GOP debates: I think this says it all

18 thoughts on “GOP debates: I think this says it all”

  1. One of the candidates, I think it might have been Ted Cruz, openly wished that the moderators for the next GOP “debate” could be Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity and Mark Levin. I what might happen in such a case? Would the contrast between talk and reality be so great as to puncture their balloons? Or would it just sharpen the political divide? (About 68% of the electorate doubt the reality of evolution.)

    1. I think it’s up to the networks, the sponsors of the debates, to choose the moderators and make the rules. (CNBC did a lousy job, I think, with moderators I didn’t know and in whom I had no confidence.) Then the candidates who are invited to the debate can choose to attend or not. Candidates dictating the terms of the debates amounts to the tail wagging the dog.

      1. Agreed, including that CNBC did a lousy job. They encouraged the personal attacks. That said, it’s difficult to see how much economic substance could be covered by anyone when limited to 2 or 3 hours and a field of 14 candidates, most of whom are only in the game for personal aggrandizement. I am looking forward to Rachael Maddow’s “Forum” tomorrow night. She’s bright and there will be only three Dems.

      2. It’s a free country and if you want to run for president, you can. But the huge GOP field is ridiculous and obviously hurting them all. I look forward to the day when we see serious questions and discussions among maybe three or four serious contenders and moderated by a serious, professional journalist (admittedly an increasingly rare breed).

  2. Ha! No kidding!! I don’t think I’ve ever heard so much whining and complaining outside of a pre-school or school yard. What a bunch of losers. I’m still racking my brain trying like heck to figure out why people see in Carson. He lives in his own little world, doesn’t know squat about government, and is socially inept. Plus he’s never really said anything major to draw such a following. I just don’t understand………..

    1. I don’t get the popularity of either Trump or Carson. I just don’t. The presidency is too important to give it to some publicity-seeking wannebe. Scares the daylights out of me to think the polls on these two might actually represent votes next November.

      1. This came in from ImALibertarian, who couldn’t get it to post:

        Why do you think that Carson is “some publicity-seeking wannabe”? Have you read any of his books? Do you know what his previously (before running for office) articulated positions are on a variety of subjects? Just curious.

      2. As far as his presidential aspirations are concerned, I do think he’s a wannabe. Nothing I’ve seen or heard from him since he announced his candidacy indicates that he has the knowledge or background to be president. Worse, he’s expressed what I think are some really wacko ideas (grain storage in the pyramids; 6,000-year-old earth; being gay is a choice; Congress should be able to remove judges; compares women who have abortions to slave owners) I’ve not read any of his books and have no interest in doing so since I’m not considering voting for him. The media, if you believe them, seem to think there’s an awful lot of truth stretching in his biography. Bottom line for me is he’s way too conservative and way too religious.

  3. I’m sick to these staged performances. What I saw of this one, the moderators thought we tuned in to hear them…so typical news anchors these days. Doubt I’ll bother with any more.
    The big candidate list reminds me of the elections for mayor here. Circus.

    1. I didn’t even recognize most of the moderators for the CNBC debate. Why should I care if there’s not at least a notable, reasonable reputable journalist (one or two, not a whole panel) conducting the “debate,” asking probing questions about important issues, and maintaining order in the process? Of course, the GOP is partly responsible for fielding an entire clown bus full of candidates. But I think it’s up to the sponsoring network or whomever to set whatever rules they want and then invite all the candidates — who can choose to be there or not.

      When the field gets narrowed to a reasonable number, I’d like to see more shows like what Rachel Maddow did last night — thoughtful, intelligent, respectful one-on-one discussions with each candidate.

      1. I felt the same way as you about the moderators – no serious recognizable person in sight. Only performers on both sides of the stage.
        Small group handling the same question – or individual sessions is the only way the public will get any information. Sadly I have concluded along with Webb that the Parties have already made their choice and this is all fluff and fog for the ordinary people.Hold your nose and vote time once again.

      2. At the moment I’ve no inclination to vote for anyone from any party. But push come to shove, I’ll probably have to vote Dem just to keep the GOP from inflicting more pro-life legislation on the nation, and to make sure they don’t take control of the Supreme Court.

... and that's my two cents