Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus has sent a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack saying that the RNC will be “suspending” all partnerships with NBC News including pulling out of the NBC News debate in February of 2016.
We're taking our bat and ball and going home!
Also - fuck you, you're not supposed to have "partnerships" with news organizations.
You know, back when this country was relatively sane, the League of Women Voters used to hold the debates and you showed up and answered their questions and that's all there was to it. You didn't have buffoons like Trump and Carson demanding to set the debate rules to their liking or they won't deign to show up.
His letter reads, in part:
“The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.
Um, if you don't want a repeat performance of your candidates embarrassing themselves on national tv, send better candidates. You keep sending dullards, dolts and dunces to represent you on the national stage, you're not going to come out looking all that great.
“CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.” That was not the case.
It wasn't? I couldn't bring myself to watch the trainwreck, so I Googled a transcript. Here are some of the questions that got asked.
And remember, Priebus is complaining about the following subjects not being asked about: job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.
HARWOOD: We're at 60 seconds, but I gotta ask you, you talked about your tax plan. You say that it would not increase the deficit because you cut taxes $10 trillion in the economy would take off like...
(CROSSTALK)
HARWOOD: Hold on, hold on. The economy would take off like a rocket ship.
TRUMP: Right. Dynamically.
HARWOOD: I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.
QUICK: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes.
You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and -- I've looked at it -- and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. . . So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?
QUICK: Governor Christie, I'd like to (inaudible) a question next. Actually, I have a question for you (inaudible).
In your tell it like it is campaign, you've said a lot of tough things. You've said that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security. You think that we need to cut benefits for people who make over $80,000 and eliminate them entirely for seniors who are making over $200,000.
Governor Huckabee, who is here on the stage, has said that you and others who think this way are trying to rob seniors of the benefits that they've earned. It raises the question: When it is acceptable to break a social compact?
Governor Bush, in a debate like this four years ago, every Republican running for president pledged to oppose a budget deal containing any tax increase even if it had spending cuts ten times as large.
A few months later, you told Congress, put me in, coach, you said you would take that deal. Still feel that way?
QUINTANILLA: Mrs. Fiorina, in 2010, while running for Senate in Tech Ridge (ph), California, you called an Internet sales tax a bad idea. Traditional brick and mortar stores obviously disagree. Now that the Internet shopping playing field has matured, what would be a fair plan to even that playing field?
Anyway, that's just a few, but those seem like fairly substantive questions to me.
Or as Reince puts it: Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive.
Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.
Wahhhhhhh!!! You didn't ask us exactly the questions we wanted. And speaking time wasn't fair! Wahhhh!!!
So, what was so "inaccurate?" I know Ben Carson is complaining that he was asked to explain how his magical 10% Old Testament tax plan is supposed to work. So here's how that went:
If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole.
So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?
CARSON: Well, first of all, I didn't say that the rate would be 10 percent. I used the tithing analogy.
No, you did say 10%. Everyone heard you say 10%. Just because someone is pointing out that 10% is a stupid idea doesn't mean you can just pretend you didn't really say it.
QUICK: I -- I understand that, but if you -- if you look at the numbers you probably have to get to 28.
CARSON: The rate -- the rate -- the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.
QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.
So, as the kids say, where's the lie, tho? Unless you crunch the numbers yourself, which you won't because you are not smart, and you come up with a different figure, which you won't because you are not smart, then you really have no basis to object to this line of questioning.
So basically what seems to be happening here is that these guys are so used to being "interviewed" by FOX "News" and various end-times radio shows that anything other than being spoon-fed softball questions w2hose answers go completely unchallenged seems like some harsh interrogation that they simply shouldn't have to tolerate. Or, in other words, WAHHHHHH!!!
