Posted on 10/29/2015 4:09:50 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
There was a disturbance in the force last night at CNBC's Republican debate, and it left no doubt of who won and who lost. The loser was CNBC, and the winners were all ten Republican candidates – in varying degrees, of course. (More on that later). And there is no doubt when this shift in the axis happened.
Everything changed when Ted Cruz dressed down Carl Quintenilla and John Harwood – two of CNBC's far-left commentators – and literally mocked their absurd line of questioning.
Cruz did not just criticize the questions; he made sport of them. He demonstrated just how infantile most of the CNBC crew was (Tea Party originator Rick Santelli not included). Cruz flat-out embarrassed them, and they knew it.
After the crowd stopped roaring in approval of Cruz's protest, which took a while, the rest of the Republicans followed the Texas senator's lead, and there was almost no Republican-on-Republican crime after this exchange. In fact, we then saw numerous examples where Republicans made it clear that any of the ten on the stage would be far preferable to what we have now, and to Hillary Clinton. These comments were met with loud approval from the audience every time. Meanwhile, Quintenilla was literally booed loudly three times.
Later in the night, Chris Christie embarrassed the mods again with his fantasy football reply, as did Mike Huckabee by turning a gotcha question related to Donald Trump into praise of Trump. I have my problems with Christie and Huck overall, but both are demonstrably nimble on their feet.
And because these precious egotistical and not very bright media mavens crave the love of the audience, I submit that this dynamic will go farther than just recasting the last hour or so of this debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
As you say, "we'll see." I'm still going with "Game changer". This will be capitalized upon by Cruz. He has the funds to launch an advertising campaign.
Because it can't be created by fiat. Which is why governments will never go back to it.
All money is created by the elite and thereby fiat currency. You cannot find a government or society in history that didn’t have fiat currency. Even stones or shells or cows are fiat currency.
Agreed.
Minted coins are not created by fiat. You have to have the material. I’m not saying we should go back to it, but it’s a fact.
Name a country that minted coins “not by fiat”.
He should be angry at himself. He is the one responsible for these train wreck debates.
“Spot on and brilliant. ESPN has become a hotbed of liberal talking points. Is that why we watch sports? They’re crazy.”
Are Conservatives crazy for watching?
a coin tale....
there is the coin called the sacajawea dollar. it represents the same value as the US1$ bill
recently in Seattle, the need arose to ride the train from down town to the airport. to purchase passage you needed to interact with a machine that received bills and paid change. I inserted a twenty and purchased the fare.
the change was provided in the form of 17 Sacajawea coins. No digital ledger there ..... just old fashioned metal objects having no more intrinsic value than the penny on the ground that is so worthless no one will bother to pick it up
“As you say, “we’ll see.” I’m still going with “Game changer”. This will be capitalized upon by Cruz. He has the funds to launch an advertising campaign.”
Full disclosure — I’m all in for Cruz and he obviously had a great night. The smackdown of the moderators was brilliant on so many levels — he helped neutralize those that came in looking for a fight, like Jeb, Kasich, and Paul and the rest of the night no other candidates challenged anything he said. Not to mention he got all the talk on Hannity right after the debate and I’m sure his fundraising went through the roof as it always does following these debates.
All that said, I’m skeptical about how much this will move the needle. First off, I think ratings were much lower for this debate on an obscure (has been) network up against the World Series. Plus, there’s already another debate 12 days from now. I think he moves up a couple points in the polls — the best I think we can hope for is that he solidifies himself into at least the low double digits. But I don’t think Trump and Carson hurt themselves at all, so there’s not much to gain here.
One other thing — Jeb’s performance was so pathetic, I’m not sure his donors will tolerate him much longer. If anyone drops out between now and the next debate, I think Jeb might be the strongest bet. If he does get out, it would be a huge boost for Rubio, so from my perspective, I hope Jeb hangs in there for a while.
As for Cruz, he can win this thing. He has consistently shown that he is, by far, the most conservative and the most brilliant candidate. He's playing a very long game, just as he did when he ran for the Senate.
Interestingly,back then people were saying he didn't have a prayer of winning.
Get this... Ben Carson is ready to bolt from the RNC debates going forward, Byron York is reporting at the Washington Examiner.
Carson wants to get together with the other families, because what the RNC has come up with is NOT helping!
Street Artists Pepper Boulder CO with Ted Cruz 'Mockingjay' Posters Ahead of Debate
(In the movie, the 'Mockingjay' becomes a symbol of the rebellion in Catching Fire after Katniss wins the Games by defying the Capitol)
Twitter:’ A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the World and rewrite all the rules.’
The campaign is on Cruz Control!!
Yes, he does. The issue is his message and appearance. Is he viewed as a Pat Buchanan, always “angry?” We will see.
LS, thanks for reading, but I believe you missed the point. The game it changed was NOT CRUZ’ electoral prospects. That’s not what this article was about, his or anyone elses per se. This article was narrowly focused on the debate process. Not every article or comment has to be about who is going to win the nomination.
The game changer is that there was one debate PRE Cruz’ outburst, and an entirely different debate afterwards. Totally different. So it, at a minimum, changed last night’s game.
The dynamic was that Cruz was not defending himself from an attack. That’s totally fine, and Trump does this, which is good. But when you defend the entire field against the entire media, there’s a rallying effect that simply transcends just a personal defense. It was palpable. It happened. There’s no denying it. Newt did the same at several points four years ago too.
Moreover, my initial reaction was that this might change the next debate as well. I outlined why in the piece. This was Hannity’s initial take as well, and that’s interesting, because he and I do not always see things the same way.
I certainly hope you’re right. Alas, I doubt a damn thing has changed in the debate “process” until GOP bigs (Trump, Carson, Rubio) en bloc agree to hold their own debate with their own moderators.
[After the crowd stopped roaring in approval of Cruz’s protest, which took a while, the rest of the Republicans followed the Texas senator’s lead]
TED CRUZ - Not Afraid to Lead - 2016
I see that Ted Cruz has hijacked Trump’s attack on the media, an attack that has been made in every Trump speech. He has called them liars, and terrible people. What Cruz said was mild in comparison, yet everything is buzzing with Cruz Cruz Cruz.
Some history. The first bank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Knights_Templar
Though initially an Order of poor monks, the official papal sanction made the Knights Templar a charity across Europe. Further resources came in when members joined the Order, as they had to take oaths of poverty, and therefore often donated large amounts of their original cash or property to the Order. Additional revenue came from business dealings. Since the monks themselves were sworn to poverty, but had the strength of a large and trusted international infrastructure behind them, nobles would occasionally use them as a kind of bank or power of attorney. If a noble wished to join the Crusades, this might entail an absence of years from their home. So some nobles would place all of their wealth and businesses under the control of Templars, to safeguard it for them until their return. The Order’s financial power became substantial, and the majority of the Order’s infrastructure was devoted not to combat, but to economic pursuits.
By 1150, the Order’s original mission of guarding pilgrims had changed into a mission of guarding their valuables through an innovative way of issuing letters of credit, an early precursor of modern banking. Pilgrims would visit a Templar house in their home country, depositing their deeds and valuables. The Templars would then give them a letter which would describe their holdings. Modern scholars have stated that the letters were encrypted with a cipher alphabet based on a Maltese Cross; however there is some disagreement on this, and it is possible that the code system was introduced later, and not something used by the medieval Templars themselves.[6][7][8] While traveling, the pilgrims could present the letter to other Templars along the way, to “withdraw” funds from their accounts. This kept the pilgrims safe since they were not carrying valuables, and further increased the power of the Templars.
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.