Image 01 Image 03

Political Media Lament “Dryness” of Fox Business Republican Presidential Debate

Political Media Lament “Dryness” of Fox Business Republican Presidential Debate

Not the “clown show” they were hoping for

Tuesday night, Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal hosted a Republican Presidential debate.

Making a concerted effort to keep questions substantive and issue focused, moderator Neil Cavuto went so far as to say the debate was, “not about the moderators.” Imagine that. A candidate debate in which candidates actually debate issues. What a novel idea!

Fox Business nailed it. Questions were issue oriented and highlighted candidate policy differences. CNBC’s handling of the last Republican presidential debate was so terrible, the debate highlight reel consisted of candidates channeling their inner Gingrich to swat back at absurd questions. The network’s handling of the debate caused the Republican National Committee to suspend their relationship and any future debate arrangements.

But because Tuesday’s Fox Business debate ran as planned, political writers found the lack of entertaining, non-policy moments dull.

Like Politico’s Glenn Thrush:

Thrush later insinuated his jab was troll bait.

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza echoed Thrush’s complaints.

Early headlines focused mainly on who won, who lost, and Kasich managed to do the unthinkable — he united the Republican base who overwhelmingly agree he’s the most annoying candidate in the history of candidates ever.

The biggest winner of this debate was Fox Business. But it’s sad we get excited when a debate is treated like well, a debate, and not a road-side clown show.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yes, Kasich continued his condescending atrociousness.

Love deportation! Let’s deport them all to the south of Mexico!!

I liked Ike!

Maybe the Liberal Media should eat their peas… Stop being all wee-wee’ed up.

Just a thought.

I know who won that debate: The American People.

I know who lost the debate: The Liberal Media.

CloseTheFed, I hear Terra Del Fuego is a fun filled southern destination.

Anything to avoid talking abut what the candidates actually said, BECAUSE they know “their” voters would like to hear it.

So, Kasich heard, directly, that he’s number two after JEB to carry the GOPe Flag to ….

I think Kasich is toast! Terrible debate for him! Where was Christie?

Hats off to FOX BUSINESS NEWS! They hit a home run! And of course the liberal media is crying about it!

    Christie was off the main stage, which was and is appropriate. We need to be moving toward a good decision, and Christie does not add to that process.

My theory is that political reporters all really want to be sports reporters. They want to write about good tackles and blocks, the hail marys and the trash talking on the line. They want to write about who scored the most points and how the score kept going back and forth.

They emphatically do NOT want to talk about issues, nor to they want to spend time researching and explaining complicated proposals like the Transatlantic Trade Partnership or Obamacare.

    Nah, they’d prefer a good MMA fight.

    It is more work, takes more thought, and is harder to write intelligently about the issues than it does to just write about name calling. Liberal political reporters besides being hacks and in the tank for any liberal cause du jour are also LAZY. These are the reasons why they can’t write anything decent about such a great debate as occurred last night on FBN.

The Socialist Sponge Bob Sound Bite Generation can’t sit still long enough to watch reasoned debate. Nor can they form a single intelligent response to the positions raised last night. They would prefer Bernie Bozo and Harridan Hillary swing at each other with battle axes at 20 feet.

This is my idea and response to the objection that deporting 11M illegal immigrants is “impossible”. (Let’s forget that the 11 Million figure is probably a Democrat decoy and the real figure may be much higher!)

What if we made it a felony offense to even BE in this country illegally for 1 day? This goes for visa over-stayers, border crossers, and anybody else.

Set a date in the future–say, Cinco de Mayo (May 5), 2016. If you are in this country illegally after that day, you will FOREVER be subject to jail AND subsequent deportation. No legalization, no naturalization, no benefits, no nothing for you–EVER!

Perhaps many of those will choose to leave and not wait for the law enforcement that is to follow. Then how large will the problem be?

Enforcement funding is a problem? Use asset forfeiture of the same people. Don’t we do it already?

    The easiest way to deport the illegals is to cut off access to welfare. Give them a final handout: a one-way ticket home. This will discourage further influx as well.

    A border “wall” would be a fine idea. It needn’t be a brick-and-mortar wall, but a surveillance system consisting of autonomous solar-powered sensors on poles along with radar and/or optical drones, and more patrols at hot spots. The main objective is to assert that we are serious by catching a majority of the interlopers, and the flow will be cut to a trickle.

    We also must stop the money coming from this country that finances the transportation of folks up to the border. Trains don’t run on goodwill, and you can bet that OFA (Obama’s campaign apparatus) is in this up to their eyeballs. Cutting this off would simplify border security considerably.

      It absolutely needs to be a REAL wall. Virtual walls only stop virtual people. Its the real ones that we need to stop from crossing illegally.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | November 11, 2015 at 3:10 pm

        This “CPA”…who can’t understand how an average works…would build a dam in the middle of a lake.

        You take away the gradient, and there’s no need for a dam.

        Typical T-rump sucker.

          Rags you ignorant slu*t.

          It really seems to bother you that I am more qualified than you professionally. The fact that I am both a CPA and a lawyer just constantly comes up in your infantile name calling messages. If I didn’t know better I would think your mother was scared by a CPA/Lawyer dual professional when she was carrying little Rags. Could account for your constant thumb sucking childish rants here on LI.

          Oh, and since you wouldn’t know because you are not a dual professional like some of us here, passing the CPA exam back in the 1970’s when I took it was orders of magnitude harder than passing the relatively easy to pass bar exam. At that time only the top 4% passed the CPA exam on their first try whereas in 1985 when I took the bar exam 70% pass on their first try. Get a CPA to explain the meaning of those statistics to you.

        Real RADAR finds real invaders.

          Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | November 11, 2015 at 7:12 pm

          And real PEOPLE behave in REALLY predictable ways.

          No matter how crazy some slavish followers are…

          Real radar doesn’t stop a single person from crossing the border your statement is FALSE. Radar merely confirms that it isn’t stopping anybody from crossing the border when it shows a blip on a screen of real people crossing the border. Real walls STOP real people from crossing the border. Just ask Israel and Hungary about the effectiveness of real walls.

          JerryB in reply to JerryB. | November 11, 2015 at 10:15 pm

          You’re right that the sensors are useless unless the border patrol is allowed to intercept and deport invaders. Not even a wall will matter when they’re paid to come in, air lifted even, and paid to stay. In other words, the problem isn’t border security, it’s treason on the part of POTUS and most of the House and Senate.

          If we undo the incentives and implement efficient surveillance and interception, we’ll be fine. And one more thing: make sure all US citizens down there are well armed, and allow them to shoot any trespassers on their property.

          JerryB in reply to JerryB. | November 11, 2015 at 10:38 pm

          And one more thing, your pleasantness: reread what I wrote. It’s not FALSE. Just looking for a civil discussion. Over and out.

          Jerry I don’t disagree with most of your points. The things you suggest are needed but a real wall is also needed. Wasn’t trying to be unpleasant. Sorry if it seemed that way.

    clafoutis in reply to caldesidad. | November 11, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Eliminate incentives.

    Stop the freebies and goodies.

    Mandate that anyone on welfare has to work.

    Enforce the law and punish employers who hire illegals.

    The outflow will occur on its own . . . no need to fly 11 million out overnight.

    (Just look at today’s Europe where the great unwashed interlopers boldly migrate to the countries with the best handouts.)

    Ragspierre in reply to caldesidad. | November 11, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    You guys can send your royalty checks for my copyrighted ideas to:

    c/o Legal Insurrection

    BTW, you have to make earning a living legally impossible, too.

    Truman deported 3.5 million illegals and Eisenhower deported 1.5 million illegals. Deporting millions of illegals is not a philosophical question. It has already been clearly demonstrated that it can be done by both democrats and republicans of the past who cared about enforcing our laws.

Oh, and about the children and breaking apart the families… We should NEVER prevent the families staying together by taking the children along with them. That is only humanitarian.

What a crock of sh*t!

    Radegunda in reply to caldesidad. | November 11, 2015 at 11:40 am

    And who was it who encouraged many thousands of children to get on trains and travel north across Mexico and then cross into the U.S. without their parents? Who was it who then transported those children across America and deposited them in towns where their parents do not live?

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Radegunda. | November 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm

      And who was it who encouraged many thousands of children to get on trains and travel north across Mexico and then cross into the U.S. without their parents?

      The drug gangs of Honduras and El Salvador, which were charging them money. They threatened people and maybe even killed a few to encourage them to leave.

      They told them that anyone who arrved in the United States before June 30, 2015 would be allowed to stay, so hurry.

      They said that whatever President Obama was planning to do (he was keeping it under wraps) would grandfather them in (actually Obama had an earlier cutoff date, and never intended to go up to the date of his executive actions, but by not being explicit as to what he was going to do, he enabled that.)

      Of course lawyers were pressing ffor release and in fact even today any un-accompanied child can stay – and also in Europe till age 18.

      What the Obama Administration is doing now is encouraging corrupt Mexican police, and drug gangs, to prevent Central American children – and others – from reaching the U.S. border. Obama is not a principled humanitarian, in case you haven’t guessed.

      In the past 15 months, at the request of President Obama, Mexico has carried out a ferocious crackdown on refugees fleeing violence in Central America. The United States has given Mexico tens of millions of dollars for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 to stop these migrants from reaching the United States border to claim asylum….

      ….“The U.S. government is sponsoring the hunting of migrants in Mexico to prevent them from reaching the U.S.,” says Christopher Galeano, who spent last summer researching what’s happening in Mexico for human rights groups there. “It is forcing them to go back to El Salvador, Honduras, to their deaths.”

      You know, what they say, “Out of sight, out of mind.”

      They have also cut off money to fight the drug gangs, allegedly because they don’t think the way Mexico is doing that is consistent with human rights. This, however, is presumably OK.

      You see, once they get to the border, they are in.

      They can let themselves be captured and ask for asylum and get released (courts have ruled they cannot be kept imprisoned more than about six months and certainly not minors, and if the minors have their mothers with them, then their mothers too)

      And then they get a court date of November 29, 2019 (the day after Thanksgiving.)

      The only reason they stopped at November 29, 2019 and gave everyone that court date is that they don’t want to go into the next decade.

      Who was it who then transported those children across America and deposited them in towns where their parents do not live?

      I don’t know. But they couldn’t legally keep them in jail.

Bitterlyclinging | November 11, 2015 at 10:39 am

Last night the political media missed the orgasms they experienced, each time John Harwood, Carl Quintinilla and Becky Quick launched an insulting demeaning derogatory question at the Republican candidates.
The memory of the huge emotional surge the MSM felt when Candy Crowley threw that overwhelming body block on Mitt Romney during the first 2012 presidential debate, when there was nothing but open field and touchdown against Hussein Obama, is still strong in that bunch.

Liberal pundits do not like FACTS and LOGIC as opposed to emoting and gotcha questions

First, anyone here illegally is not a law abiding person. Second, our tax money should go towards taking care of those who fought to keep this country free first instead of giving anything to people who came illegally. If it is made difficult for the those here illegally to stay, then they will leave without having to round them up. There is an impact on resources, jobs and the crime rate by having all this pity towards a group of people who have no respect for our laws or the citizens who pick up the tab for all the silliness the politicians want.

Best line of the debate —

“if Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose”
— Senator Ted Cruz

This should be the political death knell of Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina and the Amnesty Chorus.

Leftist media ONLY wanted some controversy to report – something they could use to damage/destroy one or more of the candidates.

They have ZERO interest in a substantive debate that gave viewers a chance to choose their candidate based on the issues.

Their goal is to elect Hillary, and nothing happened in the debate that would help them do that. So, yawn.

“Political Media Lament “Dryness” of Fox Business Republican Presidential Debate”

Maybe there’s a reason why so few people trust them.