Did CNBC moderators do a sufficient job during the 28 Oct GOP debate?

LSM has always shown favoritism to Libs, giving them softball questions. Conservatives always get the hard ones or more specifically, ignorant ones [questions].

I only watched a little bit of it but from what I saw it was a waste of time, the moderators had clownish looks on their faces as they asked questions and never looked to be taking the whole thing seriously.

Attacking the media during a debate is a typical Republican strategy, if you look at the last election cycle Newt Gingrich actually one South Carolina primarily for the fact that he was willing to attack the media heavily right before the primary. The Republican national committee had the opportunity to pick whichever networks they wanted for debates to be held on, they used this discretion broadly excluding networks such as MSNBC, and outlets such as politico from holding debates because they felt that they were not in the best interest of the Republican Party.

In fact I really enjoy watching debates, even when it’s not my party, and no interest in voting for anybody on the stage I still enjoy watching them. The one thing I can tell you right now is I’ve never seen a Republican primary debate where all the Republicans said it was a well-structured debate, because in Republican politics it pays to be against the media.

No. Didn't watch the debate but listened to the recap...those questions were terrible. They did not attack any substantive issues. Ted Cruz's rebuke of the Moderators' juvenile questions was completely warrante.

NO! They are no longer journalists but are actually propaganda specialists.

They did poorly, and confirmed for honest public that the media is biased, with a heavy lean to the failed left. The moderators and their puppet masters should be ashamed, if they were honest. Every one knows they're not. Without the help of the media, the left might be held in check in its destructive practices. But, the followers of the left are to selfish to look past their own wants to deal with the country's needs.

Another F-you to almost everyone from the GOP.

"With that said, it’s important not to get lost in the theater criticism of presidential debates. This was supposed to be on the economy, and while it jumped into issues such as same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, that was largely true. And after the modest but steady gains of the Obama administration where is the Republican Party on growth, wages, and economic security?

The same place it’s always been. As with Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012, the signature policy plan for every Republican candidate is a tax cut. “We need somebody who can lead. We need somebody who can balance budgets, cut taxes,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich, touting his record. “We’re reducing taxes to 15 percent. We’re bringing corporate taxes down, bringing money back in, corporate inversions,” said Donald Trump. “Growth is the answer,” declared Cruz. “And as Reagan demonstrated, if we cut taxes, we can bring back growth.” And the cuts are meant for high earners. Under Rubio’s plan, for example, the government wouldn’t tax income from dividends and capital gains, largely benefiting the wealthiest Americans. And while Rubio includes measures that benefit the bottom 10 percent of income earners, the overall effect of his supply-side cuts is to tilt the tax code toward the top at an even greater angle than exists now.

There’s more: Gov. Chris Christie called for Social Security benefit cuts and demogogued the program as broke (despite all evidence to the contrary) while Sen. Rand Paul and Ben Carson pitched the audience on their plans to slash Medicare benefits. Carson called for a flat tax, Cruz praised “sound money” and the gold standard, and Carly Fiorina attacked the federal minimum wage as unconstitutional. Candidates talked about their modest upbringings but couldn’t articulate plans for reducing student loans and debt. At most, Kasich pointed to online education, Bush pointed to “accountability,” and Rubio promised more vocational training."



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

Walt

... and if there isn't, would that really be such a bad thing for the country?

Yes, but it will be a different Party.

The GOP’s Amateur Hour

The fourth GOP debate revealed that Republican candidates are unprepared for a general election that is fought over the economy.

"There are a few things we can get out of the way about Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate. First, after months of decline, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had his first great night, challenging Sen. Marco Rubio on tax expenditures and defense spending, pushing Donald Trump on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and stepping into his father’s role as the libertarian gadfly in the race. “If you’re a profligate spender and you spend money in an unlimited fashion for the military, is that a conservative notion?” Paul asked in his closing statement. “We have to be conservative with all spending, domestic spending and welfare spending. I’m the only fiscal conservative on the stage.”

More significant for Americans were the actual views of the candidates. Tuesday’s debate, hosted by Fox Business, was on the economy. The first question of the night was on the fight for a $15 minimum wage, and subsequent questions dealt with tax cuts, job growth, and the Federal Reserve. In several places, the candidates showed disturbing ignorance of basic facts of the American economy. Paul, for example, blamed low interest rates for problems faced by the poor, despite all evidence to the contrary. Likewise, Bush attacked Dodd-Frank financial legislation for reducing capital requirements for banks, when the law does the opposite.

The GOP contenders were out of step with the actual economic needs of ordinary Americans.
Even ignoring these flubs, misstatements, and half-truths, the GOP contenders were out of step with the actual economic needs of ordinary Americans. Each candidate talked about relief for workers and families, but outside of Rubio’s child tax credit, few offered it. Instead, candidates came out against raising the minimum wage, called for a new gold standard for currency, and pushed plans for massive upper-income tax cuts. Unlike the first Democratic debate—when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee tusseled over college affordability and health care costs—there was little in the Republican debate that spoke to the challenges of ordinary people rather than businesses.

Moreover—and more importantly for the politics of economic growth—the Republican candidates were silent on one of the key questions of the 2016 election. “The Democrats will inevitably ask you and voters to compare the recent presidents’ jobs performance,” said moderator Gerard Baker to Carly Fiorina. “In seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs per month. Under Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 per month; under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you will probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?”

Fiorina dodged the question. She didn’t have an answer. And neither did anyone else on the stage. Later, moderator Maria Bartiromo threw Rubio a softball on Hillary Clinton. “Why should the American people trust you to lead this country even though she has been so much closer to the office?” His answer was smooth—“[I]f I am our nominee, they’ll be the party of the past”—but it ignored this basic question of economic performance.

This is a problem. Barring disaster, President Obama will finish his term with a growing economy. Republicans need to show Americans that they can do better—that they can deliver growth and resources to the people who need them. Otherwise, little else matters. The Democratic nominee will inherit the Obama economy and prevail."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/republican_candidates_aren_t_prepared_to_argue_over_the_economy_in_a_general.html

Walt