MSNBC covering for God awful CNBC debate.

[ZX86]

Sorry folks. Ted Cruz was right. Those questions to the candidates were an insult to the candidates, the audience, and the process itself and MSNBC is trying their best to put a fig leaf on that obscene mess.

Just because the GOP clown car is full of idiots is no reason to abandon journalistic standards. The media is driving the clown car and trying to pretend they are not full and complicit participants like some getaway driver in a bank robbery.

[merrily]

1. That group of Republican candidates, versus CNBC? Talk about not having a dog in a fight!

[ZX86]

8. This shit has been going on far to long.

Dukakis asked a death penalty question in the form a rape/murder fantasy involving his wife. Kucinich asked about UFOs. Sanders asked about his honeymoon location. HRC asked about her likability poll numbers. This isn't journalism. It's bullshit.

[merrily]

9. As I said, in this particular instance, I don't have a dog in the fight.

I am second to none in my contempt for the msm, but, this time, I don't care.

[ZX86]

11. Trust me.

The same puppet masters that turned the CNBC debate into a clown show are licking their chops for another go at Bernie. How much you want to bet the first question he gets in the next debate is, "Why haven't you dropped out already?"

[merrily]

12. And? If and when that happens, I will have a dog in the fight. I don't this time.

I really do know my own mind at least most of the time.

[gratuitous]

2. What I couldn't figure out

This is just from the reports; I was too busy watching Kansas City put a hiding on the Mets: What were the moderators thinking about? On a few occasions, they set up a question, the candidate denied the question in an out-and-out lie, and the moderators just moved on. Two examples: Ben Carson and the Mannatech question, which he dismissed as "propaganda" and Donald Trump and the H1B guest worker comment which Trump denied ever making.

In both of these cases, the moderator had to have some basis for asking the question, but when the candidate got all huffy, they both just left off the question. What was the point?

[AleksS]

4. Par for the course when the media deals

Par for the course when the media deals with the right wing. The media's so craven, so scared of being criticized, so afraid of the right wing bullies, that even the thought of standing up to the righties is enough to make them crap their pants, and huddle on the floor in the fetal position.

"Oh no!" They say, "We better kiss right wing butts, or they'll call us biased!" They haven't learned that no matter how much tongue they use, nor how many right wing butts they kiss, the GOP will always use the media as a convenient scapegoat. The (admitted) lie of a "liberal media" has worked FAR too well for the right to abandon it.

[gratuitous]

5. Yeah, self-censorship abounds

But did the moderator asking Carson about Mannatech think, "Mannatech. That's a funny name. I'll ask one of the candidates about it. How about Carson? Oh, he called it 'propaganda.' Well, that's that I guess." I mean, there is ample evidence and a trail a mile long tying Carson to Mannatech, and the questioner had to have some of that information on hand, else why ask the question in the first place? Totally amateur hour.

[ZX86]

6. Debates should be about public policy.

Every question should be able to be asked and answered by every candidate. Debates should not be a vehicle for ambush journalism. If one candidate wants to challenge perceived past behavior that is hypocritical or lacking in effectiveness they should address that issue. That is not the role of the moderator.

Some celebrity, dimwit, news personality dreaming up loaded questions designed to embarrass candidates or asking one candidate to morally judge another candidate is bullshit. It doesn't inform me as a voter. It's theater. It's a circus. It's a clown show.

[gratuitous]

14. The question to Trump was about immigration policy

And Trump's position as expounded on his own campaign website. That seems to be a public policy issue. The question to Carson wasn't so much policy-oriented as trying to figure out if a medical doctor can be taken in by quackery. Apparently, yes, at least for a price. What other positions will Carson endorse for a price? I am interested in a candidate's character and judgment, and the Mannatech woo reflects badly on both for Carson.

[ZX86]

16. And there's the problem "The question to Trump"

Everyone should get the same question. It's a debate. If candidate X is a dope how about some robust reporting about that on your news station? Not loaded gotcha questions in a debate format. Where I come from a debate is to determine who has the best ideas or solutions on public policy issues.

[ZX86]

10. The questions was designed to get a reaction.

It has no value as an actual public policy issue that actually affects people's lives. They abandon the question because they never cared about the issue in the first place. It was just used to get a rise out of the candidate.

[lame54]

3. On the other hand...

it's not right that these buffoons go around saying these horrible things and not expect to get called out on them

[ZX86]

7. That's not the role of a moderator

in a debate. Reporter interview questions are not the same as moderator debate questions.

[olddots]

13. those repukian dip shits are the reason the moderators were jerks

if they had something to say or actually wanted to govern the guestions would come up to their level instead going down to their level .Welcome to show bizz running our lives .

[840high]

15. Cruz did good.

[mwrguy]

17. The moderators were to polite if anything

[JackRiddler]

18. The mostly unmentioned scandal is the paywall.

Unbelievable. Only cable subscribers could watch this.