CNBC moderators get bipartisan drubbing for debate performance SHOCKING!

If any of the far left Progressives here, or anywhere else were not appalled by the moderators behavior, demeanor, attitude and questions, they are not in a minority, they are in a minuscule minority.

CNBC moderators get bipartisan drubbing for debate performance
Published October 29, 2015

Analysts across the political spectrum may be at odds over who won the third Republican presidential debate, but they seem to agree on one thing: the CNBC moderators had a very bad night.

The negative reaction to the debate questions and other factors has become a story unto itself, almost overshadowing the actual policy debates that broke out in between the candidate-moderator rancor Wednesday night.

The Republican candidates and observers complained the questions were demeaning, silly, and designed to provoke confrontation rather than genuine policy discussion. Others took aim at the debate format, and wondered about the moderators’ professionalism.

On several sites aggregating Twitter reaction, the moderators were declared the losers, “hands down.”

The Washington Post declared it “CNBC’s really bad debate night.”

“The moderators had a worse night than the New York Mets … this was a trainwreck,” Fox News' Howard Kurtz charged Thursday, referring to Game 2 of the World Series, and calling the debate questions “condescending, snide, hostile and borderline insulting.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/29/cnbc-moderators-debate-performance/?intcmp=hpbt1

It's wrastlin,  markle.  And those moderators were Wrastlepalooza caliber performers.
Get used to it,  markle. It's not gonna change.  It's making too much money to want to reinvent itself.

Besides,  the next debate is hosted by the Fox Business Channel.
If you think the Hillary and Sanders debate was a lovefest,  you aint seen nothin till you see this.  These folks will be so in the tank for the republicans that it'll take an hour to pull their heads out of the candidates' asses when the thing ends.

How many democratic debates will be on fox?

PkrBum wrote:How many democratic debates will be on fox?

That is a helluva good observation.
You'll never get the democrats to submit themselves to those characters at Fox.

I tell what I would really like to see.  Hilllary and Sanders on a Fox sponsored debate with O'Reilly,  Hannity,  and Mark Levin as the moderators.  Dear god especially Mark Levin.  That would be the most entertaining wrastlin you would ever see.

And by the way,  some of you folks need to get a taste of what the real right-wing media really is.  It's not tv.  It's AM radio.
And Mark Levin is the loudest ranter and raver of them all.  But he's also the most articulate personality on all radio.
It's a helluva experience to take in his rants.  It can actually get you emotional.  Actually mostly emotional and sparesly rational.  lol
And he builds up to crescendos like an old time fire and brimstone radio evangelist.  Except with polish and a briilliant talent as a wordsmith. 
It's a trip.  You're missing out on something if you don't take it in.  lol

I would prefer stossel, napoletono, and covuto.

PkrBum wrote:I would prefer stossel, napoletono, and covuto.

That would make a really good combination.  All three are really good performers.

Everyone can make their own judgement but I have no problem with the moderators' conduct and questions. If the applicants cannot handle the incoming fire from moderators it should cast a doubt on their ability to handle real world affairs with bare fists . . . . . it's a wrastlin' match to use Bob's phraseaology. In summary they are whining now about the media which is waist deep horse ca ca! I get a kick out of Reince Preibus crying, hilarious . . .

PkrBum wrote:I would prefer Stossel, Napolitano, and Cavuto.

I'd like Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly conduct the Presidential Debates.

The moderators were the worse in either party's debates. They were lazy and arrogant. They were not ready with research for a timely rebuttal of an answer which was a lie. When they did try to rebut the lies every time their response was untimely. They often started a question with a conclusion, rather than a legitimate substantive question. With all that being said, a good candidate could have handled every question these numbskulls presented and did it in real time with the truth. Sadly, the responses were often lies, sidestepping the question, or being combative with the question and the person asking the question. All in all terrible moderators, and worse debate participants. What a sad lot. Jeb is a good man. I am so sad seeing him dissolve in front of America. Kasich is a good man, and Trump lies and gets his sound bite. Christy is a good man, and he just cannot get traction. Cruz, Rubio, Paul, are not good people, and the CEO and the Doctor will be irrelevant in March. My worse fear is a Rubio or Cruz gaining support because both are intelligent but evil. Oh well, if kasich or Chris do not win, I will give up on the Republicans.

knothead wrote:Everyone can make their own judgement but I have no problem with the moderators' conduct and questions.  If the applicants cannot handle the incoming fire from moderators it should cast a doubt on their ability to handle real world affairs with bare fists . . . . . it's a wrastlin' match to use Bob's phraseaology.  In summary they are whining now about the media which is waist deep horse ca ca! I get a kick out of Reince Preibus crying, hilarious . . .  

SHOCK, you had no problems with the moderators, EVEN when even Democrats said it was deplorable.

The topic was to be the economy and cutting spending. NOTHING came out about that, only the massive confusion caused by the inept moderators.

The moderators should be virtually invisible. The questions should be sincere and phrased for the candidate to answer in an informative manner. These clowns didn't even know how to respond when the veracity of their question was doubted.

As you know, it wasn't just Republicans, contesting the moderators. With this post, you further confirm your lack of reality.

2seaoat wrote:The moderators were the worse in either party's debates.  They were lazy and arrogant.   They were not ready with research for a timely rebuttal of an answer which was a lie.   When they did try to rebut the lies every time their response was untimely.   They often started a question with a conclusion, rather than a legitimate substantive question.  With all that being said, a good candidate could have handled every question these numbskulls presented and did it in real time with the truth.  Sadly, the responses were often lies, sidestepping the question, or being combative with the question and the person asking the question.  All in all terrible moderators, and worse debate participants.  What a sad lot.  Jeb is a good man.  I am so sad seeing him dissolve in front of America.  Kasich is a good man, and Trump lies and gets his sound bite.  Christy is a good man, and he just cannot get traction.   Cruz, Rubio, Paul, are not good people, and the CEO and the Doctor will be irrelevant in March.  My worse fear is a Rubio or Cruz gaining support because both are intelligent but evil.  Oh well, if kasich or Chris do not win, I will give up on the Republicans.

Jeb Bush is a criminal just like the rest of his family. I don't know where you get this "good man" stuff.