I refer both to the CNBC moderators during the Republican Debate Wednesday night, and the Republicans who sided with ALL of the Democrats on the terrible, horrible, complete and utter giveaway, budget deal in the House.
First to CNBC. Holy moley, what a disaster that was for CNBC. As I noted in Comments last night, I think it makes Reince Priebus look like a GENIUS for allowing CNBC to host this event. Why? It galvanized the Republicans in a major fashion, and really allowed a number of them to shine as they responded to the fact-challenged, snarky, arrogant, condescending, patronizing, mean, and mean-spirited, questions the Moderators asked.
One of the big winners was Sen. Ted Cruz. His response to the moderators about one of their questions received the highest marks in YEARS with Frank Luntz’s focus group. From BizPacReview:
[…] Luntz talked to a focus group of Republican voters to gauge their reactions during the third GOP debate and revealed his findings to Fox News host Megyn Kelly on “The Kelly File.”
The “special moment” Luntz spoke of came during Sen. Ted Cruz’s reply to a question.
“The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” the Texas Republican said to applause. “How about talking about the substantive issues?”
The graph indicated that both conservative and moderate Republicans gave Cruz’s remarks as high as a 98, on a scale from zero to 100. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
The response from Sen. Cruz to which Luntz refers is this poignant moment:
Dang, right? He set those moderators straight in a big way, but not in a derogatory manner. He was, well, Presidential in how he addressed them and their skewed focus.
Another contender who appeared Presidential was Sen. Marco Rubio. He was asked downright rude questions about his personal finances, and a completely erroneous claim about Rubio’s tax plan by John Harwood. (As a Facebook friend noted, Harwood had to Tweet out after the fact that he was WRONG. Gee, maybe a little fact-checking before asking the questions might have been good.) This line from Sen. Rubio about the Mainstream Media was powerful indeed:
No kidding, huh? There were a number of excellent responses, including this one from Gov. Chris Christie as the Daily Caller reports:
[…] The first question of the night from moderators was for the Republican candidates to list their biggest weakness. Christie refused to say.
“I don’t see a lot of weakness on the stage quite frankly,” he said. “Where I see the weakness is in those three people left on the Democratic stage. You know, I see a Socialist, an Isolationist, and a Pessimist, and for the sake of me I can’t figure out which one is which.” […] (Click here to read the rest.)
All in all, CNBC and its moderators did a DISASTROUS job in this debate, but the candidates all rose above the assholic behavior of the moderators and were able to highlight their strengths, policies, and positions despite them.
But there were other losers yesterday besides the CNBC moderators. That would be the 70 Republicans who joined in voting with ALL of the Democrats to hand President Obama a blank check for the rest of his term. I am relieved to note that my Representative, Mark Sanford, did NOT vote for this terrible bill, nor did Rep. Trey Gowdy. I am sorely disappointed in some of those who did, though. If you would like to find out how your Representative voted, you can click HERE to see the results.
You may ask, what is so bad about this deal? Well, as this Daily Signal article highlights, it uses the same “accounting” as Obamacare does:
Two conservative lawmakers are accusing Republican leaders of using an accounting gimmick in their budget deal—a “trick” that mimics a tactic Democrats employed to pass Obamacare.
Sen. Jeff Sessions and Rep. Mo Brooks call it a practice in double-counting to produce a better budget score. Democrats did the same thing with the Affordable Care Act in an effort to generate a budget score that didn’t increase the deficit, the two Alabama Republicans claim.
During the Obamacare debate, Democrats argued about $500 billion would be used for two things—shoring up Medicare and covering the cost of the new health care law. “Of course,” say Sessions and Brooks, “the same dollar cannot be spent in two different places.”
The Boehner-Obama budget deal would increase the debt limit by $1.5 trillion to an estimated $19.6 trillion. It also boosts spending by $80 billion beyond spending caps set in 2011. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
But it is even worse than that, as Ben Domenech from The Federalist points out:
[…] That deal, keep in mind, is an inherent lie – it includes cuts that will never happen, along the lines of an NFL contract with 50 million socked away in an unguaranteed final year for appearances.
“Nearly half of those offsets (including new revenues) are not realized until 2025—the last year of the budget window. Between this Boehner-Obama deal and the Ryan-Murray spending agreement of 2013 (the last time Congress revisited the discretionary spending caps), Congress has increased spending by a total of 143 billion dollars before 2021 (the period covered by the Budget Control Act) paid for with 98 billion in savings not realized until after 2021.”
Even worse, there’s no reason this deal had to happen. The Boehner-Obama deal is a disaster for Republicans. It’s a classic spend more now and promise to spend less in the future deal with virtually nothing good in it. No shutdown was imminent, nor was any real default, and 61 percent of Americans were opposed to a debt limit hike or wanted it tied to spending cuts. So of course the White House wants to slam it through. Of course, John Boehner promised that there would be no more backroom deals, and that you’d get at least three days of a public bill before voting – a shame that he would literally violate his Pledge to America on the way out the door. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
And that is just it – there is NO REASON for Boehner to have insisted upon this Obama giveaway as his last, parting move (he is giving his swan song as I type. Buh Bye.). It is terrible, and all I can hope is that the Senate will do ITS duty and not give away more to Obama and the Democrats. They have done plenty of that already.
At least that’s what I think. How about you? This is an Open Thread.