PDA

View Full Version : Republican National Committee tells NBC to take a hike



Paul Pless
10-30-2015, 12:23 PM
I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.


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.


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. 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. Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.


While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.


I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.


While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.


I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.


Sincerely,


Reince Priebus

Chairman, Republican National Committee

...

BETTY-B
10-30-2015, 01:13 PM
Holy crap the Republicans are cry babies.

They have no clue that this poo poo-pee pee pants rant against the "media" is no different than screaming at the mirror. If they don't like what the media says, then they don't like themselves.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 01:21 PM
No, the primary debate process is a part of vetting of candidates for selection by Republican voters. It should be a serious process, by and for Republicans at this stage of the proceedings, and it makes no sense to have debates with the questions like those posed at the CNBC debate, i.e., gotcha trick questions, are you still beating your wife questions, and the like. Republican primary voters deserve to compare and contrast the candidates on issues of import to Republicans.

Fantasy football? Really? The RNC is doing the exactly right thing.

BrianY
10-30-2015, 01:35 PM
I don't blame them. The debate - what I saw of it anyway - was poorly managed and many of the questions were puerile. It might be a bit of an overreaction by the RNC but for once the right's criticism of the media - the "media" being the moderators for the debate - is justified.

RonW
10-30-2015, 01:36 PM
Yep the gig is up on the liberal media and their liberal games. Things are being changed and the right is taking charge of the rudder.....good bye libs....

TomF
10-30-2015, 01:41 PM
SB, I'll preface this by saying that I didn't watch the debate. I have no idea what questions were asked, though I did see commentary - by news sources I've learned to trust - agreeing that the moderators did a poor job, at least at times.

But I really don't know what universe you're inhabiting, if you think that "gotcha trick questions, are you still beating your wife questions, and the like" aren't exactly the meat and potatoes of American politics. The problem seems to be that the moderators used them, encroaching on the apparently sovereign territory of the candidates.

What I've seen of the Republican primary race so far is that the candidates are often using exactly those kinds of misrepresentations, lies, fabrications, smears, and fatuous comment ... to beat each other up. It's how "negative political advertising" works, and negative campaigning is alive and well inside the GOP's own tent. RonW, how many of the folks on that Debate stage would you dismiss as a "RINO"? Don't get me started on how the Gowdy machine, following in the steps of Issa and etc., are whacking away at Clinton, when folks turn their attention outside the tent.

The media crew at those debates were taking their cue from the American political culture which has been intensifying in flavour and stink ever since Bill Clinton hired an intern. The biggest (though not the only) contributors to that descent have been the members of the party who are now upset when the media feeds them their own techniques.

Yeah, it sounds like it was poor moderator behaviour, in any civil realm of debate and discourse. Read that last clause a second time.

RonW
10-30-2015, 01:46 PM
TomF -
SB, I'll preface this by saying that I didn't watch the debate. I have no idea what questions were asked


But I really don't know what universe you're inhabiting, if you think that "gotcha trick questions, are you still beating your wife questions,

I take it since you didn't see it, then obviously you decided to chime in for moral support for the liberal cause ?

TomF
10-30-2015, 01:55 PM
Forgive me, Ron. It's your fookin' party, and there will be months of bloodletting in it before a gladiator actually emerges to Fight the Dems. I could have stayed home to watch your essentially meaningless debate on cable, but instead I bought, cooked and hosted dinner (as I do every week) for about 30 university students ... because it's important that they know that somebody gives a sh!t.

What I'm saying isn't that CNBC's moderators smelled like roses - apparently they didn't. I'm saying it's beyond belief hypocritical for folks like SB to somehow keep the blinders on about the way American politics has been played for the last 25 years at least. The RNC's problem isn't with the fact of gotcha politics and gratuitous rhetoric - hell, they're the current masters of the genre. The problem was simply that the dreaded Media used their own techniques on them.

If so (and I think it probably was so), it was poor journalism. Wherever might you think, though, that the moderators might have got the notion that politics should be that kind of game?

Captain Intrepid
10-30-2015, 02:02 PM
Well, this is the party that considered "What specific periodicals do you read?" to be a cruelly over the top hard hitting gotcha question.

RonW
10-30-2015, 02:05 PM
TomF -
Forgive me, Ron. It's your fookin' party, and there will be months of bloodletting in it before a gladiator actually emerges to Fight the Dems. I could have stayed home to watch your essentially meaningless debate on cable, but instead I bought, cooked and hosted dinner (as I do every week) for about 30 university students ... because it's important that they know that somebody gives a sh!t.

You are correct, because if it was up to me, I would have figured those 30 university students would have been smart enough to figure out dinner.

And even though you can't vote in american politics, I am sure your liberal comrades appreciate the moral support..of trying to bash the right, who you know not of..

Garret
10-30-2015, 02:17 PM
...You are correct, because if it was up to me, I would have figured those 30 university students would have been smart enough to figure out dinner...

Wow. That's all - just "Wow."

BTW - I don't blame the RNC for this at all - even though they've been hoisted on their own petard - they have every right to chose who moderates their "debates".

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 02:21 PM
TomF, we are speaking of the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, not our process generally. The purpose of these debates at this stage of the election process is to vet candidates for the Republican nomination. The questions should be tough and hard hitting, but their content should involve substantive issues of concern to Republican primary voters. Not why Donald Trump is a cartoon villain, why Jeb Bush isn't doing better in the polls, problems with fantasy football gaming, shouldn't Rubio resign his Senate post, etc.

How many times will these panels examine Donald Trump on his business bankruptcies? Why hasn't he been asked what his plan is for Syria? How specifically he will create the millions of jobs he claims he will create? What incentives will be given to keep American manufacturing at home? Who might be a representative example for his Supreme Court nominees?

The process is for Republican voters, not media partisans attempting to make the candidates look foolish or fight with each other. It was a disgrace.

TomF
10-30-2015, 02:22 PM
TomF -

You are correct, because if it was up to me, I would have figured those 30 university students would have been smart enough to figure out dinner.

And even though you can't vote in american politics, I am sure your liberal comrades appreciate the moral support..of trying to bash the right, who you know not of..Your reading comprehension's not really up to snuff today, is it? Did you miss the part where I said, repeatedly, that it seems like the moderators did poor journalism? Or did you overlook it, because I observed the irony of Reps whining when tactics they routinely use on each other (and anyone else with a pulse) were mildly turned against them by those meanies with microphones? It's so unfair when someone else plays with their ball. ;)

Somehow, those kids I feed aren't wasting away on only 1 supper/week. The point isn't the food, Ron. It's knowing that someone who doesn't "have to" actually gives a sh!t. That they're worth giving a sh!t about.

John of Phoenix
10-30-2015, 02:29 PM
CBS and ABC won't have anything to do with them, they're trying to defund NPR, they're pissed at MSNBC, they're pissed at NBC and they're REALLY pissed at those lying weenie traitors at FOX.

What's a propagandist to do when even your allies call you for what you are?

:D LMAO :D

skuthorp
10-30-2015, 02:34 PM
Sounds very shortsighted to me.

peb
10-30-2015, 02:36 PM
It was quite impressive that when Cruz went off on the moderators, he actually listed the questions the moderators had asked in the exact order they occurred.

BrianY
10-30-2015, 02:50 PM
The process is for Republican voters, not media partisans attempting to make the candidates look foolish or fight with each other.

A quibble - yes the debates are intended primarily for Republicans who will vote in the primaries, but they are also useful for people who may not vote in the primaries and who may not be registered Republicans. At some point (i.e on election day) all voters will have to evaluate the candidates of both parties and observing their performance in these debates informs that evaluation.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 02:56 PM
A quibble - yes the debates are intended primarily for Republicans who will vote in the primaries, but they are also useful for people who may not vote in the primaries and who may not be registered Republicans. At some point (i.e on election day) all voters will have to evaluate the candidates of both parties and observing their performance in these debates informs that evaluation.

No, I agree. And of course they are useful for persons who will not be voting Republican under any circumstances; these people, in their own way, deserve the right to know what they "may be getting." The process is also useful for showing the electorate generally where on the spectrum the base of the party is and whether or not independents or leaners or undecideds could be a part of it.

But all of that presupposes an honest process designed to bring these characteristics out for evaluation.

CWSmith
10-30-2015, 02:56 PM
CBS and ABC won't have anything to do with them, they're trying to defund NPR, they're pissed at MSNBC, they're pissed at NBC and they're REALLY pissed at those lying weenie traitors at FOX.

What's a propagandist to do when even your allies call you for what you are?

:D LMAO :D

This is half of it. We need to recognize their actions and their motives.

The other half is outcome based: Did I learn what I need to learn to vote for (him / her / it)? If not, then why should not be important. A POTUS needs to be able to handle adverse situations. If the candidate runs from it, they are undeserving.

BrianY
10-30-2015, 03:01 PM
But all of that presupposes an honest process designed to bring these characteristics out for evaluation.

I don't think that any debate sponsored by any political party can truly be called "an honest process". As long as the parties get to approve moderators and questions, it's not an honest process.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 03:05 PM
I don't think that any debate sponsored by any political party can truly be called "an honest process". As long as the parties get to approve moderators and questions, it's not an honest process.

As an abstract ideal, OK, but no moderator approval? An entity could present whomever they'd like, I mean anyone, make a circus of it, and the candidates in their own primary debate process must still stand there and face questions? That just isn't realistic, especially considering the money involved.

Gerarddm
10-30-2015, 03:05 PM
No, the process is not just for Republican primary voters, it is for every voter, as are the Democratic debates. And they are instructive, not only in terms of answers, but ( perhaps even more important ) non-answers. As well as prevarications, body language, voice tonality, etc. They all add up to a more detailed portrait of the respective candidate.

In that regard, candidates seem to have a penchant for simply not answering a question ( "That's a good question, Moderator, but first I want to go back to what XXX just said ", etc. ). About the only candidate who does not seem to do that, or at least not as noticeably, is my guy Bernie Sanders.

The Republican debate was a shrill fest. And in fact at one point, I thought, the moderators should just lean back in their chairs and let the public see the sandbox dysfunction in all its squabbling infantile glory. That would have been more of a public service than some of their questions.

BTW, I find it intriguing that the candidates are telling the RNC themselves to take a hike in terms of debate format. The fallout will be instructive.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 03:10 PM
If it is really for all the voters, concretely, how is it that the RNC has the power to dictate terms as they are doing? Right now, it is a party process. Period.

There are abstractions, equities, outreach and other factors, but to the extent that the forum itself might be used in a way that doesn't allow the candidates to meaningfully distinguish themselves on policy as respects primary voters, well, that just isn't going to be allowed. By the money people. Period.

BrianY
10-30-2015, 03:13 PM
As an abstract ideal, OK, but no moderator approval? An entity could present whomever they'd like, I mean anyone, make a circus of it, and the candidates in their own primary debate process must still stand there and face questions? That just isn't realistic, especially considering the money involved.

Yes of course, but there's no point to pretending that, say, Fox's debate was any more of an "honest process" than CNBC's. They were both "dishonest" but in different ways.

BrianY
10-30-2015, 03:15 PM
The most "honest" debate format would be a Lincoln - Douglas style debate where the candidates get to ask each other the questions and the moderator/host's only job is to keep time to ensure equal time for everyone.

TomF
10-30-2015, 03:18 PM
TomF, we are speaking of the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, not our process generally. The Primaries are fundamental to your process. The rules at play in your "general" process are the same rules at play in the Primaries.
The purpose of these debates at this stage of the election process is to vet candidates for the Republican nomination.No. the purpose is not to "vet" candidates, but to help select one. Howard Dean didn't wither in the Democratic primaries because a "vetting" process uncovered a poorly considered policy - but because how he laughs was apparently "un-Presidential."
The questions should be tough and hard hitting, but their content should involve substantive issues of concern to Republican primary voters. Not why Donald Trump is a cartoon villain, why Jeb Bush isn't doing better in the polls, problems with fantasy football gaming, shouldn't Rubio resign his Senate post, etc.

How many times will these panels examine Donald Trump on his business bankruptcies? Why hasn't he been asked what his plan is for Syria? How specifically he will create the millions of jobs he claims he will create? What incentives will be given to keep American manufacturing at home? Who might be a representative example for his Supreme Court nominees? Horse puckies. The Republican base doesn't give a crap about "issues." Wouldn't know one if it bit them. And every Suit on that stage knows it, and has unabashedly twisted that knowledge to his advantage. Stupid but "patriotic" and "earnest" persistance in the teeth of the obvious have been the GOP's stars' signature tools for years.

Trump should expect to field Bankruptcy questions as often as Obama faced Birth Certificate ones. Should expect as many useless panels to maliciously examine them for invented or maybe non-existent wrongdoing as have looked through Benghazi. Same with Rubio and the Senate, or whoever and fantasy football gaming. They should expect it; it's how Republican politics is done nowadays.

What every Primary candidate knows is that The Base won't give a smelly rat's fart about potential Supreme Court nominees, or nuanced economic policies ... when instead they can be enraged and stupified into lapping up vomit. Be gorged and sated on useless, irrelevant anger.

This is present day Republican politics, wrapped up and sold especially because it is the delight and preferred product of core Republican voters. Your glorious Republic, which is (as Rep supporters often remind us) so much more protected from the Tyranny of the Majority than a mere democracy.

Yes, it's a disgrace.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 03:22 PM
Oy. :)

RonW
10-30-2015, 03:25 PM
The Primaries are fundamental to your process. The rules at play in your "general" process are the same rules at play in the Primaries. No. the purpose is not to "vet" candidates, but to help select one. Howard Dean didn't wither in the Democratic primaries because a "vetting" process uncovered a poorly considered policy - but because how he laughs was apparently "un-Presidential." Horse puckies. The Republican base doesn't give a crap about "issues." Wouldn't know one if it bit them. And every Suit on that stage knows it, and has unabashedly twisted that knowledge to his advantage. Stupid but "patriotic" and "earnest" persistance in the teeth of the obvious have been the GOP's stars' signature tools for years.

Trump should expect to field Bankruptcy questions as often as Obama faced Birth Certificate ones. As many useless panels should examine them for maybe non-existent wrongdoing as have looked through Benghazi. Same with Rubio and the Senate, or whoever and fantasy football gaming.

What every Primary candidate knows is that The Base won't give a smelly rat's fart about potential Supreme Court nominees, or nuanced economic policies ... when instead they can be enraged and stupified into lapping up vomit instead spewed by the Freedom Caucus. Be gorged and sated on useless anger.

This is present day Republican politics, wrapped up and sold especially because it is the delight and preferred produce of core Republican voters. Your glorious Republic, which is (as Rep supporters often remind us) so much more protected from the Tyranny of the Majority than a mere democracy.

Yes, it's a disgrace.

What is a disgrace is your comments and the lack of facts, due to a liberal temper tantrum. And right up front you stated that you didn't watch the debate.

Maybe we should clear the air and ask you up front. do you hold any hostilities towards the republican party and you are a socialist liberal or progressive democrat ?

John of Phoenix
10-30-2015, 03:27 PM
Oy. :)Yeah, nailed it didn't he.

TomF
10-30-2015, 03:27 PM
Oy. :)Yeah. Disagree as you wish; all I'm doing is holding up a fookin' mirror.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 03:31 PM
Yeah, nailed it didn't he.

No, quite to the contrary, but I suspect he's very concerned about the Republicans right now, and is not happy about that, and perhaps may be upset about other issues, too. There's a bit of a stream of consciousness going on there and I can respect that and let him have his say, and smile about it.

TomF
10-30-2015, 03:32 PM
Like Keith, it appears Tom has lost the ability to communicate without profanity.Some things call for it.

John of Phoenix
10-30-2015, 03:35 PM
Concerned about the Republicans? About the damage they've done and continue to wreak, sure. Most of us reality based beings around the globe are concerned.

John of Phoenix
10-30-2015, 03:36 PM
Profanity? Are you sure you were a US Marine?

Paul Pless
10-30-2015, 03:42 PM
Like Keith, it appears Tom has lost the ability to communicate without profanity.gosh darn it all

Boater14
10-30-2015, 03:59 PM
Anyone remember the Palin Biden debate when super mon told Gwen Ifill she wasn't going to respond to her questions, she was going to address the people? Joe just smiled and soldiered on. This is standard gop crap. Old as, you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore. Didn't Cruz and Rubios remarks seem a tad staged to anyone?

RonW
10-30-2015, 04:02 PM
It is always disappointing to see self proclaimed religious individuals to lose self control, sad, really sad.. Hopefully things will cheer up.

Norman Bernstein
10-30-2015, 04:03 PM
I've never heard so much whining by supposed adults.

Sorry, but Presidential candidates have to be able to deal with tough questions... bad questions.... and even stupid questions... because that is what they're going to get during the rest of the campaign, and as President, should they be successful.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to make the participants look good.... it's to challenge them. Whether the CNBC moderators did a good or bad job is entirely beside the point... the question is how well did the candidates to respond to the questions, even if they were bad or stupid.

TomF
10-30-2015, 04:11 PM
It is always disappointing to see self proclaimed religious individuals to lose self control, sad, really sad.. Hopefully things will cheer up.

Actually laughing out loud at that, Ron. Startled the dog. :D Whew, your concern is ... Touching.

So. How many panels should Trump expect will be created to drag his reputation through the mud about bankruptcies, for due process to be served? What Would Gowdy Do? :D

Canoeyawl
10-30-2015, 04:43 PM
I couldn't watch any of it, but it seems like the candidates were exposed for what they are (which is the point of questioning isn't it?) and now they are complaining about "gotcha" questions !

Looking at the group as a whole, it is embarrassing to have to admit we are from the same planet...

Paul Pless
10-30-2015, 06:10 PM
That cut away to Carson was hillarious.

Garret
10-30-2015, 06:13 PM
That cut away to Carson was hillarious.

After reading your comment, when I watched the clip, I expected to see a cutaway to Johnny, not Ben... :)

Virgin Gal
10-30-2015, 06:25 PM
We watched the debate. Yes it was a circus. But they're only "gotcha" questions if you don't have the answers. It looked like the candidates were expecting to just be given questions which would allow them to give minute long talking point answers.... Which they did anyway.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 06:46 PM
I think Telemundo will be drooling to have Rubio and Cruz in a debate on their air.


That's pretty smart thinking, Donn. Think they'd take Trump too? That might be the biggest event in the history of Telemundo, at least among US viewers.

Garret
10-30-2015, 06:55 PM
It looks like no one read the RNC letter in the OP...

No one? Are you sure about that?

Paul Pless
10-30-2015, 07:14 PM
Am I the only bilgerat who isn't allowed to exaggerate?You take yourself far too seriously for such.

Garret
10-30-2015, 07:22 PM
You take yourself far too seriously for such.

I think I touched a nerve.

CWSmith
10-30-2015, 08:03 PM
I must confess that the more clips I see the less I respect the questioners. There is a difference between a follow up and an interruption.

genglandoh
10-30-2015, 08:10 PM
The RNC is just trying to make sure Rep voters can see the candidates in a fair light.
Tough but fair questioning is OK.

So far we have had 3 Rep debates but only the Fox News debate was tough and fair.

Sorry I made a mistake.
CNN also did a good job.
So we have had 3 Rep debates and 2 where tough and fair.

Gerarddm
10-30-2015, 08:14 PM
Various campaigns are in revolt against the RNC and evidently want as one of their new criteria for the candidates to be able to vet moderators.

Oy veh.

I can see the vapid line of questioning now, right out of The Newsroom's first episode: " What makes America great"? Etc.

Allowing the campaigns to choose which chump to throw softballs at them will not toughen them for up when Putin comes a-callin'.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 08:18 PM
The CNN debate suffered from low expectations, but Anderson Cooper rose to the challenge imho and did well. Certainly some questions were not asked, but Cooper led out, tough, but reasonably, and consistent with primary intentions while the shills at CNBC utterly failed in every way, so much so that no one could facially defend them today.

mikefrommontana
10-30-2015, 08:57 PM
Well, on "Here & Now" on NPR, one political flack (sorry, no name) suggested that the next Republican debate be moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly "Rock Ribbed Conservatives".

It struck me as the purest fulmination of the "Conservative-Entertainment Complex", the same sort of combination that was panned after the 2012 presidential elections.

Chip-skiff
10-30-2015, 09:00 PM
. . .the shills at CNBC utterly failed in every way, so much so that no one could facially defend them today.

Facially defend? That's something I've never heard.

But given the character of the candidates, it was pretty much shills vs. shills.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 09:03 PM
Well, on "Here & Now" on NPR, one political flack (sorry, no name) suggested that the next Republican debate be moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly "Rock Ribbed Conservatives".

It struck me as the purest fulmination of the "Conservative-Entertainment Complex", the same sort of combination that was panned after the 2012 presidential elections.

Mike, if such a debate actually comes to pass, please head to your nearest bar, where I pledge to buy the entire house a drink, in your honor, and twice if it is Tuesday.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 09:07 PM
Chip-Skiff, I believe you are a possible candidate for the title of the coolest dude (no, it's true, you're a dude) on earth. I wish I could meet you. It is possible.

Truly. Concede to me the possibility that you might be the coolest dude on earth. True? It is possible, yeah?

Chip-skiff
10-30-2015, 09:12 PM
Not a dude, but a really truly cowboy.

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 09:13 PM
Alright.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
10-30-2015, 09:17 PM
Not a dude, but a really truly cowboy.


https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/reminisce-in-the-glory-days-with-some-of-the-most-memorable-movie-quotes-of-the-90s-19.png?w=600&h=327

Sky Blue
10-30-2015, 09:55 PM
No, I suspect that Chip-Skiff is a completely unafraid, unbelievably-talented person that would be entirely deserving of our complete respect if we actually knew his face and could witness the gravitas. Yes, well, so we can't, so we have liberty to take a shot or two. I'll decline tonight.

Chip-Skiff, you are unbelievable and amazing. Love you, Chip-Skiff!

John Smith
10-30-2015, 10:38 PM
I'm about to hit the sack, so I admit I've not read this whole thread. Found it as I was about to post one of my own.

Watching the GOP trying to run its own primary, I have to wonder why anyone would trust it to run the country.

john l
10-31-2015, 07:05 AM
Seems like the RNC is crying for a little political correctness.

John Smith
10-31-2015, 08:11 AM
I've been complaining about our debate formats for years. I don't recall CNBC ever moderating a debate before, and I'm sure they are not liberals, so maybe they were just in over their heads. Maybe the media is more concerned with ratings than gaining any knowledge.

One thing not unique about this particular debate that demonstrates one of my problems with debates of this format in general is beautifully illustrated by the very legitimate question Fiorina was asked about how she would address the inequality of pay for women. She took her minute, and a bit more to rail against Hillary and Obama stating some facts that were not true. Cruz responded with his own rant.

IMO, two things should have happened then. The moderators should have challenged Fiorina on the facts she espoused, and they should have pointed out she failed to answer the question asked. However, here 'turn' was up, so we moved to another questioner, who, instead of moving on to a new question for a different candidate, should have insisted Carly respond to the question she had been asked.