AKA the Blimp of Death.
Between that and the CNBC debate, it was not a day of glory for the media.
I do not understand why the RNC (and Priebus) continue to play Charlie Brown and the football with people who hate them.
[Update a few minutes later]
More linkage from Ed Driscoll, here and here. Yes, attacking the media is perfectly appropriate, and plays well to the base. Everyone knows these people are going to vote for whoever the Democrat nominee is no matter what the candidates do or say, and it won’t hurt in the general election. Most people can’t stand these unctuous Democrats with bylines.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Yes, both CNBC and Jeb Bush committed political suicide last night. I don’t know which of Bush’s advisers told him it would be a good idea to attack Marco Rubio on his (non)voting record, but it backfired on him spectacularly.
I wonder if the RNC and Priebus enjoy the golf courses and open bars far more than listening to their base. If it came to Hilary vs a tea party candidate, many republicans in Washington would probably vote for Hilary.
Darn, wrong thread.
Nope, right thread. Must be the passive pot smoke here in Seattle.
“I don’t know which of Bush’s advisers told him it would be a good idea to attack Marco Rubio on his (non)voting record, but it backfired on him spectacularly.”
They thought they’d get away with it because they are looking at Rubio through their own “Jeb!” prism….. They didn’t imagine Rubio would expect the question and prepare a devastating reply. Jeb!’s guys don’t have the imagination to come up with a reply like that so they figure no one else can either. They thought it was a safe hit.
The GOP candidates are slowly learning that aggressive, principled statements of what we all know will NOT hurt them. We can thank Trump and Fiorina for that.
It’s a lesson they could have learned years ago but some are slow learners.
I enjoyed Cruz’s 50 megaton bomb on the CNBC bubble
This piece by Richard Fernandez is really excellent.
But on the occasion of the Republican debate, when Ted Cruz accused the CNBC debate moderators of being partisan hacks, the play broke its bounds. Cruz told us Joe Friday doesn’t exist. In case anyone missed the point, Marco Rubio looked straight at the moderators and let them have it.
Klein: And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks — but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.
Fernandez: Yet that is beside the point.
The fact that GOP candidates have no defense of their ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing press-bashing is “beside the point”?
No, the fact that Ezra Klein is full of merde makes him beside the point.
The fact that GOP candidates have no defense of their ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing press-bashing is “beside the point”?
Jim, it’s like a high class having a big test and then the teacher supervising the test gets into a screaming argument with their significant other on the cellphone. The class gets a failing grade because they all walked out in fustration, but it really is the teacher’s fault for not maintaining a proper testing environment.
Klein has this silly pretense that the debate was on the level and then claims that the candidates “had no defense”. The problem here is that the debate coordinators made it about themselves rather than about the candidates.
The fact that Hillary has no defense of her ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing taxpayer-funded giveaways is “beside the point”?
Maybe. We’ll see.
I think Jim is a little upset that Cruz et. al were finally standing up to the bullies.
Get over it Jim, your side’s monopoly of the press is over. The press did not ask substantive questions, they were antagonistic boors.
The fact that GOP candidates have no defense of their ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing press-bashing is “beside the point”?
So Obama nearly doubles the national debt, forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for your extravagances, and you call the republican proposals to limit spending “ridiculous”?
Of course you can’t reply to this question. You have no excuse for doubling the debt.
“The fact that GOP candidates have no defense of their ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing press-bashing is “beside the point”? ”
Yes it is.
First off that’s Klein’s opinion not a fact (that the policies are ridiculous).
THAT is the very purpose of a real debate…so that the listeners (who are the voters) can MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. Of course you can’t see that because your mind has been set in concrete for years.
It simply doesn’t matter what Klein thinks of the proposals. Klein’s opinion about the proposals is irrelevant. And therefore cannot be the point.
Secondly it is Klein’s OPINION that they candidates chose to avoid talking about the proposals by attacking the questioners. What, Klein is in their heads and can see their minds work? No Klein suffers from Jim-ism in that he thinks he knows other people’s motivations.
Thirdly, when Cruz did attempt to expound on his proposal, Harwood didn’t allow him to because Cruz used his time to rip him a new one.
If Harwood was really dedicated to informing the voters what the candidates have in mind, he would have given Cruz the time.
Lastly, the extreme bias of the Democrat operatives with bylines simply HAD to be stopped.
And that, Jim, is the point.
“The fact that GOP candidates have no defense of their ridiculous policy proposals other than crowd-pleasing press-bashing is “beside the point”?”
Prove that fact. Prove it or slink away like the tool you really are. Prove that the GOP candidates have no defense of their policy proposals. YOU stated it here as a fact. Now prove it.
And as you have done countless times before, you either failed to read the next sentence by Fernandez or you disregarded it:
“The pertinent fact is that when an arbiter is no longer accepted by both parties as impartial, the conversation may continue, but only as argument, no longer as arbitration. The narrative collapses, unconstrained by the covers of a book. ”
As I wrote in my previous reply, the purpose of the debate is to allow the voter to decide..make up their own mind.
We know this is anethema to you as your statist-centered diatribes prove.
Fernandez made clear what he meant, and it wasn’t what you trid to imply.
I’ve seen plenty of bias in my time, but CNBC took the cake.
I utterly detest that lying scum Rubio, but even I cringed when he came under attack by the moderator on his tax plan. I later found out the moderator was using “facts” he himself had admitted, weeks ago, were wrong. I also thought Rubio had the best line of the night, when he said the MSM is the biggest superpac.
I found it interesting that Bush didn’t make part of his attendance attack on Rubio the fact that there were two other senators on the stage, both of whom are attending more votes than Rubio’s pathetic track record. Bush’s attack was clearly pre-planned, but he didn’t seem to have the wit to realize that basing it on media outcry (in this case, a newspaper editorial) during the CNBC onslaught was pretty darn dumb.
I do agree with the many who are saying that Bush managed to hurt himself, badly, and came off the worst of the candidates. I think he’s pretty much toast at this point.
One thing delighted me about Bush’s attacks on Rubio; prior to Bush doing this (the debate attack wasn’t the first) many Bush supporters would likely have gone to Rubio when Bush drops out. I think Bush has created a poison pill in that regard, one that hurts them both.
And, would somebody, please, ask the RNC why they thought picking CNBC was a good idea?
As for the Blimp of Death… it’s just a big bag of gas, so how could it be any more dangerous than any other politician?
I later found out the moderator was using “facts” he himself had admitted, weeks ago, were wrong.
Not really. Two weeks ago Harwood incorrectly compared the effects of Rubio’s tax plan on the rich and the poor, and had to correct himself. In the debate Harwood accurately compared the effects of Rubio’s tax plan on the rich and the middle class (it gives nearly twice the percentage boost in after-tax income to the top 1% as it does to middle-income taxpayers, and that’s using a generous “dynamic” analysis from a rightist think tank). Rubio at first falsely denied the (accurate) premise of the question, and once it was clarified, deliberately or mistakenly acted like it was about absolute dollar amounts rather than percentage growth:
The question was a good one — why should voters support a tax cut that increases the income of the rich by a much higher percentage than that of the middle class? — but Rubio had no answer, so he went after the questioner for an earlier error, and then mischaracterized the issue as being about absolute dollar amounts rather than percentages.
This is a good point. I think it’s another opportunity to learn what happens when you cry wolf. If Harwood had approached this sincerely without either the baiting of those debate questions or the two week ago rush to judgment, he would have the audience on his side, putting Rubio on the spot and getting a straight answer. Harwood destroyed his credibility in this debate and hence, we didn’t get that answer you seem to want.
@ Jim,
Hrmmmm. Looks like you’re right, Harwood was discussing the middle of the income scale. I even agree with your last point, sort of, in that it’s certainly a very relevant issue to discuss (and thus give info to voters). I’m glad it was brought up, and I’m not personally in favor of a plan that gives the middle class the lowest income benefit. It didn’t change my opinion on Rubio though, because I already detest him.
However, I still feel that CNBC was atrocious elsewhere in the debate.
Even the Tax Foundation President tweeted that Rubio was correct during the debate. That is Rubio was correct with what he said during the debate, and the Tax Foundation President made that point during the debate.
why should voters support a tax cut that increases the income of the rich by a much higher percentage than that of the middle class?
Because if you actually read what the Tax Foundation says, “The Rubio-Lee Plan Increases Income Across All Income Levels”. Only Progressive morons seem to think only some should benefit while others lose.
@ Leyland;
There are other reasons than being a progressive to question the relative percentages of income gain. One is that a huge percentage of small businesses are sole proprietorships falling squarely within the middle income bracket, and benefiting that bracket has been shown to benefit the overall economy more than the top or bottom bracket.
On the other hand, even a plan that’s not the best in this regard is better than the current situation.
I think I need to point this out. If this was actually a debate, and Harwood just a moderator; then the issue wouldn’t be about whether Harwood got his facts wrong (his source claims he did) and the various candidates could have discussed the merits of theirs and challenge of others tax plans.
The problem with Harwood, and Crowley before him, was they decided to go beyond moderator and become an active participant in the debate. So instead of knowing where Trump or Fiorina differ from Rubio’s plan; we only know that Harwood disagrees with it using information that Harwood doesn’t seem to understand well.
This is great for Jim and Progressives, because they can point out that it is seemingly everyone that disagrees with Rubio. That is why it needs to be pointed out that the Tax Foundation disagreed with Harwood. Crowley was wrong too, something see admitted several days after the debate. Jim tried to argue then that she was not, and then the information about the unaired CBS interview with Obama came out.
But hey guys, continue to try and see the “both sides” Jim wants you to see. He will be happy to keep shoveling you class warfare trope.
Even the Tax Foundation President tweeted that Rubio was correct during the debate.
In which case even the Tax Foundation President was mistaken; maybe he didn’t catch that Harwood was talking about middle-income taxpayers, not the poor.
Because if you actually read what the Tax Foundation says, “The Rubio-Lee Plan Increases Income Across All Income Levels”.
No one is disputing that. The question was about how, according to the Tax Foundation, the percentage income increase is nearly twice as much for the top 1% (28% increase) than for the middle class (15% increase). Rubio hasn’t answered, in the debate or afterwards. The morning after the debate he sent out a fundraising email doubling down on his error:
At this point even Rubio has to know that it wasn’t “the exact same claim”. But he also knows that attacking the press is good politics, especially in a GOP primary, so why let mere facts stand in the way?
Harwood did mislead and he did correct a story earlier in the month when he misled on the same subject. And that exchange was hardly the only BS exchange by Harwood of the night. And yeah, if the source of your story says you are wrong, then you are probably wrong, despite a known and repeated liar, such as you Jim, trying to spin the story.
Wolf Blitzer on CNN taught me some new chemistry during the aerostat coverage. Apparently there was a danger of explosion, because the aerostat was filled with helium, and helium is flammable. 🙂
So, it’s an ignoble gas?
Helium is “flammable” in stars. Apparently at the nucleon level it’s not so noble.
Not very, though. The only way to “burn” helium is to fuse THREE nuclei at once, to make carbon. Needless to say, the conditions required to make this process significant are, um, extreme.
Extreme conditions, but when it gets going, it can be exciting. Unlike fusion of hydrogen to helium, there is no weak interaction step, so it can go very fast when conditions are right. Stars close to the Sun in mass will eventually (near the ends of their ‘lives’) ignite helium burning in a “helium flash” where, for a very short time, the rate of energy production in the core will exceed the luminosity of the entire galaxy. Oddly, this doesn’t have the effect on the star you might expect.
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/The%20Website/end.html