[adorno]

The issue at the moment, is about Megyn Kelly vs Trump, and her line of questioning. Obviously, Trump didn't like the questioning, but, he's got to be ready for anything and everything. If he couldn't handle little-nobody Megyn, how the heck can he be expected to handle Ira's leaders or Russia's leaders or North Korea's leaders, or the opposition from democrats that could be expected on all issues?

What Trump demonstrated is that, he can dish it out, but he can't handle it when it comes back at him.

BTW, Hillary is not that important right now in the debates, especially when she's getting hammered from all directions about all of her scandals, especially now with the e-mail scandal. But, if she lasts until after the primaries are done, she won't be able to escape the tough questioning that will destroy her. Trump's line of questioning will seem like child's play when compared to what Hillary will encounter.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Obviously, Trump didn't like the questioning, but, he's got to be ready for anything and everything./font>

This is true, but there is a much larger point which Ms. Kelly can thank her lucky stars Trump did not seize the moment to articulate. With a big in-person audience of Republicans at his back, Trump might have discussed exactly what the whole audience was thinking:

1. The country is severely, even desperately, on the wrong track. And its incumbent president has monarchial self-conceit and is dangerous to the Constitution.

2. Democrat front-runner Hilary Clinton has a trail of scandals longer than your arm - from Whitewater, to Cattlegate, to most or all of the scandals of the Clinton presidency. Not excluding email and server gate.

3. Democrats generally, and Clintons in particular, never suffer the humiliation of having to answer, not just the first question, but the second. And if necessary, the third and fourth as well. Clintons lie, Clintons stonewall, Clintons evade.

4. Therefore the audience for the Republican debate is interested practically exclusively in the substantive policy differences among the candidates.

5. That is the audience which gives FNC its ratings superiority over all other cable channels. It is an audience which feels disrespected by all other journalism outlets, and if it ceases to feel respected by FNC, the ratings of FNC will fall back into the pack.

If Donald Trump had made those points, the live audience would have gone wild. Then what would Megyn Kelly have done? She could have switched to “softballs” which drew out the substance from each of the contenders - or risk losing her audience completely.

The Republican Party did not select FNC for the debate so that FNC could do opposition research against it. And that’s not what the audience wanted.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My previous post re: Hillary notwithstanding, I agree that Hillary is not a sure thing. If it looks like she is guilty of a violation which, by law, disqualifies her from public office (let alone the presidency) the DNC might actually get cold feet about nominating her. Who knows but that a blue state with a red governor might not kick up a fuss about putting and unqualified person on the ballot?