When is too much of a bad thing, just too much? Answer: When it's a CNN moderated GOP debate.

By Rob Janicki
I have to preface my remarks with this admission.  I did not get to see much of the live prime time debate first hand, as I had another obligation to fulfill.  Instead, I saw a replay of two-thirds of the debate and read reviewers that I trust to inform me of what really happened.

First and foremost, this debate, hosted by CNN, was a circus and it was formulated to be a cat fight by CNN's Jake Tapper, apparently the lead and almost only moderator present.  CNN's Dana Bash and Townhall's Hugh Hewitt seemed to be cast by Tapper as window dressing, as he tried to engage participants in a street brawl, undoubtedly for ratings.

The sad aspect of this brawling format, that lasted for an interminable three hours of increasing agony, was that it was approved by the Republican National Committee.  What were they thinking?  The goal of the GOP debate should have been to introduce the GOP candidates to America's voters.  The role of all three moderators should have been to illicit the positions of the candidates on the various policy issues important to voters.

Instead, it was a setup situation with Tapper trying to play off every candidate against Donald Trump.  In one half hour stretch, Trump wasn't even questioned.  Instead, candidates were asked questions that lead to set up conflicts with what Donald Trump had previously gone on record as saying.  Virtually everything Tapper touched on circled around back to Donald Trump.  It made me wonder if Tapper has had an original thought in recent years or was just pandering to the bidding of his CNN masters behind the scenes to gin up ratings for CNN.  I'm thinking these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive of each other and most likely resulted in this attack on rational thought and cognition.

Despite this travesty, I think most candidates held their own or slightly improved their standings with voters.  Donald Trump came off as Donald Trump and did nothing to improve his image as a vapid thinking bully.  Rest assured that Trump supporters walked away believing their hero had swept the debate.  It's hard to hold a rational exchange with the delusional, so I won't even attempt to do so.

The one candidate that did the most for herself was Carly Fiorina.  She managed to come off as presidential in her answers and just as importantly in her demeanor under fire.  If there was one candidate that moved the approval meter appreciably in a positive direction, it had to be Carly Fiorina.  

I thought that Cruz and Rubio helped themselves a bit more than even I expected, Scott Walker edged upward somewhat, Jeb and Huckabee maintained, while Dr. Carson just didn't seem to add anything to what has been an otherwise overall upward trend in his polling.  Rand Paul just seems to be the odd man out, with John Kasich the wild card, since his late entry into the campaign process.