Posted on 08/07/2015 7:42:43 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Faux news Flared and Unbalanced didn’t like their once high ratings. Enjoy your ‘new equality’ with the rest of the alphabet drecks you Foxes.
I’m an old guy who has seen many, many political debates and I thought it was as good as it gets. I enjoyed it.
The moderators did hit Trump with hard questions, and I have no problem with that. He is a big boy on a big stage and should (and did) handle them. The other candidates also got some very tough questions. Questions their supporters probably didn’t like, and they too fielded them well. The moderators pretty well cleared out the garbage and subsequent debates can take a different tact. IMO
I got an email from Karl Rove this morning. How in the world did that happen?
Their ratings are high, and their competition sucks, so now they don’t need the “trash” that got them off the ground.
I remember watching the debates back in 1996 when Fox News debuted, and hearing, I think Shepie Smith, saying that they weren’t going to try to tell you who won because that should be up to you. I thought that was so amazing that I became a Fox junkie for a decade.
Now? I don’t have cable and wont even watch clips of that place on YouTube.
My objection to the debate?
Each candidate should have responded to the same question. Different questions to different candidates does not give the viewer a true insight.
For example, the question about homosexual marriage. They must have known Kasich has a homosexual daughter so they went to him. He gave a rather supportive answer. That same question might have elicited an entirely different viewpoint from another candidate. The LIVs that tuned in would walk away that there is no other side to the story.
Well, that’s my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for your common sense impression of the ‘debate’. I agree that the questions were intended to challenge the candidates, but were not unfair.
If we are going to elect a president who is not Hillary, Bernie, Martin, Joe, etc., then we will need to find out which candidate will be able to survive the gauntlet of the rest of the news media, and so it began with this 2-hour back and forth conversations.
I think Fox News did a very good job. Frankly if no one was offended by any of the questions, it would have been a failure.
This statement is not a plus for Fox.
Very well stated observation of the debate moderation. Did you see the first debate with the second tier candidates? It was much more professional.
FONZ NEWS: Now with more N.Y. Times.....
I nearly turned off the debates before they began, because of the clumsy mishandling, poor commentary and wasted time of the questioners.
If they chose the questions, they manifest a lack of integrity to truth, seeking to only promote adversity.
I wish they had given each speaker an ad hoc 2 minutes of free air time to state their position, instead of wasting it commenting about the arena and what a great crowd they had.
It wasn’t a debate. It wasn’t a platform. It developed into a talk show gossip session at the hands of wanna be popularity seekers.
The real candidates presented, tended to be less verbose than those engaged in the popularity-fest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.