Featured Ted Cruz calls out biased moderators in debate forum

I happened to see that part of the debate when commercials were on during the World Series. Cruz really schooled them, it was awesome. Then the flummoxed moderator tried to recover, "So you're not going to answer my question?" Cruz said yes indeed, he would answer the question but another moderator wouldn't let him saying his time was up, and tried to go to another candidate, but Cruz persisted and they gave in and let him answer.

In my estimation Cruz is always in the top three performers in these debates. From what I saw Rubio looked good again, and so did Christie.

I saw bits and pieces of this debate and it was by far the most incompetently run debate I've ever seen.

 

I'm certain Cruz and Christie, being former lawyers could handle it. Rubio appears very able at thinking on his feet so he could probably do it. Moderator bias will be less of a factor because the presidential debate format is typically the same questions asked of both candidates.

The question is--which GOP candidate would aggressively go after Clinton? Cruz would for sure, Christie would, Trump would. Fiorina would. Rubio probably. Bush and Huckabee would try and fail. Carson wouldn't even try.

I still remember when Romney didn't press the attack on Obama regarding Benghazi in their debates. Big mistake.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I don't know much about the political process, but why did the RNC allow their candidates to be on CNBC? Shouldn't the republicans be asked questions by conservative moderators?

 

Cruz seems to have a problem answering questions. Maybe he does not have an answer or simply does not want to go on record during the campaign. After all he went after Megyn Kelly of Fox News over a question he did not want to answer: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn-kelly-ted-cruz-birthright-citizenship

 

If they can't stand the heat they should not want to be in the kitchen.

 

No, the candidates should be asked tough, relevant questions by unbiased moderators. The questions I saw asked were prefaced by biased background information, ex. "Senator Rubio, you had to cash out a $68,000 retirement plan incurring tax penalties to cover some personal expenses. Given this information why should the American people think you would be a good steward of their money?"

One of the mods was actually back talking to the candidates arguing about economics by presenting figures from a liberal economist to counter attack the figures presented by the candidate. It was a terrible show of the moderator debating the candidate instead of letting him present his opinion.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

The moderators had a bad night. CNBC lost some credibility after that fiasco.

 

Just because someone "labled" a moderator ass a question does not mean it automatically is a legitimate question. The sophomoric questions asked by CNBC moderators were designed to draw out opportunities for sound bites the DNC might use against them later.

 

Looking at news reports I remembered some other exchanges I saw. Carson was being asked about his flat tax plan and he admitted the tax rate would need to be closer to 15% than the 10% tithing figure he used as a simple example. The moderator jumped all over him, "No, it won't work. I've done the math and it's more like 28%."

They asked Carson why he endorsed a particular alternative health product. He said he never endorsed it, but served as a product adviser. They asked him why his picture was on the company's home page and he answered, "If my picture is there, they are using it without my permission", whereupon the moderator, not missing a beat, lashed out, "doesn't that show that there is something wrong with your vetting process?" It was just an incredibly harsh and rude exchange.

At one point the moderator asked Christie a question, then started providing his own statistics to slant the question. Christie, clearly looking exasperated replied, "Are you going to answer the question too, or allow me to answer it. Even in New Jersey we call that rude."

 

The debate was supposed to be about economic issues. Here's a sampling of the questions:

"What is your biggest weakness and what are you going to do about it?"

"Mr. Trump you are going to build a wall on the Mexican border and make the Mexicans pay for it. You promise to make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?"

(Carly Fiorina says her tax plan would reduce the IRS code to only 3 pages of regulations.)
"Is that really only 3 pages? What, is it really small type? No, really, is it small type?"

"Mr. Rubio, you're skipping more votes than any senator to run for president. Why not slow down, get a few more things done first or least finish what you start?"

"So when the (Florida newspaper) says you should resign, not rip us off, and say you hate your job, do you?
[persists]
"Well do you hate your job?"

"Mr. Bush, Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Fed chairman by your brother, recently wrote a book in which he said he no longer considers himself a Republican because the Republican Party has given in to know- nothingism. Is that why you're having a difficult time in this race?"

"Mr. Carson, you are a board member of Costco. Why would you serve on a company whose policies run counter to your views on homosexuality?"

"Mr. Kasich, would you want marijuana legalized in Ohio, so the state can get the tax proceeds?"

"Mr. Trump, would you feel more safe if your employees brought guns to work?"

"Mr. Bush, isn't fantasy football the definition of gambling, and shouldn't the federal government treat it as such?"

Do you see many questions about economics in there?

 

I like how after Cruz blasted the moderators, the vibe of the debate started to change. The questions/comments from the moderators were still snarky and over-the-top, but the candidates started to impose their will regarding when and how long they were going to answer. The moderators clearly had lost the respect of the candidates as well as that of the audience.

Can you imagine them asking those kind of questions to the DEMOCRATS?

 

We don't have to stop acting "incredulous" or any other way. And it's not an act. This was not a "better test" it was a Jerry Springer show. Cheap, silly, and our candidates deserve better.

 

Exactly. And the Republican nominee isn't gonna limit him/herself to Fox News during the General Election so they might as well get used to it.

But this debate was another waste of time. Nobody on that stage acted Presidential with the exception of John Kasich. He might just end up being my write-in if someone doesn't choose him as a VP candidate.

They need to pare the next debate down to 5.

 

Your candidates sucked and perfectly played the part of Jerry Springer buffoons. They, with one exception, come across as a bunch of stupid , petty teenagers playing he said she said.

My suggestion to FBN/WSJ moderators is that they control the microphones. If a candidate refuses to be quiet, cut his mic off.

 

Preach it Brother, preach it!

How about "when all the media acts like the demagogues they are"?

Can you imagine the response if Obama held a press conference and told a reporter, "That is an unfair question. I won't answer it."

These GOP light-weights need to grow up and act like a leader. I don't see that happening.

 

No candidate said they wouldn't answer any question. I don't remember them saying the questions were unfair, either.

And I don't have to imagine Obama complaining about unfair questions:

President Barack Obama said that he is “in a lot of ways” less liberal than former Republican President Richard Nixon and said Fox News Channel's Bill O’Reilly has been “absolutely” unfair to him throughout his presidency in an interview that aired Monday night.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...-absolutely-unfair-in-extended-interview?lite