“Oops.”
It was undoubtedly the most memorable sound bite that came from last Wednesday’s CNBC Republican primary debate. It also serves to encapsulate the way CNBC and the Republican Party should have felt following its conclusion.
When answering a question about what federal agencies he would eliminate as president, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would get rid of three: “the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and…and…uh…”
Ron Paul chided Perry and suggested that five departments should be cut. Another candidate on stage suggested the third might be the Environmental Protection Agency, and Perry initially agreed, presumably because he thought that might work, too. But when asked again by a moderator, Perry recanted and tried to name the three departments, again to no avail.
Then Perry uttered what may become the catchphrase of his presidential campaign: “Oops.”
The next time he spoke, Perry intimated that it was the Department of Energy he was grasping for.
As I see it, two possibilities exist. The debate schedule might finally be getting to Perry, as he has already appeared in six since he entered the race and is showing signs of mental fatigue.
Alternatively, Perry’s platform might be so rooted in the modern American definition of “conservatism” that he thinks all government programs deserve cuts and are basically interchangeable.
This seems a bit more likely and meshes with the defense Perry mounted following the debate, when he said, “People understand that our principles, our conservative principles, are what matter,” according to The Huffington Post.
Perry’s gaffe was hardly the only cringe-inducing moment of the debate, however. CNBC opened it with a strained and bombastic hip-hop style intro apparently to remind viewers the debate was taking place in Michigan.
Newt Gingrich, who had been moving up the polls prior to the debate to fill the void left by a sinking Perry, addressed the Occupy Wall Street movement just as a conservative curmudgeon would, accusing the media of asking the wrong questions to protestors. Gingrich presented his own question: “Who’s going to pay for the park you’re occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?”
I haven’t yet had the chance to take a stroll through Gingrich’s enchanted corporate parks where Occupy Wall Street protestors are camped out, so I can’t be sure whether or not most of the protestors actually oppose the existence of a profit motive in our economy.
However, when federal, state and local governments are broke and certain politicians steadfastly refuse to increase the tax burden of businesses that are making record profits, it might be more appropriate to ask, “Who is going to build and maintain these parks and all of the other basic services we enjoy when the government is bankrupt?”
The network also used the debate as an opportunity to show off its on-air talent, including stock market guru and former hedge fund manager Jim Cramer.
Cramer admitted to manipulating stocks to increase the value of his holdings when he ran a hedge fund and was publicly shamed by Jon Stewart in 2009 for recommending investment company Bear Stearns on his CNBC show “Mad Money” just before the company fell apart.
For some reason, CNBC thought it wise to let Cramer ask the final question of the debate from a viewer, which centered around making the stock market safer for small-time investors. Cramer’s histrionics while asking the question resembled his “Mad Money” persona and took the teeth out of a question that deserved a serious answer.
The CNBC debate found so many ways to disappoint, but there are somehow 14 still scheduled between now and March. For an optimist, that means 14 more chances to find out who these candidates really are.
Let’s just hope Rick Perry brings note cards.
 
Chris Seemann is a 21-year-old mass communication senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_CSeemann.
 
____
Contact Chris Seemann at [email protected]