That train wreck of a debate

  ...was the WORST.
  If you didn't watch it, you're lucky.
  If you did, you are probably still seething.
  Donald Trump wasn't at his best: the remarks about 9/11 and W were inappropriate, particularly claiming that Bush could have done anything to have prevented 9/11. Need I remind of the "wall" built between security agencies by Gorelick & Clinton? What on earth was the purpose of THAT?
  From Conservapedia:

The Gorelick memo of 1995 erected a "wall" between counter-intelligence and law enforcement, which impeded investigation of al Qaeda in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Jamie Gorelick, then working as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno was author of the memo.  

The wall was nominally created in response to the "legitimate fear that agents denied criminal warrants would gain information through the backdoor from their buddies working under FISA."   

Scott Wheeler wrote: Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.   

Attorney General John Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission: "The simple fact of September 11th is this ... We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls."

  Yet these facts are never discussed and for Trump to have brought Bush up as the non-defender of the US for 9/11 was simply wrong.
  But Bush was terrible. He looked petty, immature and spiteful.
  The others were ok, but basically stayed out of the fight, while Kasich the opportunist moved in with his faux optimist message trying to garner votes with his oily "see how I heal and the others fight" message.
  As I have said before, in these debates it appears that, rather than declare the winner, we can declare the loser or losers.
  The biggest loser of all last night was the RNC.
  Now we learn that, the RNC gave only a few tickets to candidates' supporters and instead filled the hall with their donors....AGAIN. From a local news station:

People selected will fill the 1,900 seats that have been made available for the event, according to Groover.
Groover said the Republican National Committee gives a lot of tickets to supporters. He said more are then allocated for the state party to distribute among the county chairs.
"I didn't have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” said Groover.

  I agree with Don Surber.
   Fire Reince Priebus. He's a dolt, a lick spittle kiss up to the establishment who's mostly concerned with the donor class and getting cheap labor into this country:

Reince is a glad-hander who raises a lot of money so the RNC money-raising machine can continue to raise money. They will not fire him. The RNC measures his success not in how well Republicans do, but how much money he raises. I guess losing is the optimum find-raising mechanism for the RNC. Certainly the RNC does not care how bad these debates look to the public.

  Years ago, I said I thought Sarah Palin would be a good replacement; though I've changed my mind about that, I certainly still believe that Priebus is not interested in making the logical case for being a conservative or even a Republican.
  He's interested in the halls of power, his head swollen with importance and the fog of power.
  The only recourse we have, it seems, is to simply dry up any small donations we little folk out here might give to the RNC and turn those dollars over to individual candidates whose agendas and back bones we can support.
  Last night was shocking in the immature display of booing and incivility.
  That could have been a Democrat audience.
  And, to quote Thoreau, the more you think of it, the less the difference. 
  And more here, from Surber.