Ten million less than the first two*; mind you, the first two weren’t playing opposite the World Series and were available online via free streaming. You have to wonder whether or not CNBC is relieved that they didn’t make that aforementioned dumpster fire of a debate freely available: on the one hand, if they had then more people would have watched CNBC that night. On the other hand, if they had then more people would have watched CNBC that night. On the gripping hand, CNBC should probably enjoy their record numbers and/or ad revenue from last night, because it’s going to be a cold day in Perdition before the GOP will let them host another one. Continue reading CNBC Dumpster Fire Debate brings in 14 million viewers.
Instead of being a chance for the Republican candidates to debate each other, the CNBC debate ended up pitting the candidates in a debate against the mainstream media.
And that’s what was awesome about it.
I take a very pragmatic view of debates: will what happened cost my party votes in the general election? And the answer here is an unequivocal ‘no.’ We had a lot of good video clip fodder yesterday, and it was all of Republicans smashing smug media idiots right in the metaphorical chops. And, as Robert Tracinski went on to note in that article: the media hates the Republican party, and wants us to die in a fire. Best that our candidates get practice in dealing with that early.
The entertaining thing about this is that Ben Cardin is in fact pretty much a useless waste of a Senator.
Seriously, the guy’s been in Congress since 1987 (the Senate since 2007), and he’s done pretty much nothing. Which is pretty much why CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo ripped into him for doing nothing but repeating the same stupid talking points about taxing the rich over and over and over again and never actually doing anything to solve the problem because Cardin doesn’t think that he has to. Newsbusters grades her performance a little harshly, I think: while I agree that the Media’s been ignoring that the Democrats have been one-note wonders on fiscal issues (and that the Media’s ignoring our horrific spending problem), I also believe in positive feedback. The goal is to get more of this, after all.
— RB (@RBPundit) December 24, 2012
‘Coconut,’ for those lucky enough to have missed it up to this point, is a derogatory racial epithet hurled against dark-skinned individuals deemed insufficiently ‘authentic.’ It suggests that the individual in question is ‘brown on the outside, white on the inside.’ When used by someone of the same ethnic identity as the slurred individual, it takes on the additional connotation of ‘race traitor;’ when used by someone of Caucasian ancestry, it typically represents an opportunity to express racial hatreds in a socially acceptable manner. The Other Side has, shall we say, a history of such things; and if we ever have that full and frank discussion of race that’s been promised the first question that I plan to ask is going to be about precisely why this is acceptable behavior among them.
About the only thing mitigating this exercise in public racism is that it appeared on the Joy Behar show, which means that almost nobody saw it anyway.
PS: Don’t get mad. Get even.
Crossposted to RedState.