Debate theatrics? Live or Memorex

I held off and thought about the last debate and let it soak in, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

Now I still wonder if maybe that performance by CNBC may have been planned that way? I mean it is sort of odd that it was supposed to be on the economy, which happens to be Republicans strong suit. Taxation and budget as well. I can almost hear someone say “we don’t want to make them look good.”

It was on the heels of the Benghazi hearing with Hillary. Paybacks you know. Then I wonder if they’d stoop that low to create an ordeal over it and have theatrics so they could blame it all on Republicans? Well, I never put anything past the Left or the media.

Would they think it through to consider hurting themselves and counting it worth it just to attack the Republicans? They still got the ad revenue, either way. Is it possible this thing was planned? Maybe not our whole reaction it got but in a way I am starting to think there was some premeditation there. No candidate in particular, but toward Republicans generally to set them back.

They knew there would be another NBC debate, and this could have been a setup for that? I can’t say for sure but it is a question I consider. A hit job or a mishap? Either one take your pick, same result.

Reince suspends NBC February debate

So Priebus fires off a letter. Why didn’t he cancel it? That would be appropriate.

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Dear Mr. Lack,
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.
The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.
While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.
While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.
I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

But then the RNC has proved to not be great negotiators, so what good is suspending it? And NBC will do as it pleases anyway, so what is this about? How about also suspending the deal-maker in chief at the RNC (unpaid leave) since he made it? I also read CNBC promoting the debate online to be on Economy, Taxation, with some Climate Change. I never saw that mentioned elsewhere.

“In two parts, the debate focused on the economy, taxes, the national budget and climate change”.- CNBC

Media meltdown on debate proves bias

It didn’t take long for the headlines to surface. Drudge was having a hard time tracking them.

Republican debate runs off the rails turns into all-out war as Donald Trump bashes John Kasich, Jeb Bush hits his protege Marco Rubio, and EVERYONE hammers CNBC’s moderators for losing control

Daily Mail

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com In Boulder, Colorado

  • CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event
  • Texas Sen. Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing them all of being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field
  • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie soon piled on the network
  • Donald Trump wrapped up his night by claiming he had strong-armed them into shortening the debate ‘so we could get the hell out of here’
  • ‘CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled,’ Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus said

Wednesday’s Republican debate turned into a steel cage match in Boulder, Colorado as Donald Trump tangled with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called on Marco Rubio – his political protege – to resign his U.S. Senate seat.

As the CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing them all of being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294016/Republican-debate-turns-war-Donald-Trump-bashes-John-Kasich-Jeb-Bush-hits-protege-Marco-Rubio-hammers-CNBC-s-moderators.html

Correction it wasn’t about them losing control of the debate. They weren’t organized either though. It was a disaster of gotcha questions. Then came the all important one about fantasy football. The fantasy was about some modicum of objective moderators.

Even Reince Priebus threw out the criticism on CNN right afterward.

According to ABC 7 Denver, AP: (play by play coverage)

The chairman of the Republican National Committee says CNBC “should be ashamed” of how its moderators handled the third GOP presidential debate.

Reince Priebus (ryns PREE’-bus) says that the moderators did a disservice to their network, the candidates and the viewers. The two hours were dominated by candidates complaining that the moderators’ questions were hostile and based on inaccurate premises.

Priebus is calling the questioning “unfortunate” and says he will “fight to ensure future debates allow a more robust exchange.”

Well, when even Priebus gets his attitude on, it must be pretty obvious.  A venue more reminiscent of pro-wrestling, the moderators got into the fray breaking the one major rule of journalism: not to become the story.  But it won’t matter because the Dems will spin it as sore losers not wanting to answer tough questions. Hey, we saw what Dems did with the Hillary hearing, masters of propaganda….disinformation.

Economy on the docket

So Wednesday night’s debate is supposedly on the economy.

CNBC is live blogging here.

It won’t be hard to beat Obama’s economy. Count the ways. That should be a win win for the Republicans but we’ll see how they, and CNBC, manage to divert any gains.

Let’s see, how could this go bad? (not that I’m not optimistic, just reserved)

I guess it leaves Lindsey Graham out of the mix… er maybe not the ‘mixing’.

Trump to Iowa: “What the hell are you people doing to me?

Death of a price point

Now with the death of Saudi King Abdullah, the flurries of questions began. What about the oil market, prices in particular, and what effect new leadership will mean for oil?

Well, complex answers don’t stop reporters from asking, except maybe in the case of Obama. The go to man is apparently Prince Alwaleed. He gave a robust defense of supply and demand, then shocked probably even OPEC countries by declaring we will never see triple digit oil again. In fact, he said we will never see hundred-dollar oil prices again.

See CNBC for video and article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102363511

“I can assure you that Saudi Arabia is not using the oil price right now to impact the fracking industry in the United States,” he said, adding that “there’s an oversupply and demand is not so high.”

He insists there will be little change on current oil policy from a King Salaman government. He does have a grasp of understanding about the subject. It’s obviously true the current prices do hurt the Kingdom. It also hurts other oil-dependent countries. But his point was if they cut production that “gap” would only be filled by some other country. And it would. So it seems their production level alone is not running the market. The dynamics indeed have shifted since the US began producing more.

Now there’s one voice on the record publicly declaring the death of triple digit oil. That in itself should be a big deal. So stick a fork in hundred-dollar oil?