5 Things You Need to Know About the CNBC Republican Debate in Michigan
On November 9th, 2011, CNBC hosted a Republican presidential debate at Oakland University near Detroit Michigan.
Have you ever seen a production of a Broadway musical that was performed by small children — or even animals, such as cats and dogs — instead of actual professionals? At its core, the CNBC debate last night was a kindergarten production of Little Shop of Horrors, at a kindergarten without the budget for sets or costumes (so you had to use your imagination instead) and where precocious little Sally forgot her lines and shy little Timmy wet himself on the stage.
The moderators of the debate were horrible, particularly the forgettable woman whose name might have been Sharon something or another. CNBC would have been better served inviting a random citizen off the street to moderate; I know the questions asked of the candidates would have been more astute and worthwhile.
Before we get into what the candidates said last night, I need to note how spectacularly foolish it was for the Republican Party to agree to a debate on CNBC that would not be carried as a live stream for people who do not have cable television. These debates should be available to ALL Americans to watch as they happen. There is absolutely no justification for NBC to not allow this feed to be live streamed over the Internet. I know that NBC is in last place in the ratings and that only dozens of people, at most, watch MSNBC or CNBC combined, but it’s not prohibitively expensive for something as important as this debate to be live streamed for people who do not have (and in most cases, cannot afford) cable television. Why do Republicans invest the time participating in a debate that will only be watched by a small slice of affluent people — who, if they’re watching an NBC network are more likely than not to be Leftist inclined anyway.
Foolishness.
For those of you who were not able to watch last night’s debate on CNBC, here are the five things you need to know about what happened in Detroit, Michigan at Oakland University:
5. CNBC, its moderators, and pretty much everyone working at the networks of NBC are racist.
Herman Cain was ignored by the moderators last night and treated like a second class candidate, when he’s currently the GOP frontrunner. Cain was asked few questions, which is absurd since Cain is at the top of the polls and was featured prominently in the news for the last two weeks. There’s no excuse for not engaging Cain in more debate questions and for the moderators to continue the agenda-driven media’s strategy of depicting Willard Mittens Romneycare as the GOP’s “inevitable” and “de facto” nominee.
CNBC did not want to ask the black man on the stage any questions. The suits at NBC didn’t want to give the black man on the stage more air time than they absolutely had to. The agenda-driven media deliberately decided the only time the black man in the Republican race should be talked about is when the media controlled the scenario and was doing all the talking, not affording Cain a chance to speak directly to the American people.
That’s because whenever Cain speaks he gets thunderous applause.
Every answer from him last night was refreshing and bold. When he spoke, I heard the next President of the United States addressing America and looked forward to him delivering a State of the Union Address with such verve and candor.
Hence, CNBC’s decision to limit Herman Cain’s air time because the Democrat Party will be destroyed completely if a black Republican becomes the GOP nominee and then the 45th President.
4. Michele Bachmann was also disrespected and largely ignored last night.
The CNBC moderators cut Bachmann off while she was speaking on several occasions.
Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman are two men in the race with absolutely no chance of securing the Republican nomination. Santorum does not have enough supporters and often comes off as abrasive to some people who didn’t know who he was before these debates started; Huntsman is really a Democrat and is only in this race to become a third party spoiler in 2012 who will allow Barack Obama to squeak to victory.
Bachmann at one point was a real contender in this race, but through a series of slip-ups she’s been bounced down to the third tier.
But, Santorum and Huntsman are easily fourth tier candidates…and yet Bachmann is treated worse by CNBC than they are.
Why is that?
Must be sexual harassment.
I know that conservatives don’t understand this, but the way the Left operates is to call anything done to a black man RAAACISM! and to label anything done to a woman as SEXUAL HARASSMENT!, whether that’s true or not. Conservatives foolishly have convinced themselves (or they’ve been brainwashed to believe) that “we need to take the high road and not stoop to their level and say those things too”.
That’s foolish.
Clearly, CNBC marginalized the black man and the woman last night. If this was a Democrat debate, and a conservative news network (when one of those actually ever exists) treated a black Democrat and a female Democrat the way Cain and Bachmann were treated last night, the headlines coast to coast would be printed in massive font screaming RACISM AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT ABOUND AT DEBATE LAST NIGHT.
Font that big hasn’t been seen since VE-Day in World War II.
There’s a sickness in this country where the Left does terrible things that convince many low-information voters to ostracize conservative candidates because of baseless accusations and memes created to make good people appear foolish — with the side effect that conservatives have been conditioned to never do anything to retaliate for this, and instead sit meekly on their couches allowing it all to happen time and again, “because hitting back would be wrong and we need to take the high road”.
I need to be really blunt here and I don’t care if I offend you, but if you are someone who ever says “we need to take the high road” in politics, then you are an idiot.
YOU are part of the reason that Barack Obama is the President right now and why the Left controls this country and is running it into the ground. You are a fool and a stooge and you behave exactly the way the Left, the agenda-driven media, and the Cocktail Party GOP establishment WANT you to behave.
It’s time you realized this, owned up to it, and stopped falling into this trap.
3. Willard Mittens Romneycare will lose to Barack Obama and give Obama the second term he needs to destroy this country.
Romneycare is smarmy and disingenuous.
It’s true that if he had been a Hollywood actor, Romneycare would have had a great career playing the “president” on just about every TV show and in every movie filmed for the last 30 years. Mittens has the “look” of what many Americans used to expect from a generic Republican candidate in the past. He wears very nice, finely-tailored suits. His hair is slicked back with expensive grease. He has teeth that are eggshell white and a voice that always sounds like it’s reverberating in an oak-paneled room somewhere exclusive.
But he is the wrong man to run against Barack Obama, because Obama’s actually Romneycare-lite in many of these same ways. A challenger does not unseat a sitting president — no matter how unpopular — if that challenger does not come across as some sort of psychological remedy to the current president.
That means Americans are looking to swing the pendulum away from Obama and the way Obama comports and carries himself. Willard Mittens Romneycare is too much of an establishment darling and Cocktail Partier for the public to mobilize behind him to unseat the current establishment darling from the other side of the aisle.
It’s actually hard for me to listen to Romneycare speak. I picture a debate between him and Barack Obama and I cringe because I know far too many Americans would prefer listening to Obama in that scenario. Just like in 2008, the Cocktail Party GOP establishment is trying to force a bland, flavorless, mushy cucumber and mayonnaise Cocktail Party approved “it’s his turn” Republican to run against Barack Obama…and just like in 2008, enough Americans are going to find this nominee so unappetizing that they’re going to either sit home or cast a vote for the Democrats again.
Since control of the Senate and House is also at stake, it’s beyond foolish to run Willard Mittens Romneycare when there’s no way for him to motivate the legions of conservative activists needed to push the Left completely out of power.
If Romneycare’s the nominee, then not only do Republicans lose the White House, but possibly the Senate and House as well. I know there are a great many people who have invested a lot of time and energy believing they will land jobs with the Romneycare campaign because they thought it was “his turn”, but for the good of the country these people need to put aside their job-seeking ambitions and realize that if Republicans want to win in 2012, it is not going to be with Romneycare as the nominee.
2. Rick Perry is not going to be the nominee either, and for all intents and purposes his campaign ended last night.
So far, there are two major disasters in branding that will be discussed for decades to come in graduate level classes in business management: the Netflix debacle and the implosion of Rick Perry’s campaign.
The CEO of Netflix and Rick Perry’s staff are some of the dumbest people on the planet right now.
In just a few months, these people have managed to utterly destroy the value of what had, earlier in the year, been solid and attractive products admired by a large swath of Americans. Netflix did this through greed and miscalculation, and the Perry campaign attained it through general bumbling and a tin ear to the weaknesses in their candidate.
I was never enthused about Rick Perry’s run for the White House because, on an emotional level, I need to admit I just didn’t want to hear about Texas anymore. We heard about Texas for eight years while George W. Bush was president. I’m sure that Texas is great. But Texas is not a republic anymore and is just one of 50 states. It had more than enough time in the sun…and I don’t want to hear about Texas anymore for a while.
I really wanted to hear all about Alaska for the next eight years, but Governor Palin chose not to run for President and I need to respect that, even though I’ll never like it or wish she had chosen otherwise.
Absent Palin in the race, I needed to take a hard look at the other candidates and Perry just never appealed to me. While I see that he is clearly a good man and would make an effective president, I just can’t connect with him on the emotional and political level I need to feel motivated to put myself out there advocating him. He is just too much of a fumbler and bumbler when he speaks. I am embarrassed for him because he does not make a mistake here or there, but it’s at the point now where he is known for making these disastrous mistakes and in fact that’s what role he seems to play in these debates.
A candidate is not going to win the presidency when people ask, the day after his debate, “how badly did he f*** up this time?”.
Well, last night was an unmitigated disaster for Rick Perry. In 53 seconds, he destroyed himself and his campaign:
There is just no recovering from this.
He couldn’t name the three Cabinet level departments he would eliminate. Worse than that, he couldn’t think of anything witty and interesting enough to say that would have deflected attention away from this momentary mental lapse. Worse still, later in the debate he fumbled again when he tried to say that the missing third department was the Department of Energy.
I don’t have any confidence in Rick Perry’s ability to debate Barack Obama without making similar disastrous mistakes.
Perry, in my opinion, should withdraw from the race so that the non-Romney vote can combine around a candidate who will trounce Barack Obama in the debates.
1. Newt Gingrich actually has a realistic shot of being President now.
My good friend Megan Fox has heard through her network that many political thinkers believe Newt Gingrich will end up being the Republican nominee, with Herman Cain as his Vice President.
I have to admit that Gingrich has really grown on me.
I am someone who couldn’t stand this man until 2008, when I started to actually listen to him. I read one of his books and liked how his mind works, so I gave him another look. It took a long time to put aside the personal feelings I held against him…and I am still trying to forget the image of Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi sitting on a couch together in front of the Capitol, drinking the Global Warming Religion’s Kool-Aid, but I am starting to like Newt Gingrich because of his debating skills.
This man would clobber Barack Obama in the debates.
He’d clobber Joe Biden too, if he ended up as Herman Cain’s VP pick.
I am really believing the eventual Republican ticket will be either Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain.
I think they would not only win resoundingly, but together they could decimate the Democrat Party if not destroy it completely (should they devote their energy to that).
We have more commentary on the debate at The HillBuzz & Mrs. Fox Show from last night, which you can listen to as a podcast HERE.
© 2011, Kevin DuJan. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- Top 10 Things You Need to Know About the Tampa, Florida Republican Debate September 12th, 2011
- Live Blog Transcript: GOP presidential debate in Michigan November 9th, 2011 at Oakland University
- 2012 Republican presidential debates schedule: When is the next GOP debate?
- Three things the Obamedia will do to depress Republican turnout and help Obama
- New Hampshire GOP Debate Reaction Thread
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
I totally agree with your thoughts on Gingrich. He's definitely the smartest one in the room and would wipe the floor with Obozo! If not Palin (sadly), my choice is Newt!! I say Gingrich on the top of the ticket!
In addition, I LOVE the way he's smacking the —- out of the so-called Press.
This is a VERY GOOD analysis, Kevin. And I've been saying for years that the "high road' is for losers.
well, other than the entertainment value of newt putting the press in its place, why do these candidates feel they need to stick around for these debates after all? if, when it's obvious what the moderators are doing by not being serious, why don't they say "hey- get to the real issues or I walk." and then do it when the moderators ignore them? can you imagine what kind of message that would send to the real american people who see that? i would be colored impressed. sure, dems and people these candidates are never going to reach will whine and cry, but they love to do that so it still serves two purposes: gives the left something to complain about and wakes up the right to the journo-listing that is STILL going on. and maybe later, the press learns how irrelevant it is after all anymore. but that's muuuuuuuuuch later. because they are stupid.
C/G or G/C I think would be fine to me.
I agree about Gingrich. I had written him off at the start but he has continued to impress me in the debates. He is now at the top of my list of GOP candidates and will remain there, barring a 10.3 earthquake.
Agree.
Excellent analysis. Gingrich really is the only candidate who has a better than not chance of beating Barry. I really like Cain, and have yet to be persuaded by any of the alleged incidents of either sexual harrassment or assault. Still, the goons on the left will be highly motivated to keep this issue front and center, and many of the so-called right leaning commentators are too lazy or risk averse to get out there and investigate and refute this stuff once and for all. Consequently, this will remain a liabitliy for him throughout the campaign. The only hope for this is for someone to take your speculation on Barry being gay, to redirect the conversation.
Excellent analysis, Kevin, I know you've been back for a while now, but I feel the need to tell you again how freaking glad I am that you're back! NOBODY can say it all quite the way you can.
I can totally dig a Cain/Gingrich ticket, I would be all in. If it is Gingrich Cain I could dig that too, but I think Herman is the man to destroy Obama, the progs and the media hacks all in one fell swoop, with Newt ably by his side, as his brainy Cheney, but a more likable one.
From your lips to God's ear about Gingrich/Cain, Kevin! I've been thinking the fix was in for Romney, but this note from Cain on FB today seems encouraging: "RNC Chairman Reince Priebus stopped by just now before the debate and shared Isaiah 54:17 with me. God bless him and the rest of this great country!" It's about weapons and lies not prevailing against him.
Kevin, I always love your commentary, and I will chuckle all evening about "Timmy wet himself" – especially because that's how I felt when Perry messed up last night. I wish I could get behind Newt, because I agree that he's a smart guy, but I really don't like that he absolutely buys into the whole "climate change" scam. Even on Fox News when he tried to dig himself out of the "Nancy Pelosi on the couch" hole he's in, he did not say that he knows "climate change" is nothing more than a political scam. He sounds like he truly believes it's real and the government needs to do something about it. The guy I really believe in is Herman Cain, and I hope he chooses Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary or Head of the Fed. We need someone who excited the Tea Party or we will not be able to keep the House and the Senate – or at least be able to keep people there who want smaller government. We don't need any more establishment RINOS.
I really think the disagreement here about "taking the high road" is a matter of semantics. It reminds me of when I used to counsel adolescents. One of the most difficult things for them to grasp is assertiveness, but once they get it, they get it. I think the same is true here of "taking the high road."
There are a large number of people who don't fully grasp what that means. It doesn't mean that you never hit back and never defend yourself. It doesn't even mean that you don't call names, etc. Perfect example is when Cain apologized for using the term "Princess Nancy" in the debate last night. It's a highly appropriate term, used to conveyed a large amount of information about her behavior in a short space of time. As far as I'm concerned, there's no apology required. It wasn't a sexist remark. Would it be considered sexist if they called him Prince Barack? Of course not.
The bottom line is…you can defend yourself and even make TRUE accusations against another individual while still "taking the high road."
Here are a few definitions I found around the internet…
1. High Road High road refers to a higher moral ground. "Taking the high road" expression refers to one being a "class act" during a very difficult time. Those who take the high road, are demonstrating being honest, fair, and selfless while not being completely defenseless.
2. High Roading To defend an argument in a way that is difficult to attack for moral reasons.
So, really all it means is to calculate your response/defence/attack in such a way as to prevent your opponent from being able to attack you again for your defense. That's just strategic thinking.
Excellent piece, Kevin. Until Gov Palin changes her mind, I have been thinking G/C or C/G. As I watched their townhall debate in Houston I wondered if we were looking at our next ticket.
Announcing that Gov Palin would have a very high cabinet position would put the icing on the cake.
Rush had an interesting commentary on the reason that the Cocktail Party groupies are really pushing the Romney meme today. His theory is that the "establishment" is STILL mad about the fact that TEA Party members backed what the elites (Rove & Bill Kristol, et.al) felt were "mistakes" that lost control of the Senate last time with what the candidates they termed as the "unelectable likes of Sharron Angle & Christine O'Donnell)" were chosen by the people. He also stated that the establishment knows that Romney will probably loose but they seem to think that it will lead to the control of the Senate as well as the House.
BTW, Gov Palin has made an excellent FB post calling for the firing of Holder.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150364…
Continued.
BUT, as Rush also points out, the establishment don't really want Conservatives to win because that will end the invitations to Georgetown parties as well as their perceived power in DC. That is basically, I believe, what Kevin is saying when he refers to those same establishment members being provided a good "job/position" in future campaigns and/or congressional positions. I think that both Rush & Kevin are precisely correct! Just bypass the wishes of the people and force the establishment idiots down our throats. We'll see how that works out in the end.
I left Rove, Kristol, Krauthammer, etc. a long time ago. For me, they are irrelevant. After what they did to Gov Palin, I am not surprised at anything they may do to future conservative candidates.
Classic Newt. He said more of substance in just over a minute than the others said all night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waMAn1AWBm8
I have no TV, but found a link at dailypaul.com.
Small picture, but better than nothing.
Just a tip for next time.
THANK YOU!