Did Hillary Clinton Approve the CNBC Debate Panel?

Can someone please refresh my memory? When Donald Trump met with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to sign a loyalty pledge did anyone check to see if Priebus had signed a similar pledge to all the other candidates?

Watching Wednesday’s CNBC grudge match between Big Government Leftists and the GOP makes one wonder. The Benghazi Panel gave Hillary more respect than Republican candidates received from The Quick and The Dense. With the exception of Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, the rest of the inquisitors were arrogant, dismissive and argumentative, or as Chris Christie observed, “I've got to tell you the truth, even in New Jersey what you're doing is called rude.” You could tell by their smug sense of superiority the panel felt they were slumming. Smiling tolerantly, they listened to mouth–breathing Republicans and then surreptitiously doused their hands with Germ–X when no one was looking. Out of a total of 46 distinct questions only ten — just over 21 percent —were legitimate issue–based inquiries that had some relationship to Republican voter concerns. The rest were insults (6), ambushes (7), attempts to encourage infighting among the candidates (10), recycled Democrat talking points that might produce useful sound bites for Hillary (10) and embarrassing inanities. The last category was under the sole ownership of intellectual lightweight Carl Quintanilla, who began the debate by asking all the candidates: “What’s your biggest weakness?”

---

This is a stupid job interview question to ask an applicant for a cashier’s job at Walmart and a monumentally foolish one to ask a presidential candidate. It’s unclear whether Priebus started sweating Republican reactions on his own or when Juan Bush’s campaign manager attacked the CNBC control room door and screamed the network wasn’t being fair. Priebus materialized in the post–debate Spin Room, sounding like Hillary discussing the shortcomings of “security professionals.” “I was very disappointed in the moderators. I'm disappointed in CNBC…I think it was one gotcha question, one personal low blow after another." He concluded, “CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled." Priebus’ spin doesn’t fool me and it didn’t fool former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese who told CNSNews.com, “Whoever selected the ‘moderators’ should be fired.” Exactly, and that individual would be Reince Priebus. Feverish post–debate spin can’t disguise the fact he approved CNBC as the debate host and the RNC signed off on the moderators. This disaster is due solely to Priebus’ negligence. In August 2014 the chairman was much more assertive. Time magazine announced: “GOP Takes Control of 2016 Primary Debates.” Priebus was front–and–center taking credit for a 13–member committee, “dominated by Priebus loyalists,” that would set the total number of debates. These hard–nosed advocates would tell how the cow ate the cabbage and punish any candidate reckless enough to attend an unapproved event. The select committee was “empowered to negotiate with media outlets over the timing and selection of moderators for the debates” since they were “still fuming” over Candy Crowley’s tag–team match with Obama. So Priebus’ committee bans Crowley and endorses the Sid Blumenthal Trio? This fiasco belongs to Reince Priebus. Blaming CNBC is attempting to deflect responsibility. When the MSM leopard can’t change its spots, it’s time to change leopards. There are plenty of conservative media professionals that would make great debate moderators including Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Mark Steyn. Yet the RNC appears to suffer from the same inferiority complex that afflicted the party in the past. It acts like all the really cool announcers are on the MSM side and our broadcasters are sweaty, overweight and could use a shave — including the women. None of the MSM questions ever ask does the federal government do too much? Instead it’s always how can the federal government do more? The question alone serves to put candidates on the defensive. First explain why the question premise is wrong and then answer. Meanwhile, the panel is interrupting, talking over him and burning up time. Frankly, I wish the candidates had been more pugnacious and demanded the panel stop butting in and let them answer. It’s all very depressing. If Priebus isn’t strong enough to negotiate a debate format and recruit panelists that don’t damage the brand when the RNC has all the negotiating leverage, what hope does the public have that the party can run the nation? The GOP’s only hope for the rest of the cycle is for Priebus, as part of his resignation news conference, to beg The Donald to take charge of debate negotiations. Trump successfully demanded the network throw out one of the scheduled hours; maybe he can demand they throw out the partisan “journalists,” too.