CNBC: Dishonest People (Debate Analysis--the Authoritative, Final Word)

Q.E.D. See the previous article. No, this was not hard. But you have to admit taht I NAILED it. It is not only that CNBC showed itself to be popultated with dishonest people (as well as economic fascists). That was always obvious.


It is that, as the previous article stated, this showed that "journalists" are dieshonest AS A CLASS. The unfair and unbalanced network clearly had no problem with this dishonesty, and AT&T/Yahooo signalled it ahead of time (without disapproval). My daughter expected it, based on what she was hearing in Boston from the "news" sources she accesses.


Q.E.D. EVERYONE, includnig themselves, knows that "journalists" (today's anyway) are fundamentally unfair and dishonest people. The unfair and unbalanced network sent a clear signal that THEY would have made sure and violate the terms of teh deate, if they had been conduting the debate. What bothers me is that "journalists" do not appear to care that EVERYONE knows thaat they are unfair, dishonest peoiple.


The debate audience clearly knew it. Cain, by the way, had a great debate. Notice how, AGAIN, this blog was proven right (IN FORESIGHT) about Rick Perry. The analysis you have gotten here, from the beginning, has been SUPERIOR to that of CNN, the unfair and unbalanced network, Rush Limbaugh, or any otther "news" outlet (or even opinion outlet) I have seen. Even recently, I told you that CNN was WRONG to suggest that this "race" for the Republican nomination was between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney--even with Cain ahead in the polls. Now CNN, of curse, may have known tha it was about to particiapate in an attempted LYNCHING of Herman Cain. But this blog corectly told you that CNN is INCOMPETENT, and that Rick Perry had no chance for the Republican nomination (no matter how much "money" he has available).


The debate shows that Cain is by no means out of this. Oh, Romney is still the odds-on favorite, and Romney again had a solid (if uninspiring) performance. Michele Bachmann did REALLY well, partially redeeming herself for a really lackluster campaign. She still remains one of the few candidates who I will actualy SUPPORT against Obama, although I do not expect her to get the nomination. I again state with confidence that the nominee will be either Cain or Romney (big edge to Romney), with Gingrich having only an outside shot. Gingrich did not "win" this debate, although he had a "media tweaking" line that was prettty clever. But Gingrich is the master of the ONE LINER. On substance, I would never vote for him (not even against Obama). The otehr candidatges took MY advice (along with the advice of many others), and stopped makng those ridiculous attacks upon one another. This made this perahps the BEST of teh debates. Cain won, Bachmann second, and Romney third. But, as usual, you could regard Romney as the "winner", because no one really laid a glove on him (not in terms of personal attacks, but by showing that someone else is a superior candidate to Romney). Romney is smooth and Presidential.. Huntsman was right. Romney is PANDERING on China (my mother loves it), but he has his "message" down solid. It is impossible to ruffle him.


Michele Bachmann was the ONLY one on stage (enough of a "win" in itself to almost declare her the "winner" of the debate) to declare the obvious: That payroll tax/Social Secruity "tax cut" is a SHAM welfare payment rather than a "tax cut"--an Obama political BIRBBE that Romney and Gingrich were too COWARDLY to be honest about. The extension of that bribe, if approved, will mean that REPUBLICANS have guaranteed that Social Security cannot fund itself, AND taht REPUBLICANS will approve more ADDITINS to the debt (requiring a greater INCREASE in the debtt ceiling next time) that Republicans have even "claimed" to have CUT. And it is not even close. We are talking aoubt 100 BILLION DOLLARS added to the debt, while Republicans "claim" to have "cut" 24 billion dolalrs from next year's spending (believe it when you see it). Bachmann ws abaolutely right (even though she did nto put it the way I ahve), and that is a reason I would still support her (and probably NOT Romney, as I prepare to walk away from the Republilican Party forever). And, o fcourse, I would still support Cain, even though Cain may have not been "bold" enough to challenge this particular WELFARE PAYMENT masquerading as a "tax cut".


Hh, CNBC. Those dishonest people--supposedly a "business" network--had Herman Cain as a guest right after the debate. Even after Cain have a GREAT prformance on his economic plan, CNBC spent HALF of the alotted time trying to talk abut those same "sexual harrassment" allegations. You just don't get any more dishonest tand partisan than the economic fascists of CNBC. I except ONLY Rick Santelli, who is the only "good guy" at CNBC. Nope. Larry Kudlow is an economic fasicts, and as dishonest as they come, even though he was RIGHT aoubt the performance of Herman Cain in this debate.


Score at lwast another TWO up for this blog (the previoius article, and this blog's consistently correct analysis of Rick Perry).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). For you Ron Paul suppporters, Ron Paul did as well as I have seen him. But I don't even try to "evaluate" a Ron Paul performance. Ron Paul is Ron Paul (good on the economy, even if the ONLY person who would dismantle more of the Federal Government than I would). Paul deserves credit for his proposal to reduce the deficit by ONE TRILLIOIN dollars immediately. See again the above paragrpah on how REPUBLICANS are seemingly in faovr of INCRFEASING the current deficit. Paul and Bachmann basically stand alone on this (and Bachmann avoids specifics)--if you don't count the invisible Gary Johnson (a Paul clone). Huntsman is hopeless, and getting LESS articulate. The meidia really is going to have to stop pushing him. Rick Santorum is doing his own "pandering" on a "zero" tax for manufacturing, and I just don't see him gong anywhere. He is NOT an impressive debater, even though he is always reasonably solid (another I would probably votge for against Obama, as I would lRon Paul, although neiter is going to be President of the United States). Thus, "my" group of candidates all did WELL: Cain, Bachmann, Paul and Santorum (the least well of the four). Too bad the only one with a chance is Cain, and you all know just how many long knives are uot for Cain (in and out of the Republican Party). You can still see why I am expecting to declare the Republican Prty dead to me, forever. Romney, tonight, brought me yet closer to that seemingly inevitable final break: final loss of all hope on my part that the Republican Party can ever really put this country on the right track.