A "liberal's" perspective on last night's GOP debate

[nat4900]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

fail

who is the liberal

and

what is their perspective?

fail

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

The Good: Rubio won this one. He had a fire no one thought was in him and his massacre of Jeb Bush was as graphic as any Game of Thrones scene. Kasich was thoughtful and articulate. Christie was strong, if not uninspiring. Trump was more of the same. He'll coast along to finish in the top 2 contenders at least for the nomination.

The Bad: Carson had a very poor showing. His decline starts here. Cruz was his usual fool self but I suppose he will gain points for lashing out at the moderators. Fiorina and her plastic hair came across as insane. I think she turned off anyone on the fence about her.

The Ugly: Bush was an absolute disaster. He should save face and drop out yesterday. And what is Mike Huckabee still doing on stage? How much are his book publishers paying the RNC?

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

The Good: Rubio won this one. He had a fire no one thought was in him and his massacre of Jeb Bush was as graphic as any Game of Thrones scene. Kasich was thoughtful and articulate. Christie was strong, if not uninspiring. Trump was more of the same. He'll coast along to finish in the top 2 contenders at least for the nomination.

The Bad: Carson had a very poor showing. His decline starts here. Cruz was his usual fool self but I suppose he will gain points for lashing out at the moderators. Fiorina and her plastic hair came across as insane. I think she turned off anyone on the fence about her.

The Ugly: Bush was an absolute disaster. He should save face and drop out yesterday. And what is Mike Huckabee still doing on stage? How much are his book publishers paying the RNC?

Actually, I though Cruz made some very good points concerning his 10% Flat Tax and that little Black female "journalist"?? they trotted out their got her little butt handed to her by Fiorina. Fiorina is also right about these same issued coming up every election cycle and no one is doing anything about them. While I will vote for Trump, I thought Ted Cruz won this debate hands down. CNBC proved their partisanship and total lack of journalism integrity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

fail

who is the liberal

and

what is their perspective?

fail

I'm assuming the author of the OP is defining his political identify as a liberal, as do I. Asking what is the liberal perspective is both easy and impossible.

Easy, because liberals challenge conservatives on every issue, and provide a counter point to policies, conservative dogma and an ideology which can be summarized as Objectivism which cannot and should not remain unchallenged.

Difficult, for there is no cookie cutter liberal.

Liberals were once defined as Bleeding Hearts, a moniker which I proudly accept. Today the conservative element dominate on this message board, quietly accepts the moniker Callous Conservative, for not one has successfully challenged that they have the empathy of a bleeding heart for the aged, the infirm or postnatal children. In fact they hold stuggling human beings in contempt.

That said, this liberal's perspective of last night's iteration of the Republican debate was an embarrassment to all thinking Americans. Both by the questions asked, the demagoguery of the answers and the attacks on HRC sans any counterpoint to her or Sen. Sanders descriptions of the problems facing our nation.

There were no winners last night, only whiners who chose to play by the rules and didn't. One can't blame them too much, for asking questions on complex issues and allowing 60-seconds is ridiculous.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might try to frame your bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

 

[nat4900]

The Good: Rubio won this one. He had a fire no one thought was in him and his massacre of Jeb Bush was as graphic as any Game of Thrones scene. Kasich was thoughtful and articulate. Christie was strong, if not uninspiring. Trump was more of the same. He'll coast along to finish in the top 2 contenders at least for the nomination.

I fully agree except for the fact that rather than Rubio "winning" the sparring with Bush.....it was Bush who badly "lost" when he was unable (quick enough?) to respond to the jabs......Jeb could have simply answered (and receive a loud approval from the audience) had he said that Rubio was comparing his absenteeism from voting to the behavior of those "dreaded" democrats who also ran for the WH.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That should be the last ever Republican debate hosted by CNBC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Dubya sucked and rightfully belongs down in Dante's 9th Circle

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

The Good: Rubio won this one. He had a fire no one thought was in him and his massacre of Jeb Bush was as graphic as any Game of Thrones scene. Kasich was thoughtful and articulate. Christie was strong, if not uninspiring. Trump was more of the same. He'll coast along to finish in the top 2 contenders at least for the nomination.

The Bad: Carson had a very poor showing. His decline starts here. Cruz was his usual fool self but I suppose he will gain points for lashing out at the moderators. Fiorina and her plastic hair came across as insane. I think she turned off anyone on the fence about her.

The Ugly: Bush was an absolute disaster. He should save face and drop out yesterday. And what is Mike Huckabee still doing on stage? How much are his book publishers paying the RNC?

I missed seeing the debate last night, but what is so very interesting is I have a far rightwing nutter friend who pretty much said all the things you wrote, except he thinks Trump will be nominated for sure after last night.

(Yes, I actually have friends who are Tea Baggers, and yes, sometimes the conversations get very loud and testy.)

 

[rightwinger]

I just don't get Jeb

If his name wasn't Bush he wouldn't even be on the podium

Rubio beat him up quite easily and Bush's lame "France" retort was an insult not just to France but one of our branches of Government

Then Bush ducks the question of whether he would accept ten dollars in spending cuts for one dollar in tax increases with a giggle and ...I would kiss a Democrat if he would give me ten dollars in spending cuts

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The Good: Rubio won this one. He had a fire no one thought was in him and his massacre of Jeb Bush was as graphic as any Game of Thrones scene. Kasich was thoughtful and articulate. Christie was strong, if not uninspiring. Trump was more of the same. He'll coast along to finish in the top 2 contenders at least for the nomination.

I fully agree except for the fact that rather than Rubio "winning" the sparring with Bush.....it was Bush who badly "lost" when he was unable (quick enough?) to respond to the jabs......Jeb could have simply answered (and receive a loud approval from the audience) had he said that Rubio was comparing his absenteeism from voting to the behavior of those "dreaded" democrats who also ran for the WH.

I heard "Jeb!"(stupidest political logo EVER) just blew it last night. Wish I could have seen it. How profoundly amazing if he drops out. It will make my heart soar to new heights to see the House of Bush just phucking burn down.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

That should be the last ever Republican debate hosted by CNBC

I'll have to catch it on YouTube. I heard the moderators were all trying to make a name for themselves. I guess Anderson Cooper is looking pretty good right now.

 

[Eaglewings]

Did anyone else see how small Lindsey Graham is? I had no idea.

Carley Fionia : used less Botox so she could smile.

Ted Cruz: had most of what he said rehearsed.

Bush: Is Toast

I seriously want to see a Trump, Kasich, Rubio debate alone.



.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

 

[Eaglewings]

That should be the last ever Republican debate hosted by CNBC

I'll have to catch it on YouTube. I heard the moderators were all trying to make a name for themselves. I guess Anderson Cooper is looking pretty good right now.

Link to watch the debate....3 parts

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why should we give a rat's ass what a liberals perspective is? Liberals are notorious liars.

 

[gipper]

Yes, without doubt, the CNBC moderators were overly excessive in their quest to start a cat fight among the GOP candidates. I am not sure that it was a liberal bias on their part, but a personal incentive to mark themselves as "journalists" and, in that, they failed miserably. Cruz......although I think he (and Carson) may be the worst of the candidates....was correct in calling them out for their pettiness.

That stated, the only half-way decent candidates out of that bunch may be Kasich, Petaki and Christie. The rest are either zealots or sorely unprepared to even stand up to Clinton.

The perplexing approach by all candidates is their use of the pronoun "I"...as in, "I will do x, y, z" as if we were electing a despot and not someone who will have to work with and through a thorny and highly divided congress.

I wish the media would treat Ds like they treat Rs. Imagine Mrs. BJ getting questions about Bubba's philandering ways or all that money she stole through the Clinton Foundation.

Anyone who wants Mrs. BJ for POTUS, only exposes themselves as a complete and utter fool.

You might try to be real, and by that I suggest you frame your caustic comments in reality. The 90's have come and gone, we had GWB and the Neo Conservatives who managed to fuck up everything accomplished before their accession to power in 2001.

You might to frame you bigotry and prejudices in this century, even though you would seem to fit nicely in the early 19th century in S. Carolina.

Thank you for your thoughtless comments.

There is no difference between W and BO. Why can't you see this?

Neocons and Neolibs are the same. Welfare/warfare progressive elitists. You must come to learn that the difference between Ds and Rs is like the difference between dogs...and well...dogs.

Well, to dovetail on your absurd statement their are dogs, unsocialized dogs and rabid dogs. I hope that's not too abstract for your level of understanding.

Yes there are dogs and rabid dogs...just as there are bad and really bad politicians.

Your point is?