Posted on 09/01/2015 5:46:25 PM PDT by bigbob
Pardon my post for not being in English. I’m trying to do too many things at once.
She looks very fair....and quite well-balanced too!
Will Mrs. Trump bring back school lunches that our children will eat?
A lot of smoke, mirrors and numbers in the ratings.
Her viewers were down, but those who watched, liked her. Of course, naturally. Very few people watch a show they don’t like.
Numbers from Liberals that support Liberals are suspect.
TWB
I agree. I'd love to be looking at her for the next 4 - 8 years after suffering through Michelle for so long. She doesn't run her mouth all day and night either.
Then again we could be stuck with this:
FOOTNOTE: By his own admission, Jeb speaks only Spanish at home.
Is she wearing heels?
Mrs. Bush looks like Danny Devito to me
“Mrs. Bush looks like Danny Devito to me”
-—as The Penguin lol
“No ratings decline was going to show in August”
-—I’d like to believe that too, but considering the Debate was on Aug 6 you would have thought there would be a decline of some kind. We would have to be able to compare the previous month’s number to know if there was any actual decline—excluding the outlier of debate night
She did it without me and I dropped her before the debate.
You know that is not the reason Nathan, shame on you.
They are blaming the messenger.
I doubt that, in any case the questions were pure vitriolic gotcha and you know it. FOX had a great opportunity and failed miserably. You should be equally as upset about the stupid question she asked Cruz; What has God told you lately? You would have needed to see the smug look on Megyn's face to appreciate how vile that question was.
When a network such as Fox News undertakes to conduct these debates it is fully aware that it must maintain a credible posture of adversarial relationship to the debaters. I am not suggesting that Fox was motivated by a phony bit of business such as Don Imus confected for his purposes and to please his bosses at NBC, but I am suggesting that if Fox News were not adversarial the debate, that means the debaters and the interrogators, would be dismissed by the public for lack of substance just as the public would dismiss an artless plug by Don Imus.
Many conservatives who support Donald Trump do not look at the debates from the same perspective that I've just outlined which I presume is the perspective of The Management of Fox News. They accuse Fox of open hostility to their guy. Yet every one of the candidates came in for tough questioning. I repeat, the questions to Trump that everyone take such great offense to were to read to him his own words. Many conservatives would say that I am wrong in assessing the motivations of Fox, they were simply hostile to anything that was not GOPe.
Many conservatives regard the function of Fox News to be advocates for a conservative philosophy to offset and counterbalance the advocacy journalism of the rest of the media on behalf of Democrats. Even if this were the proper role of Fox News, even if that role were accepted by its management and by the interrogators themselves, to have conducted a debate in which they fawned over the debaters would have been utterly self defeating. The entire enterprise would have lost credibility. The public would have immediately seen right through it.
The Fox news interrogators were tough but they were tough with Donald Trump, for example, with his own words. That is not unfair. Donald Trump was not the only candidate who was aggressively interrogated, they were all interrogated aggressively.
There is a difference in unfair interrogation as conducted by Stephanopoulos or Candy Crowley and what was done by Megan Kelly. Kelly was tough but tough was appropriate. The audience senses when it is being manipulated or patronized.
You ignored the God Question?
Did they have bouncers ready to evict any candidate other than Trump?
I am not pumping up Trump here but I am not averse to pointing out false information. Trump was the main target starting off with the hands up crap, the Megyn began with her Gotcha questions. Then she moved on to the Christians by asking them what God had told them lately. If you don't recognize that as vicious then there is little reason to read anything more that you post, and I do admire your input, but you are not indispensable to me.
The conventional wisdom is that the question regarding running as a third-party candidate was fair. I think it was fair even if aimed directly at Trump because we are all mindful of the Ross Perot experience and Trump's threat. If one sees the debates as a theater in which one side represents the establishment and the other side represents and the anti- establishment forces (Trump), one might complain about the question. If one sees the debate as a Republican Party function in the service of picking a candidate, the party is entirely reasonable in asking if a potential candidate will act as a saboteur. Ask yourself, does Trump have immunity from being asked such a question? Of course not.
The questions directed to Trump which read his own words back to him were not unreasonable and were certainly questions that any Democrat oriented interrogator would ask. Are women not entitled to know what Trump's attitude towards them is in view of his language? Of course they are. Is Trump somehow entitled to be protected from these questions? Of course not.
Every Republican who was interrogated about his record or his flip-flops was given the chance to explain himself and clarify the record. Better to get it out now in the service of finding a Republican candidate then have the Democrats do it. If one thinks Megan Kelly was snarky, believe me, the Democrat media will be worse.
I just see the role of a fair and balanced interrogator to be different than that of an enabler. Most of the Republicans in that debate responded very well to the questions and cleared the air leaving little ammunition for the Democrats to fire. If the Democrats submit to a Fox debate, we shall see how roughly they are treated and we will be better able to evaluate biases, if any.
“The conventional wisdom is that the question regarding running as a third-party candidate was fair.”
If conventional wisdom means those supporters of the Establishment. First, it wasn’t one question, it was the preponderance of questions that didn’t ask him about his policies. Secondly, it was the tone in which the questions were asked.
What is not understood by so many, but will be made precisely apparent, is that after the Establishment takes out Trump, their next target is Cruz, the most ideological conservative in the mix.
You will get LiL Jebbie and as often is the case, we get what we deserve in elections.
It would matter if it were prearranged. The question would have been fair if they had asked the others if they would support Trump if he were the winner. They didn't ask because there is open plotting to knock him out of the race and you know that as well.
Look Trump is not my choice and I figured after he got in he would fumblemouth himself into oblivion within a couple weeks, so far that hasn't happened.
The fact is some of the others could have listened and adopted some of his points but instead they chose to go on the attack, so far that has proved to be sort of stupid.
The so called debate was anything but debate.
Don't forget to address the bouncers they had ready to strong-arm Trump off the stage either, you sort of chose not to address that issue as well as the God question, which was also asked of Huckabee. Cruz handled it very well but it was designed to make both of them look like they didn't do anything without hearing personally from God.
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.