Posted on 11/04/2015 7:05:13 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- After the combative, vacuous questions CNBC reporters asked in the last Republican presidential debate, Donald Trump wants to set the terms of the next televised event for himself.
The billionaire real estate mogul wants to negotiate the rules for future debates directly with the network television executives. He announced his plan in the midst of an effort by the other GOP candidates and their party to set forth a list of demands on how the debates should be run.
Trump's unilateral move appeared to be an attempt to take control of the debates to suit his campaign style, after last week's televised fistfight largely avoided the economic issues the business news network promised to discuss at length.
With the economy in a sharp slowdown this year, it was a missed opportunity for the GOP to remind voters how badly President Obama has handled the nation's economic problems. Among a lengthening list of economic troubles that the administration reported last week:
Economic growth, as measured by the gross domestic product, slowed down to a mediocre 1.5 percent in the third quarter, as businesses cut production to prevent a buildup in inventories. It was the biggest reduction in three years.
The Market Watch website said "the third-quarter drop-off almost assures the U.S. will fail to break 3 percent annual growth in 2015 for the 10th straight year."
The economy's quarterly growth rates under President Obama's policies have been minuscule compared to the economic recovery under President Reagan in the 1980s. His economy came roaring out of a two-year recession in 1983, posting GDP growth rates of 3.2 percent, 5.6 percent and 7.7 percent between the second and fourth quarters.
In 1984, his tax cut-fueled recovery posted quarterly GDP growth rates of 8.5 percent, 7.9 percent, 6.9 percent and 5.8 percent.
There were other signs of a weakening economy in the past week that received little attention in the national news media and were entirely unnoticed by the broadcast news networks.
New home sales, a critical component in the economy's strength, slumped in September to a 10-month low, falling 11.5 percent. They were revised lower by the Commerce Department in the two previous months.
The other economic shocker was consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of our economy. It barely budged by 0.1 percent, the weakest rise since spending dropped in January.
Flat income growth has long been the hallmark of the Obama economy. It crept up by 0.1 percent in September -- the smallest in four months.
These and other economic data should have dominated last week's Republican debate. More to the point, CNBC's moderators should have pounded them home, one by one, in a series of questions that focused on Obama's failure to strengthen the American economy.
But anyone who regularly watches CNBC -- and I do -- knows that in its treatment of the economy, the network anchors rarely discuss its troubles in the context of the president's policies.
The administration's policies are on one planet and the economy is on another, and neither have anything to do with one another.
But the networks can't ignore the truth forever, and the presidential candidates don't have to respond to the stupid questions they got last week.
The next candidate debate will follow this Friday's jobs report and will be a test of whether the Republican candidates can refocus the issues on what matters -- like getting a job and earning a living.
According to economic forecasters, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics "will issue another mediocre jobs report," says Peter Morici, business economist at the University of Maryland.
Private forecasters "estimate 190,000 jobs were created in October -- well below the 260,000 averaged in (October) 2014," Morici says.
"The White House will tout the economy as doing quite well -- proclaiming 61 consecutive months of jobs creation -- and liberal commentators like New York Times columnist and CNBC analyst John Harwood may offer this as more proof that the economy does better with a Democrat in the White House," Morici writes in his weekly analysis.
But when Morici compares Obama's record with Reagan's, it isn't a close match. Both faced deep recessions when they took office, but they dealt with them very differently and got very different results.
"Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in (Obama's) first term, but since (then) the economy has reclaimed and added 12.6 million jobs and employment rose 9.8 percent," he says.
However, the "Gipper faced tough times, too -- double-digit unemployment and interest rates and a bruising recession. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, but subsequently the economy added more than 17.2 million jobs and employment rose 19.4 percent."
The reason Reagan "created so many more jobs -- in a much smaller economy -- is quite simple," Morici says. "It wasn't just lower taxes ... but rather a reliance on private decisions to guide recovery. He cleared a path for business, large and small, to invest as they deemed fit and raise wages as they decided they could afford, and encouraged the unemployed to get out and look for work."
The result: "Through the first 25 quarters of Obama's recovery, GDP growth has averaged 2.1 percent, whereas during the comparable period for Reagan, GDP advanced at a 4.6 percent annual pace," Morici says.
The Republican Party's candidates should be pounding these comparisons in its future debates and focusing on the failed Obama economy like a laser beam.
There's a reason why jobs and the economy are at the top of America's foremost concerns. And the GOP should not let the liberal news networks get away with its cover-up.
I agree. We are living in a fantasy land where real income falls, jobs are no where to be found, and our government lies thats its all good. Then its reported by the servile press.
It is possible that Neil Cavuto is the most fair newsman out there. He also really knows the economy.
Any candidate unprepared to answer detailed answers about the economy or about any economic plans will be shown to be unprepared.
They need to limit this debate to the top 5 or top 7.
In any case, I’d rather have 2 debates of about 7.
You’re right. And any GOP candidate that’s weak on the economy doesn’t need to be in this race.
This is *the* issue in this election.
The good news is that Carson will look like crap again as he is clueless on the economy. He needs to go and soon.
No ‘Gotcha’ questions, please.
Compare and Contrast economic plans amongst yourselves. Should know plans other than their own, shows they can consider alternatives.
I don’t think Cavuto will do gotcha, but he, too, is paid by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch would do us all a favor by keeping hands off. I’m hoping Cavuto maintains his balance.
All 3 of the lady moderators strike me as hotshots in their own minds. No telling what they’ll do.
To fix the economy, they need to fix the immigration system first. And there is only one candidate that is talking about it (although Santorum is making sounds about it but is so low in the polls will not be included in the debate). If there is an American capable of doing the job he should get it period and the business can just pay the American going rate for his labor.
In my view, Carson did poorly in the last debate. With the polls all over the place, it’s hard to tell.
To be fair, I’d rather have any of the top Republicans than Hillary, but I don’t think Carson’s debate style will hold up against Hillary if he were on stage with her.
My firm belief is that Trump is the only person who can beat Hillary Clinton. None of the others will have the stones to get on the debate stage and look her in the eye and say “you were the worst Sec of State in the history of the USA” “You got an ammbassdor and 3 brave American hero’s killed in Benghazi”. If you can’t attack her visciously you will lose lose lose.
the next Republican debate is next week 11/10 on Fox business Channel hosted by Neil Cavuto
It will be focused on the economy and money matters for sure
You can count on it.
I think Rush nailed the real concern yesterday. The establishment republican press ALSO doesn’t like Trump.
Rush says that BOTH the liberal press and the establishment GOP will OPPOSE Trump in favor of Hillary during the general election.
With Hillary they get to keep their crony arrangements, their illegal immigrants, their break America trade deals, and their invitations to the best parties.
Fox News would love to see Trump crash and burn. Rush was right a week or so ago when he said not in his lifetime has he ever seen the Republican party try to destroy their own front runner. Its insane.
I just listened to a Fox News babe gushing to a doctor, “Can you tell us why America JUST LOVES Ben Carson so much?”
I’m serious. A newsie just spouted those words on Fox. Nothing like objectivity. /sarc
Yes, BUT it ALSO needs to focus like a laser on Hillary’s illegal lying activities, and start hammering home the point that she couldn’t even be trusted to be secretary of state, and therefore does NOT deserve to be president of the Untied states
[[“Can you tell us why America JUST LOVES Ben Carson so much?â€]]
Yes, I can answer why America loves him... Because America is TOO LAZY to do any research on him. IF they had, they would understand Ben is NOT a ‘nice guy’ Now is he a true conservative, holding many ultra liberal ideologies
Carson at a Glance
Moral Issues:
Carson agreed with the courts that Kim Davis was wrong for taking a stand on her religious beliefs (A court just found in favor of a muslim truck driver who refused to deliver alcohol based on religious belief- but bakers apparently aren’t allowed to object on religious beliefs, nor are county clerks according to Carson) http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/armstrong-williams-ben-carson-kentucky-clerk
Carson Thinks same sex marriages are just ducky- declaring the ruling the “law of the land.†- http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/carson-huckabee-gay-marriage/2015/06/26/id/652379/
Carson apparently thinks abortions are just ducky too- he said that he “would never advocate it’s illegal for a person to get an abortion.†- http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-09-30/news/1992274113_1_abortions-obstetrics-dr
Carson approves of using baby parts from ‘tissue banks’ “To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?†- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ben-carson-says-it-is-foolish-not-to-use-already-aborted-babies-tissues-in
Carson apparently refers mothers with fetuses with birth defects to abortion clinics- “he [Carson] believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information.†- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456.html?hp=t3_r
Carson believes abortions for rape are just ducky- “I would hope that they would very quickly avail themselves of the emergency room, and in the emergency room, they have the ability to administer RU-486 and other possibilities before you have a developing fetus.†- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456.html?hp=t3_r
Gun Control:
Carson is for banning “Assault Rifles†http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/28/dr-ben-carson-on-gun-rights-some-weapons-probably-not-appropriate-like-tanks/
Carson has stated conservatives need to be open to the idea of compromise on gun control measures - http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/28/dr-ben-carson-on-gun-rights-some-weapons-probably-not-appropriate-like-tanks/
Carson has stated that local governments should be allowed to ban guns under certain conditions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NM0lldmplM
Carson thinks guns should only be allowed in certain places:
“I had hoped that my NRA speech this year would clarify my position on the second amendment, which I believe is vital to our freedom. As I stated in that speech, Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher when talking about tyranny in Europe, stated that America would never suffer such tyranny because the people were armed. The point that I clumsily was trying to make on the Beck show was that, we should be looking for ways to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable individuals. It was not a well thought out comment by any stretch of the imagination. All of my writings and in-depth statements clearly state that in no way do I wish to compromise the second amendment. I have subsequently had meaningful discussions with the leadership of the NRA concluded that any law-abiding American should have access to any legal weapon for protection, recreation or whatever other legal purpose they may desire. I am now a lifetime member of the NRA. I realize that some people will never believe that and will not go back and research my writings and statements to satisfy themselves.†- https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/05/exclusive-ten-questions-with-dr-ben-carson
Energy:
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,†but then Carson continued, “therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations.†- http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/kathie-obradovich/caucus/2015/05/05/ben-carson-climate-change-renewable-fuel-standard/26945261/
Personal Gain:
“it is naive to count on the honesty and integrity of people responsible for our markets when they stand to gain so much by manipulating the system to their advantage.†(Ben Carson, America the Beautiful, 78-79) -
Taxes:
Carson has stated that he’s for government wage control- http://www.cnbc.com/id/102658083
More on Carson at the following link: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/ben-carson
The economy is a losing issue for Republicans. People believe the Democrats will “take care of them” and that belief can’t be changed in one election cycle. When economic times are tough, people vote Democrat.
Republicans need to focus on social issues. That is how they will win the presidency. The radical leftist social agenda is far more offensive to the general public than Democrat economic policies. They need to never stop talking about same-sex marriage, “trannies” in the ladies room, sanctuary cities, open borders, Planned Parenthood selling dead baby parts, criminal drug offenders and illegal aliens being released from prison, etc. If the Democrats’ record is highlighted on all of those issues, they will lose in a historic landslide.
Republicans can win on national security issues, but whether the country feels threatened enough at the time of the election is basically out of the Republicans’ hands.
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.