Salon - "CNBC did ask substantive questions. That’s why Republicans are mad"

[DirkGently]

38. The responses, not the questions, were clownish.

Cruz' diatribe, so loved by Republicans, came in response to the most substantive question imaginable -- how he justified continuing to fight to shut down the government and default on our debts, when the last time he pulled that it cost us $24 billion and our credit rating.

A question which it might be noted he never did get around to answering.

And it was interesting that in so doing, he made up a lot of characterizations that weren't in evidence. No one accused Carson of "not being able to do math," but Cruz planted that seed. No one invited candidates to make attacks on each other they hadn't already begun or telegraphed. He even managed to mention again that Jeb's numbers were down.

It was a well-crafted cheap shot that simultaneously kept him from answering for his inexcusable shut-down stunts, and allowed him to remind everyone of the other candidates' weaknesses.

Rubio responded to a question about the impact of his fantasy flat tax plan by insisting the report being read from did not exist.

Carson responded to questions about the impact of HIS fantasy flat tax plan by staring sleepily around the room.

Trump lied every time he opened his mouth, about everything. He actually disclaimed his own platform, from his own website, and accused "the press" of lying about it, when HE was the liar. When he was politely proven wrong, he ignored the facts and moved on to whine about the moderators some more.

This is their little game.

It's the same old Republican dodge they use every time anyone asks them to back up their rhetoric with facts. Journalists can't be trusted. Scientists can't be trusted. University professors and school teachers can't be trusted.

Their objection isn't to "bias," it's to facts. It wasn't the lack of substance that insulted them, it was its presence.