It is not often the moderators of a debate are the story.  For many the story was the implosion of Rick Perry, but there was also something strange going on with the moderators all night.  Nearly all of them were downright hostile, rude, even unprofessional.  It seems as if they wanted to debate the candidates themselves.  Never have the moderators taken up so much time on screen elaborating on their question and interacting with the candidates.  CNBC should be embarrassed and try to remember next time that the people tuned in to hear the candidates, not the moderators.

The moderators were Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood, with a few guests added in.  First and foremost I could not help but notice their strange body language.  At times, it was hostile, which is I guess expected from liberal media personalities at a Republican debate, but they took it to a new level.  Usually a professional tries to conceal such bias.  Harwood had his arms crossed during several questions with a frown on his face throughout the debate.  He looked clearly uncomfortable.

Maria Bartiromo was unprofessional.  Throughout the debate it looked like the desk was holding her up as she was leaning forward in what looked like an adversarial, menacing position.  She also looked upset with the answers given and the refusal of candidates to buy into the premises of her questions.  In one particularly bad question, she asked the candidates to say what they would do to reform health care in 30 seconds!  Newt Gingrich called her out on the ridiculous question, in which she decided to be incredibly rude asking him to answer the question “tonight”, then telling him to take all the time he needs.

When you work inside an ideologically homogenous bubble, it is difficult to interact with those that have different beliefs and ideas.  The moderators of CNBC clearly had not the slightest understanding of conservative positions or thinking.  Either they weren’t properly informed on Republican positions or decided to make no effort to understand them.  Their bias became obvious when they expressed surprise and disgust at candidate responses that are in fact in the mainstream.

Sorry to break the bubble CNBC, but conservative ideas are actually quite popular these days.

The constant interruptions are an unfortunate trend in the Republican debates.  For some reason the moderators seem to think they’re the reason people are watching or that they are among the debaters for the night.  CNBC was guilty.  The obnoxious Jim Cramer demonstrated it at the end, blathering on about something related to instant trading then asking Herman Cain what he would do about it.  It is a fair bet that an overwhelming majority of Republican voters and Americans as a whole had no idea what Cramer was talking about.  Cramer was also yelling obnoxiously with his own odd body language of someone way too comfortable and a little hyped up on caffeine.  Slow down, Jim.

The moderators of a Presidential debate should not be the focus of attention.  People watch debates for the candidates.  Ideally the moderators wouldn’t speak at all but modern debates don’t allow for that anymore.  The media has to be part of the dynamic.  The incredibly negative attitude, rude interruptions, bad jokes, and inappropriate questions (the big one toward Cain) brought them into the screen a lot more than necessary.  I, like all other viewers tuned in to hear the candidates speak, not Maria Bartiromo, not John Harwood, and certainly not Jim Cramer.

Comments?  E-mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .