the Senator Ted Cruz whinge about the toughness of the questions posed by the CNBC moderators and making this a stand against CNBC's parent company, NBC. For one thing, a good argument could be made that questions were tough, but fair, and not appreciably different than questions at the previous GOP and Democratic debates. And for another--why should you make these primaries a cakewalk for these not-ready-for-prime-time buggers if the general election then proves to be a minefield?
The optics of blaming the moderators solely for the shitshow made of the Republican field is a failure to own up to the reality that it consists of three outsiders, and an assortment of part-time grifting Hackenstein Monsters. They sort of are politicians, when they aren't self-promoting. They are post-government. They have policies stitched together from other pols that have gone on that they mean to charge with their own electricity. But their complaint is--don't ask us hard questions: great. So, if you find the questions hard to stomach, what about when you are dealing with real-life situations?
Whimper because Vladimir Putin's tone is too harsh? Complain because the Ayatollah seems kind of biased against you?
What's Donald Trump going to do when he gets the 3 AM phone call? Ignore it because he has something more important on the other line? What's Ted Cruz going to do under pressure--blame someone else when he's supposed to be the guy in charge?
That's not presidential--it's bush league (yeah, pun intended).
Dr. Carson suggested that the debates are a way to "get to know" the candidates better. Bullshit--it's a job interview. And if you suck at the job interview, why are we going to expect you to be somehow good at the job?
Showing a disdain for "lamestream" media might appeal to the base that still thinks Sarah Palin was a great idea, but for actual mainstream Americans, this desire to stay in the bubble, black out the view from the outside, and then just project a fantasy is not going to be good for the general election. By absenting themselves from the mainstream, they invite the media to make the most of their absence by fact-checking without a well-publicized rejoinder. I invite NBC to respond to this hissy fit by doing a couple hours on the candidates without them there to answer. It could be very illuminating. Pros stay in the limelight so they can deny, deflect, dismiss, and disinform. That's the game.
In short--Priebus is basically calling out NBC because he's aware of the weakness of the "derp bench". But what benefit is there in coddling this sorry set of eggs?