CNBC Republican debate offered more than CNN

The CNBC Republican Presidential Debate Wednesday night was far superior in my mind to two debates hosted by CNN.

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood moderated and did a great job. I liked that they stopped candidates who either weren't really answering the question (which happens a lot) or resorted to talking points.

 And they cut candidates short if they were refusing to answer questions, like Newt Gingrich.


You could tell Bartiromo and Harwood were very knowledgeable about the issues.

It was also refreshing when they brought in several other CNBC correspondents to ask a question or two. The financial reporter and the personal finance reporter offered especially unique questions that matter.


They also focused on money issues, which was really a great idea. I think they probably garnered more viewership because Americans are really focused on the economy in this election, not social issues and even not much about foreign affairs.


CNN's two debate, one hosted by Wolf Blitzer and the other by Anderson Cooper were OK, but they did seem to let the candidates get away with not answering questions, and focused more on trying to bait candidates to attack each other.

Both networks hosted the debates with political entities. They CNN debate hosted one with the Tea Party and CNBC hosted this one with the Michigan Republican Party. I still don't care for such partnerships. The hosting also stacks the audience to be partisan, so if people don't make the connection, they assume a general audience is clapping for every talking point or sound bite.

I don't often agree with Michele Bachmann, but she complimented the CNBC hosts afterward saying she thought they did a good job hosting the debate, getting at substantive issues and not "baiting" the candidates to attack each other like the other recent debates.

To that, I agree.