GOP debate 3

OK, the first two GOP presidential debates were pretty entertaining and even informative viewing, but this one was a real slog. The blame for that has to be shared by both the CNBC moderators and the candidates.

Now, the CNBC folks are being roundly criticized for their questions, but I think that's unfair. Their "gotcha" questions weren't all that remarkably different from those asked by previous debate moderators for Fox News and CNN. But a couple of differences this time: A. The moderators, who mostly cover business news, weren't as experienced with this type of event and didn't do a good job of controlling it. And B. the candidates decided it was good for them to attack the moderators during the debate. Because the NBC cable channels have a liberal reputation, and because Ted Cruz got a great deal of applause for doing it, everybody chimed in in pursuit of easy applause. The result was a pretty dull and uninformative debate.

This line may be popular with Republicans, but it greatly irritates me. The idea that the news media are a liberal monolith is just a myth. There are media of all political persuasions out there today, and no one point of view is dominant. If that concept ever were true, it certainly isn't anymore.

Notice Fox News moderators weren't criticized as biased for their questioning, except by Donald Trump. He was right, but the other candidates wouldn't dare say so.

If I had to pick a winner last night, I'd have two choices for the top line: 1. From my own personal perspective, Rand Paul had the most coherent arguments and has clearly emerged as the only GOP hopeful who might get a serious look from me at the ballot box. 2. Objectively looking at the debate, I'd begrudgingly say Marco Rubio. This was mainly on style points, as Rubio for the most part avoided answering questions but still managed to sound and look good just the same. In fact, the moderators in this debate did a very poor job of keeping the candidates on point, so they mostly just rambled onto whatever topic they wanted to discuss. And when they said something that was flat-out nonsense, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that 92 percent of the job losses during the Obama administration were by women, nobody called them on it. Ted Cruz also probably scored with the extreme right. If the Trump and Carson campaigns fade, he could easily jump to the front of the pack, though that's a VERY scary thought. I think Hillary would trounce him, but I'd hate to chance it!!!

Losers: 1. Ben Carson. He proved that his status as GOP front-runner will be short-lived. 2. Jeb Bush, who just isn't going anywhere. 3. Donald Trump, not because he did poorly, but only because he didn't dominate this debate like he did the first two.

In fact I grew so weary of this debate that I changed off it and went to watch the third episode of FX's American Horror Story: Hotel. Now, that's another topic, but this episode of Hotel was so stupid that it may have jumped the shark for me. I'm not a big fan of gratuitous gore to begin with, and add in a dumb plot, and you've lost me. I barely made it through Freak Show last year. I'm beginning to doubt that I will this time around.


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • No Republicans dont get a pass on gay rights. Any person for whom gay rights is a key issue should vote Democratic.

    That said, clearly all Republicans arent equal on gay rights. But even the best ones are at most just going to ignore gay issues. The worst, like Cruz and Huckabee, could do great damage.

    With a Democratic president we have greater access, a chance to actually make progress and far more friendly judicial appointments.
    BearinFW 10/31/2015 07:36 PM
  • Well barney I mean more husband and wife running consecutively. Father and son are not living togethor or running with each other. Where as the Clinton's were. Just a curiosity was all.
    doankyl 10/31/2015 03:06 PM
  • We have no issue with a family running for President on the GOP side do we? Let's look at the Bush Dynasty for the latest episode of entitlement? Why do we have to give the GOP a pass on gay rights? Don't all Americans deserve to be represented by them? A good leader tells his followers the truth and doesn't spoon feed them what they want to hear. The idea that the GOP candidates can dictate the terms of their own debates by refusing to answer questions is ludicrous at best. This is presidential behavior? You don't like to be asked tough questions so you fire the asker and blame the other parties candidates? Their plans for the economy have been mean tested by competent economists on either side of the aisle and found to be flawed at best and giving more money to the ones who now have it and we are suppose to think that is who we want representing us? If the GOP doesn't quickly figure out that they are no longer a governing party but a group of wimpy, racial, greedy bastards they will go the way of the aristocracy of the 18th century French court. "Let them eat cake'!
    barney290 10/31/2015 01:37 PM
  • To be fair, rjzip, any serious Republican candidate *must* oppose gay marriage. I think that should change in the not-too-distant future now that marriage is the law of the land, but for the time being, that's the way it is.

    That said, I think some GOP candidates would be more gay friendly than others, but clearly gay people have access and opportunities with a Democratic administration that we do not have when a Republican is in the White House.

    And at least for the time being, *any* Democratic administration is going to be better on gay issues than *any* Republican administration. And we have seen just on the marriage issue how important it is to have Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court.

    As for a guess on GOP candidates: My hunch is Trump would be most gay friendly, along with probably Fiorina, Rand Paul, John Kasich and *maybe* Jeb Bush. After that, it goes from bad to worse, with Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee at the bottom of the garbage heap.

    Doankyl, you'd have to have a constitutional amendment to change the rules on running for president. Maybe people's attitude would change if we had some former first spouses as president, but in today's political climate, I doubt you could get an amendment through Congress and then the states on *anything*!!!
    BearinFW 10/31/2015 01:17 AM
  • Quick question do you think they would end up amending or fixing laws to prevent future running of spouses if Clinton wins? Think about it instead of the allowed ten years you could get 20 by having your husband or wife run. Any thoughts?
    doankyl 10/31/2015 12:07 AM
  • I agree, it is way too easy for the Republicans to blame the media for their lack of ideas or lack of cohesiveness within the party. Gotcha questions are actually a good part of what the media can do for us, the voters. It puts the candidates under some pressure. If they can't handle 'devil's advocate' questions from the nation's media, how will they stand up under the pressure of what the rest of the world might throw at them? Sarah Palin proved how uninformed and ignorant she is when simply asked what she reads to keep informed about the world. Yeah, it was a 'gotcha' question, but it was also a very fair one that helped the voters decide how informed she is and what kinds of things she puts in her head . . . nothing much it would appear!

    As for the current bunch of Republicans on that stage, there isn't a single one who acted or spoke in a presidential manner. And now that Reintz Preibus has said they are going to take their ball and go home, I assume they will change the format and content of future debates so that the people (through our Fourth Estate press representatives) will no longer get a real picture of who they are and how they act under pressure. Even Fux Noise did not ask the softball questions to make this herd of candidates look intelligent, informed and able to deal with pressure in an adult manner. For a role model in how to handle pressure they should look no further than Hillary Clinton and how she has handled their trumped up "investigations" into the Benghazi tragedy and her email mistake. The grace and control she exhibited put the "investigators" to shame; a sign of a good potential president.

    To make this more relative to us who frequent this site and this blog, I think all of these Republican candidates oppose gay marriage whereas all Democratic cancidates see gay rights across the board as our Constitutional heritage in this great nation.
    rjzip 10/30/2015 10:12 PM
  • The GOP today suspended its February debate scheduled for NBC. This is silly if the reaction is solely because of Wednesday's debate. The CNBC debate did include lots of "gotcha" questions, but then so did the first two debates on Fox News and CNN.

    The Republican Party is either picking on CNBC because of the liberal reputation of MSNBC/NBC news. Or they're sending a message to all the news media for future debates: Lay off the "gotcha" questions.

    At any rate, blaming the media is the refuge of a scoundrel. And the GOP debates have plenty of those.

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/30/media/gop-debates … index.html
    BearinFW 10/30/2015 03:28 PM
  • @ barney every candidate that has run for office in the last 15 elections has blatantly lied so if anything the lies better qualify them to run. The questions were silly and didn't really help me decide anything. So far the Republican candidates have been treated in a very distasteful and disrespectful way in every debate. Causing them to be reactive in attitude. To bad they aren't doing the same to the Democratic candidates.

    I agree with bearinfw all news media is biased to every form of agenda there is not just liberals. But CNN and CNBC has always leaned on the liberal side. So when watching any news outlet you have to remember you are looking at it through someone else's filter. To bad they didn't allow them to elaborate on their supposed plans to fix our economic woes. That would have shown just how well thought out they are
    doankyl 10/30/2015 11:56 AM
  • I thought the moderators and their questions were point on and well researched. the problem is the candidates were not about to answer any of the pointed questions as they were more interested in turning every answer to a slam on the Democrats. It is extremely easy to blame the moderators but in all honesty they were overwhelmed by a group or rude, obnoxious and egoists calling themselves candidates. If anyone of them thinks they look presidential or deserves to be considered a true candidate for that office they are wrong. They flat out lied (Rubio's Tax Plan), (Trump on Rubio). (Fiorina on HP record), (Carson and his nutritional Company) and just about everything else. They blame the Federal government (takes two to tango) time and time again for causing the middle class inequalities but not one of them will admit that these are a direct result of the Reagan tax plan and deregulation from the 1980's. They have no intention of helping working people nor small businesses. I just am glad to see that more and more we can see the true light of these phonies.
    barney290 10/29/2015 08:46 AM
  • The moderators were terrible, the candidates were terrible. They lost me with all the arguments. Jeb Bush was right to criticize Rubio about his missing votes. I personally think anyone running for office shouldn't be getting paid for not doing the job they were elected to do. You want to run for president, resign from your job whether you're a senator, congressman or a postal worker. That includes Bernie Sanders. Thank goodness the World Series was on and I was able to switch channels.
    fenwaydav 10/29/2015 07:22 AM