Video: Megyn Kelly blows up Rubio and Cruz with past statements about amnesty

posted at 1:21 pm on January 29, 2016 by Allahpundit

This deserves its own thread, even with the debate now in the rearview mirror. Over at Politico, Michael Grunwald can’t believe Trump’s two most formidable rivals for the nomination just got nuked, in Iowa, on the biggest hot-button of ’em all, by Trump’s media arch-nemesis.

The star of the show was Kelly, the allegedly anti-Trump “lightweight” who devoted an entire segment to shredding Rubio and Cruz over immigration. She began by airing several video clips of Rubio promising to oppose “amnesty” when he ran for Senate in 2010, at one point arguing that “earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” She then pointed out that in the Senate, Rubio helped lead the push for a bill that included an earned path to citizenship.

“Haven’t you already proven that you cannot be trusted on this issue?” Kelly asked…

Cruz once filed an amendment to Rubio’s bill that would have created a path to “legalization,” but he has argued that it was really a poison pill designed to kill reform. Last night, though, Kelly effectively quashed that argument, playing several clips of Cruz insisting that he did want reform to pass. “Was that all an act?” Kelly asked him. “It was pretty convincing!” After Cruz flailed around for a few minutes, arguing that it was unfair for Kelly to focus on 38 words in a 1000-page bill, Kelly turned to Rand Paul, yet another frequent target of Trump’s barbs. “Senator Paul, you know how Washington works,” she said. “Do you buy that?”…

To recap: Megyn Kelly, derided by Trump as a vapid Trump-basher, along with Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, derided by Trump as pathetic losers, led the attacks on Trump’s leading competitors. And in the process, they helped remind Republican primary voters worried about immigration that Bush, Paul, Rubio and Cruz have all supported versions of “amnesty.” Of course, Trump was conveniently absent, so he didn’t have to field any tough questions about his own inconsistencies on immigration or other issues, from Kelly or anyone else.

The last line is the most amazing part. There is indeed plenty of material available for a Trump amnesty montage, from him scolding Romney in 2012 for being “mean-spirited” on immigration to allegedly telling a group of DREAMers in 2013 that they’d convinced him to once insisting there has to be a “path” of some sort for illegals to the stupid touchback amnesty he currently wants to do once he’s finished deporting everyone. (One of his choicer soundbites on immigration from the past is currently starring in a brutal ad being aired in Iowa by an anti-Trump Super PAC.) Given how they’d prepared for Rubio and Cruz, there’s every reason to think Kelly and Fox had also prepared a segment where they’d force Trump to eat his words on immigration too. And that might have hurt him: Rubio and Cruz have spent the past few months ventilating each other’s immigration liabilities but Trump has skated until recently, his reputation as the great populist avenger who’s finally going to crack down on illegals intact. Once he decided to skip the debate, though, Fox couldn’t air his immigration lowlight reel; it would have been unfair to accuse him of phoniness on an issue this important without him having a chance to respond. The choice for Kelly and Fox was whether to cashier the bloc of questions to Rubio and Cruz too or to interrogate them on immigration, even though it would give Trump an advantage. They chose the second option. How come?

Partly, I think, it’s just good journalistic practice. Trump not being there shouldn’t mean that Rubio and Cruz get a pass. They showed up boasting that, unlike “Donald Duck,” they were prepared to handle tough questions. Great. They got some. But I’m sure Kelly also relished the opportunity to hold their feet to the fire because it undercuts Trump’s endless dopey whining that she’s a “lightweight” who’s in the tank for other candidates. The last thing you’d expect from a moderator who’s supposedly biased against a candidate is her turning the screws on his two biggest competitors on a momentous issue four days before the vote — so that’s what Kelly did. One theory that was floating around yesterday was that Fox was all-in for Rubio because the Fox executive in charge of the debate has a daughter who works for him. Fast-forward to the debate and here’s Fox’s biggest star confronting Rubio with the same killer soundbite about an “earned path to citizenship” that I’ve cited in about a hundred posts criticizing Rubio’s immigration record. Tough questions must be asked of the other candidates, even if doing so benefits Trump, so Kelly asked. She won’t get a lick of respect for that from Trump’s fans, who need her as a scapegoat on Monday night in case things go sideways in Iowa, but professionalism is its own reward.

Two footnotes here. One: If you’re looking for evidence that Jeb’s “kill Rubio” strategy really is more about ruining Rubio’s chances than about passing him in New Hampshire, watch Bush’s response in the first clip. This isn’t the first time he’s attacked Rubio for “cutting and running” on amnesty in contrast to himself, a proud proponent of legalization. In a populist climate, count on Jeb to give the most establishment answer possible so long as it wounds Rubio in some way. Two: After you’re done watching the Cruz clip, go watch Kelly’s interview with him after the debate in which she admits that his record shows he didn’t support legalization in 2013. Er, the whole point of the video montage at the debate was to suggest to voters that he did support it. If the moderator herself thinks that a montage is misleading, why run it?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rubio sounds just like he did when he ran for the senate. What an untrustworthy opportunist, liar, and backstabber he is.

jaime on January 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Joseph K on January 29, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:14 PM

C’mon folks. I’m a Trump voter but it hurts me to see the alienation between Trump and Cruz groupies. Ted Cruz is not without a flaw but he’s head and shoulders better than the rest of the pack.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Awwwww, how cute.

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Have at it, dude, defending your fellow liberal Bleedy Blondy bravely against keyboard warriors. Too bad she won’t know about it, so you’ll have to limit your activities to wan… eh, I mean tanking.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:11 PM

1) Sock — CHECK
2) Liberal — CHECK
3) Masturb(eh) — CHECK
4) Self-described “keyboard warrior” — CHECK

You’re doing well so far…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM

C’mon folks. I’m a Trump voter but it hurts me to see the alienation between Trump and Cruz groupies. Ted Cruz is not without a flaw but he’s head and shoulders better than the rest of the pack.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

I like Cruz too, and Paul as well.

Only three that I could vote for; Cruz was really growing on me but he made a few bad moves lately.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Rubio sounds just like he did when he ran for the senate. What an untrustworthy opportunist, liar, and backstabber he is.

jaime on January 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM

You say that like it’s a bad thing. ;)

They’re politicians. If you didn’t want such a person, well… Romney’s not running. And Bernie’s nuts.

Cap. Louis Renault award.

Prufrock on January 29, 2016 at 3:21 PM

1) Sock — CHECK
2) Liberal — CHECK
3) Masturb(eh) — CHECK
4) Self-described “keyboard warrior” — CHECK

You’re doing well so far…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM

I seem to remember some pretty harsh language against Palin last week after she endorsed Trump, did you also have a problem with that?

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Maybe Cruz and Rubio should start tweeting how awful and unfair Megyn is and how she must be bleeding. Oh, but maybe they’re mature enough to answer the question and deal with it.

Tater Salad on January 29, 2016 at 3:22 PM

I’m a 20 year vet. What’s the sum of your public service? Or you just a moron who pays lip service to vets like your Billionaire Skinflint.

I’m sure you are. Just like everyone on the internet are doctors, lawyers, busy people in here between clients.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Trump gave a YUGE $1M to vets last night from his own pocket, a point he emphasized over and again.

He did not, I watched the event in it’s entirety you hack.

That’s not even 1/10 of 1% of his net worth. No surprise. The Billionaire Skinflint has never done much for vets despite all his high falutin rhetoric.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/#744de3646c9e

Dan333 on January 29, 2016 at 3:03 PM

HOW DARE HE DONATE MONEY. I WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNLESS HE DONATED EVERY LAST DOLLAR HE HAS OR HE IS A VETERAN HATER.

IN FACT HE SHOULD BURN ALL SIX MILLION DOLLARS HE FRAUDULENTLY RAISED FOR THE CHARITIES BECAUSE IT WAS TRUMP MONEY AND HE’S ONLY DOING IT FOR POLITICS, YEAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:22 PM

Trump shown to be 100% correct about Kelly and Fox. Brilliant move skipping the debate on his part. Wish Cruz has followed suit. Instead he tried to score political points by taking what he had to have known was the wrong side in this fight. Never side with the media!

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Is “punching” a “byetch” also “cute”?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM

If it’s Rosie O’Donnell.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Tucker Carlson on Trump

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361269.php

Tucker Carlson: Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right

I saw this yesterday but didn’t put it up because it’s so persuasive people will take my linking it as an actual endorsement.

I’m not endorsing Trump by posting this. But it’s a hell of a piece.

It is.

Odds on Ed or AP posting it ???

gh on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

That was a big favor to Rubio. I’m guessing that most Rubio supporters have already baked in the Gang of 8 and decided that they can live with it. Cruz, OTOH cannot allow Trump to get to right of him on immigration b/c if he does, Cruz has nowhere else to go. A Trump win and a strong 3rd in IA for Rubio means that Cruz is in trouble.

Lou Budvis on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

Cruz supporters silent today …Mouths full of CROW

dio55 on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

I like Cruz too, and Paul as well.

Only three that I could vote for; Cruz was really growing on me but he made a few bad moves lately.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Same here. Paul is kinda lagging, being such a bad campaigner and sucking up to the GOP brass, but he’s still solid on many key issues and better than the rest on the Fed. Cruz was my second choice since Trump entered the field, and was giving him a pretty tight run until some facts started to emerge lately. Of others, I might have considered Carson – with a powerful dose of hard liquor to soothe the nerves – but it’s a moot issue now. As for others, they aren’t worth the five minutes walk to the voting place.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

If it’s Rosie O’Donnell.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM

LOL

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM

That’s what I’d like to know. Are the most vociferousy nasty Trumpsters like that in real life, with women and their neighbors?

Misha on January 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM

I want to know how you in real life live with yourself, voting for people you call “baby killers.”

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM

gh on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

It was in the headlines, outstanding from Carlson.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM

That’s what I’d like to know. Are the most vociferousy nasty Trumpsters like that in real life, with women and their neighbors?

Misha on January 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM

I can’t say for vociferous or nasty ones but I’m not complaining. But I noticed that women are very high on your concern list. Missing some action, huh?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:28 PM

As far those from the M.E. countries it is impossible to do ANY type of background checks.

g2825m on January 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM

That really is another major thing about Cruz that bothers me, that Cruz rejects Trump’s Muslim ban.

What is Cruz thinking? Who is he trying to appeal to? It would have been so easy for Cruz to say “yes, Trump has a good idea there” but instead no.

Same with Trump’s proposal to deport all the illegal aliens. Cruz rejects that and instead talks about “jackboots” as if he’s some sort of RonPaulBot.

I still think there’s time for Cruz to change his positions now, on Muslim immigration and deportation. It would really help Cruz, and give him a chance of winning, if not in Iowa, then down the line.

I really like some things about Cruz, like the way he stood up last night against ethanol subsidies even in the face of the Iowa governor being right there. But the deal breaker is his immigration positions, and it has nothing to do with whether Cruz’s 2013 legalization amendment was a poison pill or not. It’s about Cruz’s current positions. Why doesn’t Cruz change those two unpopular positions???

anotherJoe on January 29, 2016 at 3:28 PM

I use Chrome, “Chromodo” (a derivative of Chrome, put out by the Comodo Firewall people), and IE 11 for email, and other browsing in general.
listens2glenn on January 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM

A Chrome derivative I sometimes use is “Iron”. The problem for me with Chrome and derivatives is the plugins-addons aren’t all what they could/should be. For instance, the “Chromies” support the Video Downloadhelper addon, but it disables it on Youtube.
(Though there are easier ways to search and download YouTube vids without even going to the site, so that’s not a big problem).

whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Misha, for some Trumpsters, the only “women” in their lives are the blow-up dolls they regularly abuse.

Dan333 on January 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM

Yeah, that’ll show ’em! Those damn Trumpsters!

darwin on January 29, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Other options too, he might block all shipments of maple syrup from his native Canada to Russia, or threaten to appoint Glenn Beck as his Canadian ambassador to Russia.

He will have a lot of options as PM.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Cruz, born near the USA, has provided a unique Canadian perspective to this primary process. He has established that Canadians are Americans too, and that we should never forget to include our friends to the north.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM

I can’t say for vociferous or nasty ones but I’m not complaining. But I noticed that women are very high on your concern list. Missing some action, huh?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:28 PM

Misha likes throwing the misogyny card around. Her deck must be getting awfully low. Time to get some new ones.

darwin on January 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM

It was in the headlines, outstanding from Carlson.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM

Thanks. I must have missed it. Found it and it has 71 comments … more entertainment.

gh on January 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM

I seem to remember some pretty harsh language against Palin last week after she endorsed Trump, did you also have a problem with that?

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Hilarious!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM

1) Sock — CHECK
2) Liberal — CHECK
3) Masturb(eh) — CHECK
4) Self-described “keyboard warrior” — CHECK

You’re doing well so far…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM

I seem to remember some pretty harsh language against Palin last week after she endorsed Trump, did you also have a problem with that?

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Absolutely, if the language crosses the line into wishing physical harm onto her and her family…If someone wishes to criticize and critique her endorsement of Trump on the merits then have at it…

If you or anyone else wishes to engage in shredding Megyn Kelly’s journalistic (or lack of) practices then by all means, have at it…

But threatening and/or wishing violence on a woman because she doesn’t seem to pay the proper amount of respect and deference to your chosen one?

Yeah…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Misha likes throwing the misogyny card around. Her deck must be getting awfully low. Time to get some new ones.

darwin on January 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM

To quote Lorax from Dr. Seuss, “That’s – a woman?!!”

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Frankly, I think Fox took the debates to new lows. It has become all about them and their fancy video montages. Irrespective of how I feel about either candidate, and I truly have no affection for Rubio, the entire hit job was disgraceful.

This wasn’t about candidates having a chance to explain their positions. It was all about Fox trying to play the same “gotcha” politics that the mainstream media does to Republicans.

Fox has become a dishonest parody of itself. If this isn’t a sign of playing political favorites, I don’t know what is.

True “neutral” journalism is dead. That includes at Fox where they’ve apparently succumbed to the same glamour-based, star-enthralled, self-absorbed editorializing they’ve long accused their rivals of playing.

Megyn Kelly is just some weak-ass, second rate lawyer from a sub-par law school who wields anger as if it were a substitute for intellectually reached, well-formed conclusions. It is nothing of the sort. In fact it is quite the converse and this three ring circus last night is a monument to their dishonesty.

Ultimately, I want to see the candidates, hear them speak, hear them challenge each other and personally explain their positions. I don’t want to see a bunch of “C” students who like to fancy themselves as stars, stroke their own egos by creating crafty videos comprised of clips without context, only to make themselves look superior and put candidates on the defensive. It does nothing to inform me about the candidates and is simply a sine qua non of their personal vanity.

Marcus Traianus on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Absolutely, if the language crosses the line into wishing physical harm onto her and her family…If someone wishes to criticize and critique her endorsement of Trump on the merits then have at it…

If you or anyone else wishes to engage in shredding Megyn Kelly’s journalistic (or lack of) practices then by all means, have at it…

But threatening and/or wishing violence on a woman because she doesn’t seem to pay the proper amount of respect and deference to your chosen one?

Yeah…

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

I thought you proggies were all about man-woman equality.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM

Cruz, born near the USA, has provided a unique Canadian perspective to this primary process. He has established that Canadians are Americans too, and that we should never forget to include our friends to the north.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM

Canada gives citizenship to pretty much anyone. You’re probably a Canadian and don’t even know it.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM

She began by airing several video clips…

The most devastating of the clips — but inexplicably left out of the montage — was a split-screen showing Cruz spouting his teenage riff about “world domination” and opposite him The Brain from the hit ’90s cartoon show “Pinky and The Brain” spouting the identical lines about “world domination.”

Megyn Kelly’s intent, I’m told from inside-Fox sources, was to establish that Cruz is a plagiarist (because he can’t come up with an original thought), a loser (because he watched cartoons as a teenager), and a cheap Orson Welles knock-off (because that’s what The Brain was in the cartoon series and obviously Cruz identifies with The Brain).

FlameWarrior on January 29, 2016 at 3:35 PM

Hilarious!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Last week every other post about Palin was, “she’s a whore”, “yeah agreed same w/ her daughter”, “yeah the caribou barbie shouldnt have blamed her son’s actions on PTSD, I wouldn’t have done that what a bad parent”, etc. etc.

Seemed a little personal and more harsh than attack on Kelly, who is pretty harsh herself (with the GOP nominees, not with Michael Moore, Rachel Mancow, etc.)

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

I thought you proggies were all about man-woman equality.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM

“..proggies..? Is that some off-shoot of ‘Frogger’?

“Punching” a “beytch” or “skank” in your circle denotes equality, then?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:38 PM

If you or anyone else wishes to engage in shredding Megyn Kelly’s journalistic (or lack of) practices then by all means, have at it…

Looks like she put her hair through a shredder, that’s my problem with the young lady.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Seemed a little personal and more harsh than attack on Kelly, who is pretty harsh herself (with the GOP nominees, not with Michael Moore, Rachel Mancow, etc.)

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM

CoC-sucking socks are easy to identify. They are all registered in 2014, post 1-2 comments a month until recently (thank you, Google), and never praise or discuss their own candidate, just attack other candidates or comments supporting them.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Looks like she put her hair through a shredder, that’s my problem with the young lady.

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM

A “Flowbee” comes to mind for some reason….

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM

listens2glenn on January 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM

.
A Chrome derivative I sometimes use is “Iron”. The problem for me with Chrome and derivatives is the plugins-addons aren’t all what they could/should be. For instance, the “Chromies” support the Video Downloadhelper addon, but it disables it on Youtube.
(Though there are easier ways to search and download YouTube vids without even going to the site, so that’s not a big problem).
.
whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:29 PM

.
I understand the “download” functions being disabled on youtube, with Chrome, and it’s derivatives.
.
With youtube I “split” the duties/functions this way; I use Chrome to watch or play youtube videos, but I (successfully) use Firefox to download youtube videos.

Lately, I have not been able to get youtube vids to “play” on any browser, except Chrome.

Don’t know why … Flashplayer is ALWAYS up-to-date, on my computer.

listens2glenn on January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM

“Punching” a “beytch” or “skank” in your circle denotes equality, then?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:38 PM

You have a problem with that?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM

But threatening and/or wishing violence on a woman because she doesn’t seem to pay the proper amount of respect and deference to your chosen one?
tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Well, I can change that in a hurry.

i.e., Aww, shuddup! and untwist your knickers.

whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Tucker Carlson on Trump

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361269.php

Tucker Carlson: Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right

I saw this yesterday but didn’t put it up because it’s so persuasive people will take my linking it as an actual endorsement.

I’m not endorsing Trump by posting this. But it’s a hell of a piece.

It is.

Odds on Ed or AP posting it ???

gh on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

Thanks for the read. I’d missed that one. Because. You know. Tucker Carlson.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM

“Punching” a “beytch” or “skank” in your circle denotes equality, then?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:38 PM

You have a problem with that?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM

Physical violence against a woman? Absolutely.

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Well, I can change that in a hurry.

i.e., Aww, shuddup! and untwist your knickers.

whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Using Reagan is a low blow (pun intended).

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:47 PM

Physical violence against a woman? Absolutely.

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Let’s discuss. Mommy issues?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:47 PM

Physical violence against a woman? Absolutely.

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Let’s discuss. Mommy issues?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:47 PM

You do?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:49 PM

You do?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Women? Yeah.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:50 PM

Come on AP, would it really kill you to just admit that Trump was absolutely brilliant in dodging the ambush they set for him?

Paperclips on January 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Come on AP, would it really kill you to just admit that Trump was absolutely brilliant in dodging the ambush they set for him?

Paperclips on January 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM

He probably does, but this admission won’t pay his mortgage or his cats’ food.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM

Physical violence against a woman? Absolutely.

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Let’s discuss. Mommy issues?

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:47 PM

You do?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:49 PM

You do?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Women? Yeah.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:50 PM

So, how many “skanks” have you punched YTD?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM

Absolutely, if the language crosses the line into wishing physical harm onto her and her family…If someone wishes to criticize and critique her endorsement of Trump on the merits then have at it…

If you or anyone else wishes to engage in shredding Megyn Kelly’s journalistic (or lack of) practices then by all means, have at it…

But threatening and/or wishing violence on a woman because she doesn’t seem to pay the proper amount of respect and deference to your chosen one?

Yeah…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Are you being terrorizationed by him?

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM

Trump shown to be 100% correct about Kelly and Fox.

True, but she (and they) has been tipping her hand for so long now, it was already blatant. :)

Brilliant move skipping the debate on his part. Wish Cruz has followed suit. Instead he tried to score political points by taking what he had to have known was the wrong side in this fight.

Weaselly Ted’s ego wouldn’t let allow him to skip.

Never side with the media!

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM

Always good advice! :D

And as I said, SJW Megyn has been tipping her hand openly.

She’s an advocate more than she is professional, an unqualified debate moderator… It’s more than fair to call her a bimbo. And I’ll go further and state that her megalomania indicates she is mentally ill, quite similar to Glenn Beck.

Anti-ControI on January 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM

Canada gives citizenship to pretty much anyone. You’re probably a Canadian and don’t even know it.

besser tot als rot on January 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM

I probably am!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:56 PM

Last week every other post about Palin was, “she’s a whore”, “yeah agreed same w/ her daughter”, “yeah the caribou barbie shouldnt have blamed her son’s actions on PTSD, I wouldn’t have done that what a bad parent”, etc. etc.

Of course tanked59 said that.

Consistency is not this troll’s strong suit.

Seemed a little personal and more harsh than attack on Kelly, who is pretty harsh herself (with the GOP nominees, not with Michael Moore, Rachel Mancow, etc.)

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Well at least with Rachel Maddow, Kelly has ulterior motives.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:58 PM

So, how many “skanks” have you punched YTD?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM

It’s a long list. We can discuss copying fee privately. Now go back to the basement and keep polishing your, ahem, armor.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

With youtube I “split” the duties/functions this way; I use Chrome to watch or play youtube videos, but I (successfully) use Firefox to download youtube videos.

Lately, I have not been able to get youtube vids to “play” on any browser, except Chrome.

Don’t know why … Flashplayer is ALWAYS up-to-date, on my computer.

listens2glenn on January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Youtube uses html5 a lot on the videos instead of flash. But if you’re using Windows or Linux get:
SMPlayer (32 bit works on 64bit)
http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/en/downloads

(Best video player ever, even discounting the youtube abilities)

After that’s installed, download and install:
SMTube
http://sourceforge.net/projects/smplayer/files/SMTube/16.1.0
(Browses/searches Youtube and plays the selected vid in SMPlayer)

Test it out.

If you want to download Youtube videos, then:
Download and install Uget –
http://ugetdm.com/downloads

And follow these instructions on setting it up:
http://blog.smplayer.info/how-to-download-videos-with-the-new-smtube

With any program, if you’re asked when installing “Do you also want to install blah-blah=blah” say “nope”.

whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

CoC-sucking socks are easy to identify. They are all registered in 2014, post 1-2 comments a month until recently (thank you, Google), and never praise or discuss their own candidate, just attack other candidates or comments supporting them.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM

Most of the attacks come from other conservatives…if you support Romney, than they have spent the last several weeks attacking Perry…If you support Perry, than you have spent the last couple of weeks attacking Cain, and Romney…
These are people who think that the only way to promote their candidate is to take down other candidates, probably because they know that who they are supporting doesn’t have fresh ideas, doesn’t have a real plan, and quite frankly, they are probably slipping in the poles.

right2bright on October 4, 2011 at 1:26 AM

right2bright denounces herself and the anti-Trumps.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 4:01 PM

Last week every other post about Palin was, “she’s a whore”, “yeah agreed same w/ her daughter”, “yeah the caribou barbie shouldnt have blamed her son’s actions on PTSD, I wouldn’t have done that what a bad parent”, etc. etc.

Of course tanked59 said that.

Consistency is not this troll’s strong suit.

Seemed a little personal and more harsh than attack on Kelly, who is pretty harsh herself (with the GOP nominees, not with Michael Moore, Rachel Mancow, etc.)

Redstone on January 29, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Well at least with Rachel Maddow, Kelly has ulterior motives.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 3:58 PM

“Of course tanked59 said that.”…Said what? Care to link to any comment(s) where I said any of those things?

“Troll”? I dunno, I’ve been a member here since November ’08…How ’bout you?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM

What’s a divorce disposition?

fossten on January 29, 2016 at 2:15 PM

The expression on Carly Fiorina’s face.

Joseph K on January 29, 2016 at 2:22 PM

That’s not a divorce disposition–it’s grounds.

Barnestormer on January 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM

So, how many “skanks” have you punched YTD?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM


It’s a long list
. We can discuss copying fee privately. Now go back to the basement and keep polishing your, ahem, armor.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

Of course it is.

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM

So, how many “skanks” have you punched YTD?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM

It’s a long list. We can discuss copying fee privately. Now go back to the basement and keep polishing your, ahem, armor.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

I cannot see the videos now – my wife is snoring next to me – but I’ll watch them tomorrow …

Rix on January 27, 2016 at 11:54 PM

Haha.

Gelsomina on January 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM

So, how many “skanks” have you punched YTD?

wanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM

It’s a long list. We can discuss copying fee privately. Now go back to the basement and keep polishing your, ahem, armor.

Rix on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

I cannot see the videos now – my wife is snoring next to me – but I’ll watch them tomorrow …

Rix on January 27, 2016 at 11:54 PM

Haha.

Gelsomina on January 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM

Hilarious!

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:11 PM

“Of course tanked59 said that.”…Said what? Care to link to any comment(s) where I said any of those things?

“Troll”? I dunno, I’ve been a member here since November ’08…How ’bout you?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM

Oh you didn’t have anything to say about those calling Sarah Palin a whore, nothing people attacking her kids, nothing about Glenn Beck’s attacks on her or other commenters doing the same. You might as well have said it yourself.

But Megyn Kelly?

It’s White Knighting TIME!!!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Gelsomina on January 29, 2016

I had no idea that Michael Moriarty was an accomplished musician and composer until clicking on your name(link)…thanks.

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM

Sorry I thought it was only the left wing wackos that play got’cha politics instead of getting facts. That’s right FOX is running to the left because they got so hurt by liberals not going on their programs. They also want to get a general election debate so they know they have got to go liberal. Only moderator on the panel last night that wasn’t full left wing propagandist was Bret Bair. Chris Wallace is a lefty just like his father and Megyn Kelly has shown her true leanings. The one that surprised me the most is O’Reilly but to him money is money to hel* with the truth and the country. So you will start seeing more of and less of Amb. Bolton. Maybe she likes them big.

pwb on January 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM

Of course tanked59 said that.”…Said what? Care to link to any comment(s) where I said any of those things?

“Troll”? I dunno, I’ve been a member here since November ’08…How ’bout you?

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM

Oh you didn’t have anything to say about those calling Sarah Palin a whore, nothing people attacking her kids, nothing about Glenn Beck’s attacks on her or other commenters doing the same. You might as well have said it yourself.

But Megyn Kelly?

It’s White Knighting TIME!!!

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 4:13 PM

So the upshot is you cannot find anything to support your initial assertion, ‘eh? Kinda’ hard to do when it doesn’t exist in the first place…

Open mouth, insert foot…

Nice recovery try though…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Trump was smart enough to not walk into a rigged ambush and Cruz was not. And that my friends is the ball game. Started out this cycle in the cruz ,walker, Paul camp but Trump has won me over completely and I now firmly believe he will be the next president of the United States and it won’t be particularly close. A guy who can neuter bill clinton in a week and turn the most powerful name in cable news into begging supplicants in 72 freaking hours is something very very new in American politics. viva la revolution

johngalt on January 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM

So the upshot is you cannot find anything to support your initial assertion, ‘eh? Kinda’ hard to do when it doesn’t exist in the first place…

Open mouth, insert foot…

Nice recovery try though…

tanked59 on January 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM

It’s all about White Knighting Megyn Kelly.

If he said that about a man, or Sarah Palin, no one who say anything. Especially you.

Just like when you never piped up about the very same commenters saying crap about her.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Well at least she hit them with something substantive this time – unlike her first question to Trump in August. That was her picking up Stephanopoulos’ “war on women” meme to kick off that first debate. We’ve already have a chauvinist in office (Bill Clinton), so what did that matter? Opinions on amnesty is a far more welcome line of questioning to them all IMHO.

GuitarSlinger on January 29, 2016 at 4:29 PM

The debates are pretty much a waste of time.

If they were more like a modified official debate where the moderator would has very specific questions on issues important to the people as revealed in polls such as the economy and ISIS being the top two.

The moderator first asks a candidate what his specific position and policy would be on an issue. Then the moderator would ask if that position or policy was not viable (e.g., Congress blocks it) what would be his alterantive.

I’m very tired of candidates being allow to rehash their own talking points, trash other candidates, and ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the questions.

I didn’t learn anything new in the debate that I haven’t heard before in the media or that I haven’t researched on my own.

BMF on January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Cruz and Rubio both suck on immigration.

Someone needs to ask Cruz to justify welcoming illegal children with teddy bears and soccer balls under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Valiant on January 29, 2016 at 4:54 PM

Based on post-debate revelation by Megyn Kelly, the clips were misleading and out of (the broadest) context. Kelly says, after investigation, Cruz has been perfectly consistent and never flip-flopped (but she showed the clips anyways!)

But what can Cruz say except “Sessions and King know all this and support me.”? He can’t say, “these clips don’t show I’m for legalization, they only show me scheming and showing contempt for Rubio and Democrats by just telling them the story that they want to hear. I hid the the truth from them because their betrayal on amnesty showed they were not worthy of the truth.” He would be on record as knowingly telling a lie, even if for a greater cause, so he can’t do it. As for me, I give him a pass. It was a desperate time, deserving of extreme measures.

G. Charles on January 29, 2016 at 5:00 PM

Cruz supporters silent today …Mouths full of CROW

dio55 on January 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM

I’m a Cruz supporter. I didn’t watch the debates, nor did I watch Trump’s vanity event. I won’t vote for Trump. Rubio is too far back to catch up to Cruz in my personal poll. Trump supporters are immune to contrary input. What exactly is there to talk about today that we haven’t already worn to a nub?

The atmosphere here has become too toxic for posting to be enjoyable.

Hope everyone has an enjoyable weekend and spends some quality time in the world.

Immolate on January 29, 2016 at 5:02 PM

right2bright denounces herself and the anti-Trumps.

NWConservative on January 29, 2016 at 4:01 PM

Your little girl tactics won’t work…if you were a man, you would understand.

When I quote Trump, you consider that “taking him down”, when I point to his record, you think that is “taking him down”.

Those are his words, not mine, that is his money flowing to democrats, he has admitted it, and is proud of it.

If you think quoting him, revealing his past, stating in fact what he believes in now is “putting him down”…then look at the candidate, not me.

He is a great entertainer, I have said that, he is a very good businessman, I have said that countless times as well.

But his policies are liberal…he does support expansion of ObamaCare, he does support subsidies, he does support Planned Parenthood, tariffs, his policy is to raise taxes on the middle class,
He has supported Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc…

If you think that is disparaging, than look at the candidate, not the person who is quoting and stating what he believes.

One of the amazing facts of this campaign…Trump supporters hate it when Trump is quoted, when his policies are revealed…they think they are so wrong, they don’t want them out in the open.

And in October of 2011 (good research, but then you are obsessed with me), Romney was being accused of not paying taxes by Reid…the person Trump was supporting…that was a lie.

Trump supporting Reid is not a lie, supporting subsidies is not a lie, supporting Planned Parenthood is not a lie, supporting Pelosi, Hillary, not a lie…and being a democrat at that time is not a lie.

Big difference, that Trump supporters don’t get…they think the truth of Trump, is the same as a lie against others.

Amazing…and they even post their stupidity as if we all don’t notice…simply amazing.

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM

I didn’t learn anything new in the debate that I haven’t heard before in the media or that I haven’t researched on my own.

BMF on January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM

But you did…Trump can’t take the heat…he knew he was going to be grilled and he ran.

So you did learn something…a blond haired journalist, whom he say means nothing, cowered him and made him run.

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM

Cruz and Rubio both suck on immigration.
Someone needs to ask Cruz to justify welcoming illegal children with teddy bears and soccer balls under the leadership of Glenn Beck.
Valiant on January 29, 2016 at 4:54 PM

Cruz supporter here:
I will intentionally step outside my normal efforts to be reasonably civil and say: Your comment epitomizes the stupidity that flows through trolls and people who make no effort to be objective.
I suppose what you are saying is that every candidate must agree 100% with everything that an “endorser” of that candidate has done or said. My guess is that whichever candidate you support does not agree with everything everyone who has endorsed your candidate has said or done.
In any event: Grow up, or read up, or get a brain.
I could not care less about whatever, if anything, you say in response. You are brain-dead to me.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 29, 2016 at 5:27 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM

The issue with you and your credibility has far less to do with your selective and yugely mendacious quoting of the Donald, and far more to do with your hypocrisy, mendacity, and perfidy when it comes to flailing about to make a cogent argument.

Only bankrupt progressives / progressive-lites determine their preferred conclusion, and then build a specious and largely vacuous case in order to ‘justify’ that case.

Of all of the amnesty / open border shills, you are probably the most pathetic in your hypocrisy towards trying to denigrate not just the candidate, but all of those who you feel have the temerity to actually support someone who doesn’t believe in amnesty and open borders.

The bottom line is that you have no credibility. You offer no persuasive or cogent and valid arguments. If not for your double standards, you’d have no standards.

It’s so ironic when an shameless amnesty shill whinges on about Trump – trying to insist that Trump is lying about opposing amnesty – when if Trump is as mendacious as you, you’d celebrate him embracing amnesty. Or the vacuous and specious argument of Trump as a liberal, when if Trump was as progressive as you, and you had a modicum of intellectual honesty, you’d celebrate someone that’s almost as progressive as HRC – or Rubio / Bush / Christie / Kasich – or a McConnell poodle like Paul.

Your posts are proof that if one gives a chimp a typewriter, paper, and time, they can spew forth hypercritical inanity. The only difference is those chimps don’t have HA log-ins yet.

Athos on January 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Also of note:
AP’s headline is false and misleading. It is hard to believe those are unintentional errors.
That is especially troublesome when, toward the bottom of his article, AP points out Kelly’s perfidy on this subject, but nevertheless goes with his own misleading headline.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 29, 2016 at 6:41 PM

Your posts are proof that if one gives a chimp a typewriter, paper, and time, they can spew forth hypercritical inanity. The only difference is those chimps don’t have HA log-ins yet.

Athos on January 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Oh look, the big mean keyboard warrior flexing his typing muscle.

As I attack candidates with their own words, you scramble and attack the poster.

Try defending Trump for wanting subsidies, for supporting Hillary, Reid, Planned Parenthood…

Because you can be a tough guy on a computer…rather than a smart guy on a computer.

While I am posting policy, I have to deal with your guys throwing out your personal attacks…

You should really try defending Trump…but then, maybe you can’t.

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 7:40 PM

The bottom line is that you have no credibility. You offer no persuasive or cogent and valid arguments.
Athos on January 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM

And allow me to answer this.

You are right, to you I offer no persuasive argument…

You want subsidies, you want to support Reid, you want to support Planned Parenthood, you want to raise taxes on the middle class, you want to do what Trump wants to do.

And that’s fine, just say “you are wrong, I do support those things, I am a closet liberal”…don’t attack me for what Trump has said, you agree with them argue why increasing ObamaCare is valid, why the bail outs was the right thing to do, how really good Reid actually is, how Pelosi is a good strong leader…defend him.

But instead you attack me…but then you saying I don’t have any arguments of worth, means that you disagree with me, and side with all of the liberal statements and policies Trump supports.

And good for you to admit you are a liberal, I wish more would do what you do and just come out and admit it.

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 7:44 PM

At first I missed the word,”up”.

Mason on January 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM

whatcat on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM

.
I just got back to the thread, and got your 3:59 PM comment.
.
Thank you very much. I’ve downloaded them all, and will shortly install them.

listens2glenn on January 29, 2016 at 8:12 PM

Mason on January 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM

Luntz handled that.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 29, 2016 at 8:22 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 7:44 PM

Your projection is as pathetic as your craven lies.

Nice to know the truth hurts you.

Athos on January 29, 2016 at 11:20 PM

right2bright on January 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM

Excepting a few week flirtation with Carly Fiorina, you have not been supporting a candidate.

You. exist. to. attack. Donald. Trump.

You have moved so far off the deep end you have become a parody of yourself. Which is why I posted that quote.

And it is not just you, so many people here have become caricatures of themselves with their endless hatestreams on Donald Trump it has frankly become great entertainment.

NWConservative on January 30, 2016 at 12:14 AM

tl;dr all but these caught my eye.

Two: After you’re done watching the Cruz clip, go watch Kelly’s interview with him after the debate in which she admits that his record shows he didn’t support legalization in 2013. Er, the whole point of the video montage at the debate was to suggest to voters that he did support it. If the moderator herself thinks that a montage is misleading, why run it?

Gee, I wonder why?

The debates are pretty much a waste of time.

I’m very tired of candidates being allow to rehash their own talking points, trash other candidates, and ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the questions.

I didn’t learn anything new in the debate
that I haven’t heard before in the media or that I haven’t researched on my own.

BMF on January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Indeed.
BTW, Breitbart today and yesterday had several stories casting some suspicion on Fox’s “impartiality credentials” — too many to link, but they are easy to find. Murdoch, Open-borders, daughter of exec working for Rubio, and Luntz working for Rubio (I don’t take that one too seriously; he works for anyone who pays).

Frankly, I think Fox took the debates to new lows. It has become all about them and their fancy video montages. Irrespective of how I feel about either candidate, and I truly have no affection for Rubio, the entire hit job was disgraceful.

This wasn’t about candidates having a chance to explain their positions. It was all about Fox trying to play the same “gotcha” politics that the mainstream media does to Republicans.

Fox has become a dishonest parody of itself. If this isn’t a sign of playing political favorites, I don’t know what is.

True “neutral” journalism is dead. That includes at Fox where they’ve apparently succumbed to the same glamour-based, star-enthralled, self-absorbed editorializing they’ve long accused their rivals of playing.


Ultimately, I want to see the candidates, hear them speak, hear them challenge each other and personally explain their positions. I don’t want to see a bunch of “C” students who like to fancy themselves as stars, stroke their own egos by creating crafty videos comprised of clips without context, only to make themselves look superior and put candidates on the defensive. It does nothing to inform me about the candidates and is simply a sine qua non of their personal vanity.

Marcus Traianus on January 29, 2016 at 3:33 PM

I got the distinct feeling that the moderators thought they were the stars of the show, and everyone wanted to hear them talk.
And I hated the way they cut off candidates to “move on” as if they were shouting down toddlers at the store.
I would rather hear what the CANDIDATES had to say.
And Kelley’s arguments with the speakers had an unhealthy resemblance to Candy Crowley and her transcript.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/29/red-alert-fox-debates-gotcha-video-is-sign-of-media-sucker-punches-to-come/

Video is the most powerful propaganda weapon ever conceived, and not only is the use of gotcha-video in a presidential debate highly prejudicial and subjective, a debate setting is not the proper venue for any sort of gotcha question.

Save the cheap gotchas for interviews. Debates are about issues, the differences between the candidates, and the differences with one another that they wish to highlight.

Fox’s destructive precedent of using gotcha-video needs to be strangled in the crib. The candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, should come together and put an immediate stop to the use of this misleading nonsense.

Note how Fox News used its powerful gotcha-video against only two candidates, and not all seven. …

Now just try to imagine the video the anti-Trump Fox News had in store for The Donald. …

Anyone else want to question Trump’s decision to walk away from “a bad deal?”

Gotcha debate questions are bad enough. Interview questions at a debate are bad enough. The use of selective video could further poison a process already poisoned by biased, show-boating moderators.


Every election season, the elite media, and that includes Fox News, uses every insidious trick at its disposal to hijack the electoral process; to bend it to its will in order to affect the outcome. It is corrupt, unethical, and un-American.

In their endless bag of tricks, the Establishment Throne-Sniffers have come up with their latest — attack ads in the midst of a presidential debate.

This is an unconscionable media tactic and needs to immediately stop.

AesopFan on January 30, 2016 at 12:17 AM

The debates are pretty much a waste of time.

BMF on January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Yup.

Kenosha Kid on January 30, 2016 at 1:17 AM

Er, the whole point of the video montage at the debate was to suggest to voters that he did support it. If the moderator herself thinks that a montage is misleading, why run it?

Professionalism. Right Ed?

captnjoe on January 30, 2016 at 8:57 AM

This shows exactly why Donald Trump was wise to skip the debate. Kelly had kill-shots designed to blow out the top three candidates. Who does that benefit? Jeb Bush. currently languishing in the single digits. When Trump cancelled, Fox couldn’t resist pulling the trigger, and nuked the second two candidates. Now Trump is pulling away with the rest of the field in shambles. He would have been foolish to show up in their kill zone.

A big portion of the institution of the modern televised political debate is the polite fiction of neutrality. The moderators were understood to be biased, but they were supposed to pretend to be neutral and keep their bias subtle and hidden. Fox has thrown that out the window with this idea of confronting the candidate with a daily-show-like montage of sentence fragments and putting the candidate on the spot. It was bad enough when Candy Crawley did it to prop up Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, but this is completely over the top. Clearly these debates need some new ground rules. It’s completely disproportionate for the moderators to be armed with edited video montages and the candidates to be given a minute or two to fight back against them.

This was not good journalism.

jms on January 30, 2016 at 9:18 AM

I had to read the headline twice to make sure I understood what she did to Rubio and Cruz.

Robbin Hood on January 30, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Funny how Allahpundit left this out: click to read

chuckh on January 30, 2016 at 11:44 AM

Video: Megyn Kelly blows up Rubio and Cruz with past statements about amnesty

Hmmmm…maybe Trump didn’t want Megyn bringing out some of the things he’s said way back.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 30, 2016 at 12:27 PM

This deserves its own thread, even with the debate now in the rearview mirror. Over at Politico, Michael Grunwald can’t believe Trump’s two most formidable rivals for the nomination just got nuked, in Iowa, on the biggest hot-button of ’em all, by Trump’s media arch-nemesis.

Had this been a real debate, and not a staged propaganda session, it would have been up to the candidates to point out the problems of other candidates they are debating.

It us not the job of a moderator to beat up the debaters

Had the attending candidates had the gonads of Trump, they would have walked from the debate the moment the FOX press release hit the fan. Instead, these mini men thought they had an opportunity to make Trump look small, and instead, walked into a trap. Bunch of stupid pigeons, lured in with trump bait

The three stooges…
OmahaConservative on January 29, 2016 at 1:24 PM

yep

Had the candidates refused to play this game, they all would have gained points and FOX would have egg on the face. But, divided they fall.

Since the jig is up, I will waste time advising them:

A spokesman should have issued a press release:

this has to stop. The job is too important for kid’s games. Give us the debate time, without moderators, and bring in a High school debate coach to man the timer and enforce the rules of debate, so we can return credibility to the format.

Any Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, Municipal judge, or Police Chaplain would also be acceptable.

Or your Mama.

we await your reply, Sincerely

entagor on January 30, 2016 at 6:18 PM

Why do Democrats “evolve” on issues, but Republicans are simply dishonest? These guys get grilled twice by Fox and the Dems won’t even man up once.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-announces-first-democratic-debate/269065

PBS hosting a Dem Debate? Seriously? Glad I could help that out with my tax dollars.

NoPain on January 31, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Yes, the lightweight finally decided it was “time”, before it caught up with her, to actually do something like this and especially to the favorite candidate of Rupert Murdoch and his illegal alien lovers.

And after HOW MANY debates did it take her to do it? Really, giving her any credit for it is ridiculous. Yes, she’s still a lightweight. A programmed and predictable lightweight at that.

memyselfni on January 31, 2016 at 7:03 PM