Do We Need to Review the Last Republican Debate?

2015-11-04T08:14:47-05:00

"Half an hour into Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, Sen. Ted Cruz exploded at the CNBC moderators. “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” Cruz fumed. “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 the people care about?”

By the end of the evening, Cruz, Carson, Trump, Rubio, and several other candidates had declared war on the press. They claimed to speak for the Republican Party, the American people, and the truth. These candidates are deluded.

Many of their statements were falsified on the spot.

Others were exposed as absurd by their opponents. It’s true that the debate exposed a division within the country. But the division isn’t between the press and the public. It’s between people who listen to evidence—reporters, policy analysts, and many Democrats and Republicans—and an impervious, defiant wing of the GOP.

Take Cruz’s speech. It doesn’t even match the debate transcript.

To begin with, nobody called Trump a villain. CNBC’s John Harwood asked Trump how he would fulfill his promises to “build a wall and make another country pay for it” (Mexico), “send 11 million people out of the country” (undocumented immigrants), and “cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit.” Second, nobody asked Carson whether he could do math. CNBC’s Becky Quick asked Carson how he would close the $1 trillion gap between current federal spending and the revenue projected from Carson’s 15 percent flat tax. Third, nobody asked Kasich to insult his colleagues. Kasich volunteered that Trump’s and Carson’s promises were impractical and incoherent. All of these questions were substantive. In fact, Cruz’s speech was a diversion from the query that had been posed to him—namely, why did he oppose this week’s agreement to raise the debt limit?

Presented with facts and figures that didn’t fit their story, the leading Republican candidates accused the moderators of malice and deceit.

Trump had no answers to the questions about mass deportation, his $10 trillion shortfall, or the magical Mexican wall fund. He cited his own bankruptcies as a model for fixing the national debt. “I've used [bankruptcy] three times, maybe four times. Came out great,” said Trump. “That is what I could do for the country: We owe $19 trillion. Boy, am I good at solving debt problems.” Carson, when confronted with his own tax shortfall, suggested that his tax rate was flexible and claimed that he could make up the difference by cutting unspecified waste...

But the biggest surprise of the night wasn’t Trump. It was Rubio. Having clawed his way above Bush in the electable-candidates bracket, the Florida senator chose to stand not with the sanity caucus, but with the deniers. When Harwood quoted anonpartisan assessment of how Rubio’s tax plan would affect after-tax income—a 28 percent increase for the top 1 percent of earners, and a 15 percent increase for the middle class—Rubio dismissed the gap, falsely, as an artifact of scale, since “5 percent of a million is a lot more than 5 percent of a thousand.” When Rubio was asked about his messy finances—a second-home foreclosure, a prematurely liquidated retirement fund, campaign money accidentally mixed with personal money—he pleaded poverty. He ignored Quick’s reminder that “you made over a million dollars on a book deal, and some of these problems came after that.”

Wow, pretty odd.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/republican_presidential_candidates_attack_the_truth_in_cnbc_debate_ted_cruz.html

The Top GOP Contenders Have a Problem With the Truth, Not the Press

Half an hour into Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, Sen. Ted Cruz exploded at the CNBC moderators. “The questions that have been asked so far in

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 4 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-11-04T08:25:30-05:00

I thought maybe Rubio was the best Repub candidate. Well, maybe he still is.

Walt

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 4 at 2015 9:37 AM

2015-11-04T09:37:23-05:00

Capt Walter Miller - Despite the liberal spin, it was obvious to any clear-thinking person that the moderators were nothing but liberal talking heads using Clinton, Obama and DNC talking points to ridicule the Republican candidates. Have you ever seen that done to the Democrat candidates? Would Hillary Clinton appear in a debate moderated by Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly or Bill O'Reilly? The alleged "lies" are simply liberal spin...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 9:54 AM

2015-11-04T09:54:36-05:00

I wanted a good debate, I want to know Fiorina's and Rubio's positions the debate didn't give me any evidence as to who I should vote for. I was very encouraged by Ted Cruz's statements. I really don't care about your opinions on this matter, the fact that you are posting about this is a statement to the truthfulness of Cruz's premise. Capt Walter Miller you are a die hard liberal nutcase and your opinion of the Republican candidates is completely worthless. The only reason you post this tripe is your justified fear that a conservative will win the presidency and your dreams of a Marxist revolution will be postponed.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 11:59 AM

2015-11-04T11:59:40-05:00

Capt Walter Miller, you (or the author) are absolutely correct when you say that Cruz's rant was a diversion from answering the question posed to him, and that he absolutely didn't want to answer that question.
That little diatribe will garner him a lot of buzz and campaign contributions, though. That makes it effective. Even if he did totally steal the idea from Newt Gingrich last election cycle.
I predict similar results: a short-lived boost followed by a flameout.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 2:04 PM

2015-11-04T14:04:12-05:00

Another bias article posted by this Miller dude...The "author" refers to the transcript concerning the moderator's questioning of Trump. The moderator did not "ask" how Trump would do those things. He did list them...I'll give him that...but it was a list followed up with the question on whether Trump was "running a comic book version" of a campaign. Later in the "debate" the female moderator pressed Rubio on why he had cashed in a $64K investment....what the hell does that have to do with his ability to be president. The gripes of the participants are justified. It wasn't the questions that were to tough, it was the way the questions were posed and the way in which the moderators cut the candidates off in the middle of their sentences combined with the stupid questions like the two above.

Response by Lt Col Mike Maza made Nov 4 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-11-04T14:09:12-05:00

I find it hilarious that these candidates all claim to be able to stand up to Putin, Assad, ISIS, China, Mexico, etc., but they can't even handle difficult questioning from CNBC financial commentators without whining... It's a sad commentary on today's politics and politicians.

Response by CW3 Tommy Daniel made Nov 4 at 2015 2:24 PM

2015-11-04T14:24:02-05:00

From reading the comments on Capt. Miller's statement, it is very easy to determine who watches CNN and who watches FOX News. Might I suggest you all watch One America News and then form your own opinions instead of allowing FOX or CNN to influence you.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 2:42 PM

2015-11-04T14:42:18-05:00

The only thing that needs to be reviewed is the poor performance of the moderators.

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made Mar 3 at 2016 5:28 AM

2016-03-03T05:28:16-05:00

In my personal opinion, it seems like some moderators are acting more like reporters at a press conference than a moderator at a debate. Having center stage themselves, they seem more interested in keeping the viewers waiting for the next 'dog & pony show' for ratings or shock reactions than legitimate 'on topic' points and keeping debates on track. It does come across that the moderators of the Republican debates are more slanted to 'button push', than the moderators of the Democratic debates. I remain personally unclear if the moderators were chosen specifically for their circus skills or their eggshell approaches in either case.