Originally posted at CLASH Daily.
Most people seem to agree that the CNBC-moderated GOP debate proved to be less about Republican presidential hopefuls’ policy proposals and more of a glaring exhibition of brazen media bias. The partisan-driven indignation present in the way every question was posed transformed a political discussion into something just shy of hot bright-light police interrogation. The whole affair was so left-leaning, the only person missing from the moderator panel was MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry bedecked in a pair of dangling tampon earrings berating the panelists on women’s issues.
In the end, the accusatory tone and pugnacious stance of the moderators became a failed attempt to put Republican candidates on the defensive and to goad adversaries into impugning each other’s moral authority. The problem is that, as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s recent testimony concerning Benghazi, unlike the Republican candidates participating in the CNBC debate the secretary of state did not face as aggressive a panel of denigrators.
A perfect example of this double standard was when CNBC “Squawk on the Street” anchor Carl Quintanilla followed up on an answer given by esteemed former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
Immediately after failing to trip up Dr. Carson with a question about the hypocrisy of associating with homosexual groups while disapproving of same-sex marriage, Quintanilla segued into a query about the doctor’s purported link to Mannatech, a nutritional supplement company accused of making false curative claims regarding one of its products.
The unflappable Dr. Carson responded, “That’s easy to answer,” he said. “I didn’t have involvement with them. That is total propaganda.” Carson explained that his connection to Mannatech is not a business relationship and only involved his delivering a few speeches.
In predictable “gotcha” fashion, Quintanilla asked Carson why, if that was true, was his image with Mannatech’s logo used to market the questionable supplement on the company’s website? “If somebody put me on their homepage,” Carson said, “they did so without my knowledge.”
Unable to discredit Carson’s judgment for involving himself with Mannatech, Quintanilla quickly changed gears and used the “without my knowledge” statement as a springboard to question the presidential hopeful’s ability to manage those he’s responsible for overseeing.
Referring to someone placing Carson’s image alongside Mannatech’s logo on the company’s homepage without the doctor’s knowledge, Quintanilla probed, “Does that not speak to your vetting process or judgment in any way?”
The CNBC’s anchor’s absurd question/insult was met with boos from the crowd, to which Carson responded by pointing out that the audience recognized the bias and saying, “See? They know.”
Just a week prior to the GOP debate America sat through nine grueling hours of listening to Hillary Clinton implicitly absolve herself from guilt by passing blame to her security team for not responding to the cry for added security from Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi.
If Clinton had defended the men in Benghazi with a fraction of the effort she displayed while defending herself at the Benghazi hearing, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would probably be alive today. Nonetheless, Hillary testified to the committee that she was not responsible for what happened that fateful night because fall-guy security professionals in the department handled the State Department security requests.
Based on her contradictory answers, the imperious Mrs. Clinton, who claims she was well aware of the very risks she sometimes implies she was unaware existed, proved she wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked her upside the head. She said of Stevens’ requests for added security, “I did not see them. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”
Now that is a perfect example of the type of statement crying out to be challenged by the likes of Quintanilla at the next Democrat debate. After all, Hillary’s lack of hands-on involvement in securing adequate security for a frightened ambassador does speak directly to her faulty managerial skills and lack of judgment.
Quintanilla, who represents the mindset of the majority of the mainstream media, questioned Carson about his failure to check up on an anonymous graphic artist over a Photoshopped image on a website. Meanwhile, Hillary’s vetting ability goes unchallenged after she admits that the team for which she was ultimately responsible didn’t sense Americans were in danger in Libya. The result of Hillary’s vetting/judgment = four dead Americans.
Hillary did admit that Stevens did not have her personal email address and acknowledged that some of Stevens’ 600+ requests for additional security were approved while others were not. Clinton claimed that, based on her evaluation of the threat level, even though four people returned home in flag-draped coffins, “There is no doubt in [her] mind that [they] did the best [they] could with the information [they] had at the time.”
Again, someone should take note for the next Democrat debate that Hillary’s “best we could do” statement presents an opportunity for a question/assertion similar to the one Quintanilla made to Carson. How about something like this: “With all due respect Madam, seeing as your best wasn’t good enough, does that not speak to your lack of judgment and inability to fulfill the demanding role of Secretary of State? And if so, do you deserve a promotion?”
At the CNBC-hosted debate, a presidential candidate who dedicated his life to saving lives was grilled and demeaned because he accepted a speaking engagement from a company that falsely claimed without his knowledge that their “glyconutrient” heals autism and cancer.
Instead of Dr. Carson, who operates on brains, America has a smooth operator with no brains at all running for president named Hillary Rodham Clinton. Meanwhile Hillary’s gross incompetence and flagrant falsehoods go unchallenged by the same left-wing media types who ignore her deadly ineptitude while claiming to be journalists.