Posted on 11/04/2015 5:27:35 AM PST by Kaslin
About a quarter of the way into the CNBC-hosted Republican debate at the University of Colorado, Sen. Ted Cruz reached back and cast a lightning bolt into the proceedings. He jolted the debate, the whole debate process, and possibly even the election.
CNBC's Carl Quintanilla raised the issue of the debt limit with Sen. Cruz. The deal that Congress and the White House is about to make, said Quintanilla, "would ... prevent a government shutdown and calm financial markets that fear another Washington-created crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show that you are not the kind of problem-solver America voters want?"
What? This is journalism?
Cruz responded, "The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions, 'Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain?' 'Ben Carson, can you do math?' 'John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?' 'Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?' 'Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?' How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?
Cruz's incisive mind was on full display here, as he methodically reproduced, without notes, the vacuous questions that had been asked to each candidate.
Moderator Quintanilla sat looking amused.
But the applause from the audience and the subsequent move by the RNC to suspend the debate scheduled for February, which would have been sponsored by NBC and Telemundo, shows that Cruz hit a bull's-eye.
Now, thanks to that sparkling moment when Cruz woke everyone up by asking the most basic question, "What are we doing here," the Republican candidates and the RNC are doing some serious soul-searching about these debate platforms. Typically, chaos and failure are symptoms of not having a clear direction in mind. And these debates certainly have had these characteristics.
A political campaign is a job-interview process designed to vet all the candidates and pick the best one for the job. The interviewers here, so to speak, are Republican voters. Debates should be structured to serve this end of informing Republican voters. They are part of the interviewing process to help voters get to know their candidates and help them make the best possible choice.
But how can it work if the debate moderators asking the questions are hostile to the Party and don't care about helping to vet the candidate that will best carry the Party's banner?
That's exactly what we had with this CNBC debacle.
The idea that the Party needs to partner with mainstream media outlets, regardless of their political leaning, creates a problem that can be summed up thusly: "By being everything to everyone you are nothing to anyone."
This upcoming election, perhaps more than ever, is a battle for America's soul and future. Are we going to be a left-wing socialist nation or a free nation under God? Democrats are clear and settled with who they are. Now Republicans must pick the candidate that will crystalize what it means to be a free nation under God.
The debates must serve this end and provide moderators who can ask tough and informed questions that vet each candidate, on behalf of Republican voters, to clarify where each stands on what America is about and their ability to lead and implement their vision.
Why not, for instance, a debate platform to focus on the evangelical voter? Evangelicals comprised 26 percent of the vote in the last presidential election, 78 percent of whom voted Republican. Why not a debate hosted by the National Religious Broadcasters, whose members report a weekly cumulative listenership and readership of 60 million Americans?
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has shown his mettle here. He changed the landscape of this campaign and distinguished himself as a real Republican star and leader.
Sen. Ted Cruz did everything but call the fifth-column media “traitors,” which, of course, is what they are and do as they give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Did Sen. Cruz changed the outcome of the GOP and Presidential election year debate/primary/general election outcome?
Had seen that debate and had seen Sen. Cruz’s opening response.
/johnny
Well it's too early to tell. I know a lot of folks want to look at the theoretical scoreboard and call it game over - but it's way too early to tell. Please not that the article did not say Cruz had changed the entire game, only that he had changed that one debate (NO DOUBT) , probably changed future debates (LIKELY), and MAY have changed the end result. Exactly what my piece in American Thinker said immediately after the debate was over.
“Cruz’s incisive mind was on full display here, as he methodically reproduced, without notes, the vacuous questions that had been asked to each candidate.
It is mystifying how Cruz being able to run down a very short mental list is pronounced as proof that he has an incisive mind. He may indeed have an incisive mind, but reciting that short list does not establish it.
Same here. I've donated several times and will again.
And as a bonus, he referred to Hillary and Bernie as Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate have the cojones to identify the Democrats as Marxists?
Leaders call BS when it needs to be called. Others walk right into it. Cruz = leader
I love Star Parker. She’s just awesome.
A reference, indeed.
Now someone needs to go full on and call them Communists and Marxists.
They need to make the statement - “you say Democrats aren’t communists - how would they act differently if they were?”
He did, certainly changed the tone of the rest of the debate and I think viewers were more likely to listen to other things he said.
Cruz beat Hill in the pole outside this morning. Rubio 3 14% Cruz 4 13%.
I watched Megyn last night to see Cruz- would have as soon seen Harwood interview him. They cut pieces out and she had on her best look at how funny, cute and smart I am. Never again.
Ditto. I Stand With Ted.
Two questions:
1. Could you have done it?
2. Is there anyone else on that stage that night who could have?
I don't know the answer to question 1 but the answer to question 2 is NO. And if I had to answer Question 1 it would also be NO.
That is exactly what I did in 2008. I called Obama a Communist. When people would look at me aghast that I would call him that, I would quote “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” and ask what Obama policy goes against that. Granted, it was really more “to each according to their wants”, but I didn’t quibble about that. :-)
Nobody could ever give me a cogent answer to that question. And still can’t.
” Could you have done it?”
Well, yes, and I think average person can. Most women, when they get mad at their husband, can put that list of misbehaviors to shame.
Why not a debate which bypasses the entire media apparatus?
Why not an online debate, with Rush Limbaugh, Walter Williams, and Mark Levin as moderators, put on Youtube, LiveLeak, and other hosting sites?
A better question, when was the last time you heard a candidate that even understood what it means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.