Two of the moderators of the CNBC Republican presidential debate, John Harwood and Sharon Epperson, defended their questions on Wednesday night following criticism from the Republican National Committee and the candidates themselves.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus lambasted the network and said CNBC should be “ashamed of how this debate was handled.” And numerous candidates complained during and after the debate that the moderators did not ask enough substantive questions.
Harwood told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that the moderators aimed to ask the candidates about their economic plans.
“Some of those questions, especially considering the prescriptions they are offering, are questions that feel hostile to those Republican candidates,” Harwood said.
Matthews noted that the candidates criticized the questions and were quick to accuse the moderators of getting their facts wrong.
“There were a lot of conservatives before the debate who were urging them to go hard after the media, and that’s what they did,” Harwood said in response.
Matthews then said that candidates tried to “whack” reporters out of the way during the debate, hoping “that time will run out.”
“They are hoping that people don’t really care about the facts and I think they are wrong about that,” Epperson said in response.
Watch the clip via MSNBC:
If the republican party doesn’t think the media is fair why don’t they host and moderate a debate that the various media companies can choose to show if they want or the republicans can just post online. Sure it will be a bunch of softball questions with no follow up but then people and the media can look it over and point out what bs they see.
What a bunch of whining tittybabies’ the Republican clown college candidates are. That clusterfu*k last night was the result of egoistic, know-nothing, vacuous and whining Rightie shills trying to get traction and be noticed. They aren’t used to having actually to answer a question or defend specifics. When a cesspool like that pool of GOP freaks is stirred, it’s bound to stink. If you can’t handle questions you don’t like, tough question, or factual questions, then stay the hell outta’ politics. Period.
They say you can’t be pro if you can only play on a dry field. That goes for candidates and moderators alike. If the CNBC jokers knew there was an organized effort to upend that debate they should have come prepared for that. Concise, supported questions and the backbone to call out deflection and dodging. The candidates acted liked spoiled brats for sure but those CNBC’rs enabled it.
I think Trump and the Boyz are on to something. The media is afraid to go after them.
You know you’re seriously into Bizarro World territory when it’s the candidates doing the grilling, and the media moderators getting grilled.
Next up, who will be the next to drop out? John Harwood, Sharon Epperson, Dana Bash, Chris Matthews?
Who in the Lamestream Media has what it takes to go the distance?
Join us on the Road to 2016!
There are several things wrong with the GOP debates other than the entertainment value, which after the 3rd one now is seriously dwindling. It never feels like any one of the candidates are running for the highest and most important job in the country. I put that on the candidates. Its one big joke to most of them that are only running to grift, and have no chance at all of becoming President…Most of us, if we’re really honest about that, already know this. But heaven forbid they get rid of 4 or 5%ers running for office or consign them to a different forum at a different date or time…
Secondly, the idea of having ten people on a stage willing to follow rules involving time limits instead of a free-for-all is also on the candidates, not the moderators…The moderators couldn’t herd that particular bunch of cats if they tried. And like children, the candidates all seem to think its their nature and their right to act out and not be responsible for having to follow any rules anyway.
Third, CNBC in particular was all about representing a niche group of the investors class on Wall Street. That is in many respects who the GOP in general defends and goes out of their way to protect, both in Congress and through their policies as candidates, regardless of a few populist comments here and there that might suggest otherwise. J. Marshall talked about that weird sympatico with the investor class in his editorials and how it made for a really bad debate both by the questioners and the candidates…at least that was my takeaway. As such, the moderators were not focused on the economic plight of the majority of citizens in the country, and their blind-spot in not addressing income inequality left a lot to be desired even though Republican candidates have all now adopted this line in their stump speeches. All the Horatio Alger stories in the world couldn’t fill that huge gap no matter how much the candidates talked about how they would make life better for the average citizen. I know at CNBC addressing poverty was never gonna happen on a debate billed to talk about the economy, but not addressing issues related to the middle-class was equally shameful. Instead questions led to ridiculous convoluted non-answers by the candidates over marginal tax rates, etc., that no sane person could relate to. Instead, they filled time with buzzwords and phrases that conveyed nothing by way of policy specifics. It was literally divorced from reality from the way most people actually live their lives.
Fourthly, why the hell do these cable companies insist on having 10 bozos on stage at once, competing for who can make the most quips, glib remarks and waste the most time. Nothing can be followed up on, and refusal to answer specific questions by the candidates is always bypassed by moderators due to time constraints, in favor of moving along to the next question that results in the same dead-end. Nothing is explored, nothing is confronted when its clearly misleading or an outright lie. The entire exercise never goes beyond basic introductions and claptrap responses.
Lastly, complaining about the media is a particularly time honored tradition, particularly among the GOP. Their animus towards what they see as the Librul Media is a staple means of deflection. If CNBC is the Librul Media…I’ll eat my hat, as they say. Why the moderators couldn’t defend their roles and debunk that absurdity from the beginning is beyond me. They are so rightwing on CNBC, that most of them encouraged the TParty from the start, disparaged the 99% movement and OWS, and fought against anything that exposed the disgusting greed on Wall Street. When salaries + compensation packages + bonuses for CEOs were exposed as 300xs what the average person makes in the workplace, CNBC was there to defend every inch of that culture of greed. They are worse than Faux Nooze in so many respects. They kept the myth of the genius CEO alive, who couldn’t afford to lose their seat at the table because there would be no one else willing to replace them for less. Bullshit. They protected greedy financiers throughout the Great Recession. They continued to sell shit in a can and still call it filet mignon, and well past its due date if there is one on shit in a can.
The debate sucked because frankly the cadre of weak-minded GOP candidates suck and basically no one has a clue how to whittle down the field and demand better from our elected officials…especially and particularly corporate America. These debates long ago became divorced from what’s good for the country as a civic exercise in democracy. Its just another infotainment endeavor, selling a prime time show with politics as its backdrop. Call it “Who Wants To Be A President”? They’re already fucking millionaires.