All I know is that Jon Stewart destroyed him a couple of years ago for being terrible at his job.

Also I don't understand why all the candidates were whining about CNBC being liberal considering Rick Santelli is the proto-Tea Potter.

Although the moderating was a little bizarre at times - and Jim Cramer was positively hopeless - I disagree with the assertion that it was generally poor. In fact, it did two things. Firstly, by being (deliberately) contentious, it brought about discussion of significant differences between candidates in various policy areas. Secondly, it exposed Trump and Carson as being at least disingenuous. For example, Trump's own website has a policy proposal to reduce H1B visas. It was good to see him get called on this: either it's not his policy, or he's out of touch with what he's promoting as his policy. Secondly, Carson claimed ""I didn't have any involvement. That's total propaganda" in this weird dietary supplement company. Hmm:

Ben Carson Denies Ties To Dietary Supplement Firm Despite Longtime Involvement

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...natech/412987/

Rubio is the most sensible of this bunch right now. I think him versus Clinton would be an interesting contest. The rest are little more than a rabble. Kasich, who I like too, obviously changed his tone because he's doing so poorly in the polls:- a hail Mary pass, in fact. It really didn't work, plus I see the fact-checkers are going to town on him today.

Plus that Kudlow character (mentioned by Trump) is as right-wing as you can get.

I didn't watch it, but apparently Graham owned the kiddie debate prior to this, so maybe he'll get to play with the big boys next time.

A lot of pundits putting the fork in Jeb this morning saying he is done.

It's strange that he's so terrible at this. I mean Dubya had to compete with McCain, Forbes, Orrin Hatch, Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan et. al, and owned them all. But Jeb can't even cope with this crowd. I guess he isn't the smart one after all.

I will be back in Boulder Saturday for the Rugger, might well see someone who was there.

Certainly the local view was that CNBC was an embarrassment, doubt if anybody wants to see them back.

It is inexplicable to me that the RNC allows its stable of candidates to be exposed to a series debates moderated by Clinton operatives and left-wing activists. Maybe one, on MSNBC, to toughen them for the general. If I were in charge, the debates would be moderated by a panel of respected journalists on NPR or FNC (the only major that would do it and isn't in the tank for the Dems). Note: the DNC is smart enough not to allow Fox to host a debate involving its candidate.

My take is that the candidate who is most dangerous to Hillary is Rubio. As an attorney who (before his retirement) has taken part in hundreds of arguments before the Courts and juries, I recognize someone who can think on his feet, can respond instantly and devastatingly to points made by the opponent (in this "debate" the moderators and JEB!) and who retains and can marshal the facts and present them in a logical and persuasive manner.

The two smartest guys in the room were Rubio and Cruz. I think when the smoke clears the primary voters are going to choose one of them for their candidate. Fiorina is almost assured the VP slot. Hillary need not yet start measuring the WH windows for new curtains.

I was under the impression that the candidates got what they asked for, i.e. the RNC and the candidates set the rules/questions for the debates.

Care to back up your assertion that the moderators of this debate were "Clinton operatives and left-wing activists"?

My impression is that the RNC wanted a lot of debates and had to spread it around the field, only one of which is a reasonably friendly venue - and that one asked the most penetrating questions to the point that there were complaints afterwards.

Neither the RNC nor the candidates have any say on the questions. In the case of the Demo debates, no reason, to as all the questions coming from their Superpac will be softballs.

Why is it whenever a Republican gets asked a hard question they complain about left wing bias? Let's face it, all the candidates' tax plans are a bunch of shite where people pay less tax and the economy magically grows to compensate. That worked really well when Bush cut taxes.

I guess as this point we might as well say that the facts have a left wing bias, as that seems to be the reality.
As for the candidate, I'd say Rubio is starting to look more likely, which makes it a shame he's bought and paid for by Sheldon Adelson

See also Kansas.

You missed Huma Abedin and Noam Chomsky asking the questions last night?

First, I referenced the series of debates, not last night's debacle. The moderators don't identify themselves as such, but starting with George Stephanopolis (a true Clinton operative) and Candy Crowley, and working down, the rank and file are overwhelmingly left of centre and outright hostile to Republicans.

Rubio correctly identified the main stream media as a Democratic SuperPac. It's just a fact of life and to deny it is to ignore reality. That's why we have to read the UK papers to get a more balanced view of things in this country.