2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

Carson Calls for Major Changes in GOP Debate Format, Distribution - WSJ

I guess the best way to show you are presidential is to cry "no fair" when you get questions you don't want to answer. I didn't like some of the questions during the last debate either, but this seems like weak sauce. When the campaigns advertise a circus, they should not be surprised when the clowns show up.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I guess the best way to show you are presidential is to cry "no fair" when you get questions you don't want to answer. I didn't like some of the questions during the last debate either, but this seems like weak sauce. When the campaigns advertise a circus, they should not be surprised when the clowns show up.

I think the question would be whether CNBC would do the same with a democratic debate. And the answer would be no. One would seem the press learned their lesson with the CNN moderator(Crowley iirc) who interjected her political bias into the Presidential debate needlessly... and very incorrectly btw. And was overly adamant when she was corrected. Pure unprofessionalism on her part.

If debates can't be moderated with neutrality, then they should be changed.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think the question would be whether CNBC would do the same with a democratic debate. And the answer would be no. One would seem the press learned their lesson with the CNN moderator(Crowley iirc) who interjected her political bias into the Presidential debate needlessly... and very incorrectly btw. And was overly adamant when she was corrected. Pure unprofessionalism on her part.

If debates can't be moderated with neutrality, then they should be changed.

There's a weird narrative that CNBC is this liberal entity who was unfair to conservatives in the debate. CNBC is a largely conservative network who was instrumental in the creation of the Tea Party caucus.

There were also several opportunities to call out flat out lies (e.g., Carson and his supplement company, Rubio and his financial issues, Trump and his comments on Zuckerberg). They didn't do it.

If there was a bias, it was for sensationalism. They want conflict. That drives ratings. But that's the nature of this business. It's a big problem, no question. It's also what having 15 candidates will do for you. But it wasn't a bias for Democrats.

Anderson Cooper ran an outstanding and substantive debate for the Democratic candidates. I'd love to see more of those.

As far as Crowley is concerned, she was right. Obama called Benghazi an "act of terror" multiple times in the rose garden address.

The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNNPolitics.com

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

.............

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

 

[T Town Tommy]

There's a weird narrative that CNBC is this liberal entity who was unfair to conservatives in the debate. CNBC is a largely conservative network who was instrumental in the creation of the Tea Party caucus.

There were also several opportunities to call out flat out lies (e.g., Carson and his supplement company, Rubio and his financial issues, Trump and his comments on Zuckerberg). They didn't do it.

If there was a bias, it was for sensationalism. But that's the nature of this business. It's a big problem, no question. It's also what having 15 candidates will do for you. But it wasn't a bias for Democrats.

Anderson Cooper ran an outstanding and substantive debate for the Democratic candidates. I'd love to see more of those.

As far as Crowley is concerned, she was right. Obama called Benghazi an "act of terror" multiple times in the rose garden address.

The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNNPolitics.com

In the framework of her comments at the time, she was incorrect. And when she was corrected, she still stood by what she said. And, even if her comment was "correct" - which as I said, in the framework of the debate it was not - she had zero business interjected herself into the debate. It was unprofessional on her part and a clear violation of journalistic integrity (if that even exists any more.) It also doesn't help your argument here in the fact that you reference her own employer in trying to clear up her mess. She crossed a journalistic line, was called out for it, and that was that.

I do think many in the media was a little shocked at how the CNBC moderators came off. They typically don't act in that manner. Was it Democratic bias? Hard to say as we don't know what the intent of the moderators were. But we do know the parent company of CNBC is not neutral in any sense.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

In the framework of her comments at the time, she was incorrect. And when she was corrected, she still stood by what she said. And, even if her comment was "correct" - which as I said, in the framework of the debate it was not - she had zero business interjected herself into the debate. It was unprofessional on her part and a clear violation of journalistic integrity (if that even exists any more.) It also doesn't help your argument here in the fact that you reference her own employer in trying to clear up her mess. She crossed a journalistic line, was called out for it, and that was that.

I do think many in the media was a little shocked at how the CNBC moderators came off. They typically don't act in that manner. Was it Democratic bias? Hard to say as we don't know what the intent of the moderators were. But we do know the parent company of CNBC is not neutral in any sense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...e968ada-180f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Look at what she said. She was exactly right. Obama called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Romney was wrong about that. She also noted that the administration hedged for about 2 weeks on that point.

And I stand by the fact that CNBC is a largely conservative network.

 

[T Town Tommy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...e968ada-180f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Look at what she said. She was exactly right. Obama called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Romney was wrong about that. She also noted that the administration hedged for about 2 weeks on that point.

And I stand by the fact that CNBC is a largely conservative network.

It was schematics jayhawk. Geez. Obama was trying to sell that specific incident as something other than what it actually was. The phrase "act of terror" was used by him in the Rose Garden speech as a broad generalization... not a specific incident. Romney was correct in calling him out on it when he tried to crawfish in the debate. Then Crowley... using the same logic... backed the President up. And it is hilarious that when Romney pressed, the first thing she and Obama wanted to do was move on from it. Only after the debate iirc did Crowley state that the President waffled on it for two weeks... which was EXACTLY the point Romney was trying to make in the debate - that she felt the urgent need to defend the President on. She was only correct in the use of the phrase... not in the framework and context of what was being debated at that moment.

 

[pkt77242]

I think that part of the problem is that when candidates are asked tough questions they just attack the media as unfair instead of answering the questions. Part of the reason is that with the polarization of the media candidates get use to getting softball questions from friendly "journalists". While I wasn't a fan of the CNBC debate, what it stinks of is that if you don't ask us the questions that we want you to ask, we won't let you do our debates anymore, which is just ridiculous and childish. The grown-up equivalent of I am going to take my ball and go home.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It was schematics jayhawk. Geez. Obama was trying to sell that specific incident as something other than what it actually was. The phrase "act of terror" was used by him in the Rose Garden speech as a broad generalization... not a specific incident. Romney was correct in calling him out on it when he tried to crawfish in the debate. Then Crowley... using the same logic... backed the President up. And it is hilarious that when Romney pressed, the first thing she and Obama wanted to do was move on from it. Only after the debate iirc did Crowley state that the President waffled on it for two weeks... which was EXACTLY the point Romney was trying to make in the debate - that she felt the urgent need to defend the President on. She was only correct in the use of the phrase... not in the framework and context of what was being debated at that moment.

Obama didn't want to move on. He wanted him to be on the record challenging the facts. That's what "Please proceed" meant. He knew perfectly well that he used the phrase "act of terror." That's why he told Romney to check the transcript.

And you do not recall correctly about Crowley waiting until after the debate to talk about the two weeks. Look at the transcript from the link that I posted.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

Crowley was exactly right.

 

[GoIrish41]

In the framework of her comments at the time, she was incorrect. And when she was corrected, she still stood by what she said. And, even if her comment was "correct" - which as I said, in the framework of the debate it was not - she had zero business interjected herself into the debate. It was unprofessional on her part and a clear violation of journalistic integrity (if that even exists any more.) It also doesn't help your argument here in the fact that you reference her own employer in trying to clear up her mess. She crossed a journalistic line, was called out for it, and that was that.

I do think many in the media was a little shocked at how the CNBC moderators came off. They typically don't act in that manner. Was it Democratic bias? Hard to say as we don't know what the intent of the moderators were. But we do know the parent company of CNBC is not neutral in any sense.

How is correcting the public statements of a presidential candidate a violation of journalistic integrity? Candidates don't get to make stuff up during a debate and not get called on it. They also do not get to pick the questions that will be asked.

 

[MJ12666]

How is correcting the public statements of a presidential candidate a violation of journalistic integrity? Candidates don't get to make stuff up during a debate and not get called on it. They also do not get to pick the questions that will be asked.

Assuming what you are saying is accurate then why wasn't BS challenged about how he was going to fund free college for all? I did not hear a peep out of the moderators when he said he would do it via transaction tax on speculators? What exactly does the mean anyway. What exactly is a speculator? Am I a speculator because I buy 5,000 shares of GS-PA because of its stability and dividend? If not how exactly is Sanders proposing to make the distinction between a "long-term" investor and a "speculator". You can't but since BS says it must be true, right? How about grilling HC about all of her flip flip flopping? I guess in her case the moderators were satisfied with her saying that her stances simply evolved.

The questions asked were legitimate but the editorializing by the moderators was inexcusable and disgraceful,

 

[NDRock]

There's a weird narrative that CNBC is this liberal entity who was unfair to conservatives in the debate. CNBC is a largely conservative network who was instrumental in the creation of the Tea Party caucus.

There were also several opportunities to call out flat out lies (e.g., Carson and his supplement company, Rubio and his financial issues, Trump and his comments on Zuckerberg). They didn't do it.

If there was a bias, it was for sensationalism. They want conflict. That drives ratings. But that's the nature of this business. It's a big problem, no question. It's also what having 15 candidates will do for you. But it wasn't a bias for Democrats.

Anderson Cooper ran an outstanding and substantive debate for the Democratic candidates. I'd love to see more of those.

As far as Crowley is concerned, she was right. Obama called Benghazi an "act of terror" multiple times in the rose garden address.

The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNNPolitics.com

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Cable channels are in the business to get ratings, newspapers are trying to sell newspapers, websites want clicks and they all want to make money. Not sure why people are constantly surprised by this. It's like being surprised that a politician's main goal is to get and keep getting elected.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'm all for tough questions being asked. What the CNBC anchors did was embarrassing, and I'm glad the candidates said "enough is enough" and made them look stupid. They deserved it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Assuming what you are saying is accurate then why wasn't BS challenged about how he was going to fund free college for all? I did not hear a peep out of the moderators when he said he would do it via transaction tax on speculators? What exactly does the mean anyway. What exactly is a speculator? Am I a speculator because I buy 5,000 shares of GS-PA because of its stability and dividend? If not how exactly is Sanders proposing to make the distinction between a "long-term" investor and a "speculator". You can't but since BS says it must be true, right? How about grilling HC about all of her flip flip flopping? I guess in her case the moderators were satisfied with her saying that her stances simply evolved.

The questions asked were legitimate but the editorializing by the moderators was inexcusable and disgraceful,

The first series of questions asked of Hillary was whether or not she changes positions depending on who she is talking to. The moderator did not like her answer and pressed her for a better one. And she answered again.

The first question for the GOP candidates was "what is your biggest weakness?" That is sch a softball question that interviewers don't even ask it anymore.

Sanders first question was about how he hopes to win given that he is a socialist. It is not like CNN came out of the gate lobbing softballs. The candidates answered the questions -- they didn't cry foul because the questions were not fair. Bernie explained how he proposed to pay for his plans. Perhaps you did not like his answers and would have preferred him to chastise the moderator for the ignorance of the question instead of giving an answer. I prefer an actual answer during a debate and not a rant about how the media is unfair. Also, correcting a statement that is false and not believing a plan will work are two really different things.

 

[MJ12666]

There's a weird narrative that CNBC is this liberal entity who was unfair to conservatives in the debate. CNBC is a largely conservative network who was instrumental in the creation of the Tea Party caucus.

There were also several opportunities to call out flat out lies (e.g., Carson and his supplement company, Rubio and his financial issues, Trump and his comments on Zuckerberg). They didn't do it.

If there was a bias, it was for sensationalism. They want conflict. That drives ratings. But that's the nature of this business. It's a big problem, no question. It's also what having 15 candidates will do for you. But it wasn't a bias for Democrats.

Anderson Cooper ran an outstanding and substantive debate for the Democratic candidates. I'd love to see more of those.

As far as Crowley is concerned, she was right. Obama called Benghazi an "act of terror" multiple times in the rose garden address.

The truth about what Candy Crowley said - CNNPolitics.com

Do you really believe this or are you being sarcastic?

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you really believe this or are you being sarcastic?

No italics. I assume he believes it's true because he is correct.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Do you really believe this or are you being sarcastic?

CNBC is not MSNBC.

 

[T Town Tommy]

How is correcting the public statements of a presidential candidate a violation of journalistic integrity? Candidates don't get to make stuff up during a debate and not get called on it. They also do not get to pick the questions that will be asked.

The rules for the debate are set prior to the debate. Crowley knew what the rules were and broke the rules when interjecting herself into the debate. And while our friend jayhawk insists she was correct - even she went on record some time after the debate stated that Romney was correct "in the main" but she felt he used the wrong word. That's a fancy way of saying she was incorrect.

 

[Cackalacky]

Cruz was asked as direct and substatiative question as one could be asked. It was a valid question as it dealt with his past actions in formulating a shutdown over the debt ceiling. He knows that there is no way to answer that question in a positive light be cause what he did and has done is so far below even partisan politics he has no answer for it because it is a reckless position to have and will cause all kinds of economic problems if the country defaults.

His answer was to go off on the liberal media. People cheered. They don't even know what they are cheering for. They applauded a man who wants to wreck our economy by defaulting on our already accumulated debts. Sheesh.

I honestly don't know what or how people watch these people with a straight face and think they offer anything positive.

 

[GoIrish41]

Cruz was asked as direct and substatiative question as one could be asked. It was a valid question as it dealt with his past actions in formulating a shutdown over the debt ceiling. He knows that there is no way to answer that question in a positive light be cause what he did and has done is so far below even partisan politics he has no answer for it because it is a reckless position to have and will cause all kinds of economic problems if the country defaults.

His answer was to go off on the liberal media. People cheered. They don't even know what they are cheering for. They applauded a man who wants to wreck our economy by defaulting on our already accumulated debts. Sheesh.

I honestly don't know what or how people watch these people with a straight face and think they offer anything positive.

It is smoke and mirrors. If they successfully co-opt the debates, their debates will become an even bigger shitshow than they have been to date. For fear of losing ad revenue, nobody will challenge the candidates with hard questions and all answers will be accepted at face value. But, they also lose their "out" about liberal media bias and should be forced toward issues ... Let's see them talk about real substance for once if they are actually capable of doing that.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It is smoke and mirrors. If they successfully co-opt the debates, their debates will become an even bigger shitshow than they have been to date. For fear of losing ad revenue, nobody will challenge the candidates with hard questions and all answers will be accepted at face value. But, they also lose their "out" about liberal media bias and should be forced toward issues ... Let's see them talk about real substance for once if they are actually capable of doing that.

That's rich right there.

It's sad that CNBC asked tougher questions is a Republican primary debate than our current President has been asked in eight years by our liberal media friends.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's rich right there.

It's sad that CNBC asked tougher questions is a Republican primary debate than our current President has been asked in eight years by our liberal media friends.

OK Tommy ... you are using smoke and mirrors now, too. Trump is the only GOP candidate playing this Debategate nonsense right. He said he welcomes tough questions. The rest of the candidates look weak and as if they are hiding behind the lamestream media defense to avoid answering anything uncomfortable. See acacia post about Cruz above for a perfect example.

 

[phgreek]

It was schematics jayhawk. Geez. Obama was trying to sell that specific incident as something other than what it actually was. The phrase "act of terror" was used by him in the Rose Garden speech as a broad generalization... not a specific incident. Romney was correct in calling him out on it when he tried to crawfish in the debate. Then Crowley... using the same logic... backed the President up. And it is hilarious that when Romney pressed, the first thing she and Obama wanted to do was move on from it. Only after the debate iirc did Crowley state that the President waffled on it for two weeks... which was EXACTLY the point Romney was trying to make in the debate - that she felt the urgent need to defend the President on. She was only correct in the use of the phrase... not in the framework and context of what was being debated at that moment.

Oh for Christ's sake...No moderator should do what Candy Crowley did...PERIOD. You have the context issue regarding Mr. Obama's statements absolutely correct...just know as long as there is a thread to hang on to they will...don't waste your time.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Who cares if Obama used the phrase "act of terror" or not. What pressing national interest was addressed in the rose garden. Who knows what was actually was being said in the situation room and in the places where it actually mattered.

More to the point, who says terrorism is defined in binary terms. It exists on a spectrum of violence, and it's difficult to define the exact boundaries of where the line is dividing terror from guerrilla war, especially if the attack in question was on a consulate that was allegedly serving a traditionally military function (supplying weapons).

Finally, these things don't happen in a vacuum. There were lots of protests over that video that week. One of the attackers has said that the attacks were in revenge for the videos. The nature of intelligence is that there's a lot of noise to sift through for very little signal, and it's frequently only obvious in retrospect what is what. Even this new supposedly damning cable that came out seems to suggest that they thought both elements (protest, deliberate attack) were at play and that they warned against raising awareness of the video in Libya- they did not claim that the video had nothing to do with the attack.

I said finally, but this is my final piece: Benghazi lead to the death of four Americans. That's sad, a tragedy even, but hardly a failure of national level proportions. Each of those four Americans knew that they had a dangerous job and that they were in a dangerous region. They knew that the consulate was underprotected, not in small part because Congress had cut the State Department's security and embassy budget by over two hundred million dollars in the years leading up to the attack . If Benghazi is your smoking gun on the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department, you don't have anything.

 

[kmoose]

If Benghazi is your smoking gun on the Obama administration and Clinton's State Department, you don't have anything.

I'm conservative, but moderate. My bigger issue with Clinton is that she wouldn't be anything other than a former first lady, if her husband had not been banging an intern. But he was, and the Democratic Party sold the farm to keep her from divorcing his dumb ass. She is everything that Democrats seem to be against: she was just given her position, without any real qualifications, and powerful men in the system made sure not only that doors opened for her, but that someone held that door for her. I cringe every time I hear her decry "the good ole boy network". Its ironic because, without it, she would be nothing more than an old hag married to a former President who couldn't keep it in his pants.

Having said that.............. there is plenty to worry about, regarding Benghazi, as it relates to Hilary Clinton. She's shown that she is all about the politics. She's not given any real straight answers. She's asked if wiping a hard drive means with a paper towel. She's played the blame game. I mean, if we as a country are really tired of professional politicians, then this witch shouldn't get a single vote. And her actions surrounding the Benghazi incident are a glaring example of why.

 

[connor_in]

I'm conservative, but moderate. My bigger issue with Clinton is that she wouldn't be anything other than a former first lady, if her husband had not been banging an intern. But he was, and the Democratic Party sold the farm to keep her from divorcing his dumb ass. She is everything that Democrats seem to be against: she was just given her position, without any real qualifications, and powerful men in the system made sure not only that doors opened for her, but that someone held that door for her. I cringe every time I hear her decry "the good ole boy network". Its ironic because, without it, she would be nothing more than an old hag married to a former President who couldn't keep it in his pants.

Having said that.............. there is plenty to worry about, regarding Benghazi, as it relates to Hilary Clinton. She's shown that she is all about the politics. She's not given any real straight answers. She's asked if wiping a hard drive means with a paper towel. She's played the blame game. I mean, if we as a country are really tired of professional politicians, then this witch shouldn't get a single vote. And her actions surrounding the Benghazi incident are a glaring example of why.

Saw this one this morning, and after reading your post, figured I would post...

 

[connor_in]

Who cares if Obama used the phrase "act of terror" or not.

...or what your definition of "is" is

...or what difference, at this point, does it make?

Sorry, but the the ol right winger in me made me post this

 

[connor_in]

Political cartoons for the day...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Saw this one this morning, and after reading your post, figured I would post...

It's amazing. She has absolutely zero accomplishments in her lifetime and is running on last name alone.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's amazing. She has absolutely zero accomplishments in her lifetime and is running on last name alone.

What is really amazing is that she is going to win.

 

[pkt77242]

It's amazing. She has absolutely zero accomplishments in her lifetime and is running on last name alone.

Do you actually know anything about her? She has as many accomplishments as most of the Republican field.

An Illinois native, Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker, then earned her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After a stint as a Congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978, and was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979. While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' education system, and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, among other corporations. In 1988 and 1991, The National Law Journal listed her as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America".

Also she served as a Senator for 8 years and as Secretary of State for 4. I am not a fan of HRC but you are greatly exaggerating when you say she has "no accomplishments".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton