That seems to fit with moderator’s statement that “you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.”
So what exactly was the outright falsehood?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-rubio-lee-tax-reform-plan
@ davinci – I think Rubio did win the debate if his opponent was Jeb!. I really got a sour taste in my mouth when he said “I am not running against “these people”, I am running for President of the United States.” REALLY A-hole, you have the nomination already? YES you are running against “these people” because you need to win the nomination first. CNBC was a regrettable side show, but the nominees made it worse. Jeez, can’t we fond a candidate who can rise above the theater – that’s the only way to win (in my estimation).