Posted on 10/24/2020 7:44:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
The two most important takeaways from the final presidential debate are these: First, no Republican presidential nominee should agree ever again to a debate organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)—at least without major reforms. Second, no such candidate should ever consent to a “mainstream media” moderator.
In the last presidential debate of the season the bias of Kristen Welker (NBC, MSNBC) was palpable: She repeatedly interrupted and quibbled with President Donald Trump, while presenting a much more respectful demeanor toward former Vice President Joe Biden.
But far worse was her selection of topics. These seem to have been drawn almost exclusively from the “progressive” agenda and from Democratic Party talking points. Notably, most were irrelevant to the president’s actual job description.
That job description is laid out in the U.S. Constitution, primarily in Sections 2 and 3 of Article II. The Constitution tells us that the president’s most important tasks are enforcing federal laws, nominating and appointing federal officers and judges, signing and vetoing bills, recommending measures to Congress, commanding the military, and (with some input from the Senate) conducting foreign affairs.
There is nothing in the president’s job description about health care or pandemics, ending pollution, or fighting institutional racism. With marginal exceptions, the Constitution assigns those duties to state officials. (That’s a major reason we have state officials!) Yet Welker treated these issues as if they were all determined by the Emperor—er, president.
It is clear, moreover, that the choice of questions was not just the result of constitutional ignorance. Consciously or not, her questions were crafted to put Trump at a disadvantage and Biden at an advantage.
Originally, this was to be a debate about foreign policy—one of the president’s core constitutional responsibilities. In that area, Trump has much to boast about: the rapid defeat of Isis; brokering a deal whereby two more Arab states recognized Israel; transfer of our embassy to Jerusalem; the correction of our previously pro-China foreign policy; a successful insistence that our allies contribute more to NATO, and a successful renegotiation of NAFTA.
As well as the honor of being the first administration in a very long time to keep us out of war.
Perversely, therefore, the CPD decided there would be no debate dedicated to foreign policy. Instead, the questions were all about COVID-19, “institutional racism,” climate change, Russian election interference, minimum wage, Trump’s businesses—and yet more “institutional racism.”
By contrast, Welker was entirely incurious about issues that are, objectively speaking, of more long-term importance to the country. She also was incurious about the explosive scandal now surrounding Biden and his family.
Here are some questions that should have been asked but weren’t:
Foreign Policy:
* For both candidates: Communist China is increasingly becoming a military rather than merely an economic threat. How do you plan to address this problem?
* For Biden: Do you disagree with any of the president’s Middle Eastern policies, and if so how would you do things differently?
* For Biden: Would you renew the Obama administration’s agreement with Iran?
* For Biden: Do you disagree with any of the president’s European or NATO policies, and if so how would you do things differently?
Fiscal Issues and Regulation:
* For both candidates: Due to massive deficit spending by both parties over the past 50 years, the national debt is now at an alarming level and growing fast. Federal entitlement programs are headed toward bankruptcy. Do you have any plans to address the fiscal situation?
* For President Trump: Although Republicans often proclaim their fiscal responsibility, during your administration, deficits and debt have gotten much worse—even before COVID hit. Explain why your administration has not been more fiscally responsible.
* For Trump: You have placed a priority on de-regulation. But regulations can be re-imposed as long as the agencies issuing them continue to survive. Why have you not recommended the termination of more federal agencies, particularly those that merely duplicate state-level activities?
* For both candidates: Since the 1960s, federal involvement in health care has triggered an explosion in costs, pricing most Americans out of the health care market and thereby limiting access. Thus far, most of the solutions offered have involved additional federal programs, such as Obamacare, that have made the cost situation worse. What plans, if any, do you have for reducing the federal role in healthcare?
The Constitution and Judiciary:
* For both candidates: The Constitution clearly limits the federal government to certain functions, but it is widely ignoring constitutional limits. Many Americans distrust the federal government and believe it has become abusive. Do you agree, and if so how will you try to correct the situation?
* For both candidates: What is your stance on increasing the number of Supreme Court justices?
* For Biden: You claimed that the president’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is “unconstitutional,” but legal experts say that’s false. Why did you say it?
* For both candidates: What will be the criteria by which you appoint federal judges?
* For both candidates: Do you recommend any constitutional amendments? If so, which ones and why?
The Biden Scandal:
* For Biden: Was the recently-discovered laptop computer said to belong to Hunter Biden actually his property, and are its recorded emails accurate?
It would be nice to once and for all dispense with the ridiculous notion that there are any “impartial” mainstream media reporters.
The only acceptable debate format is for each candidate to choose a moderator who will question their opponent. Let’s be upfront about the bias and use it to inform voters.
This must end.
I’ve always wondered why the debates use a media figure as a moderator instead of, you know, a professional debate judge/moderator.
Republicans have been agreeing to the least smelling turd in the pile for moderators.
Agreed, but I have heard that it is impossible for Republicans to LEARN, so how do we get them to do this?
Republicans get taken to the cleaners every election cycle on the choice of moderators. Why not Hannity or Marc Levin for a change ?
The corporate media debate dominance is probably over. The bias is really outrageous. Chris Wallace and Susan Page will never get a presidential moderator gig again.
With an unbiased moderator, the RAT candidate would be chewed up alive and their bones tossed into a corner.
They know it and so do we.
Let the Republican pick say three topics and let the Democrat pick an equal number.
Need two MODERATORS — A Democrat - A Republican
The Democrat questions the Republican Candidate
The Republican questions the Democrat Candidate
* For President Trump: Although Republicans often proclaim their fiscal responsibility, during your administration, deficits and debt have gotten much worse—even before COVID hit. Explain why your administration has not been more fiscally responsible.Um, because he wanted to be re-elected.
Everyone wants to pay less in taxes but nobody wants their benefits cut. Until you break that Catch-22 nothing will change.
They get taken to the cleaners because there’s still too many go-along-get-along types in party leadership.
What should happen is that actual professional debate moderators should be used - because if the debates were only fairly moderated, the Dems would lose. Nothing more is required.
Even Joe gave up trying to justify Supreme Court packing.
He would let a commission of Republican traitors and ‘rats have a try.
At this point, the Supreme Court has already gone down the road of every significant possible perversion, moral, judicial and constitutional.
I have probably watched every Presidential and Vice-Presidential debate since 1988. After the Chris Wallace show I decided to stop. I cannot abide the moderators and do mot want to provide anymore ratings.
1. Put each candidate in a soundproof booth so they can’t hear each other.The only other person in the booth is a representative of the other party to make sure that there is no outside communication and to verify that the candidate hears the proper question.
2. Have two moderators, one appointed by each candidate. The Republican will ask the democrat questions and the democrat will ask the Republican questions.
3. Have a total of 9 questions.
The first 3 questions are KNOWN to both candidates and they are allowed to have a prepared/practiced answer. This will keep the debate focused.
Each candidate will then answer 3 questions submitted by the other candidate’s team that are not published or known in advance, asked to each candidate asked in alternating rotation. (1 to democrat then 1 to republican, then back to the democrat and back to the republican)
Each question is limited to 15 words long with no “Double barreling” allowed. (i.e. how would respond to the double threat of X & Y) The candidate should repeat the question before answering to show they understood it and then say start time. They have 4 minutes from the time they say “start”
4. Moderators may only ask questions, no followup, no rebuttal. no interrupting, attempted fact checking, or challenging. Let the candidate speak for themselves, by themselves.
5.If a candidate goes over their allotted time the mic is cut off and the other candidate is asked the next question.
6. Each candidate is then given 3 minutes closing.
7. Candidates may have a bottle of water/soda, or cup of coffee/tea if they desire but there will be no bathroom brakes.
This would take about 2 hours if I’ve timed it right.
Almost all are vote buyers.
Trump would outdo Nancy Pelosi.
From Kennedy to Reagan, it seemed like the debates had a moderator to keep time and a panel to ask questions. The panel was made up of newspaper and magazine writers, and occasionally a reporter from the network that was covering the debate. They would take turns asking their questions.
If we must have a media moderator, I'd like to see a newspaper reporter do it. They may be more knowledgeable about the subject, but they'd also likely be more introverted and less likely to interrupt the candidates as they answer the questions.
-PJ
Ive been saying this every election
Even in the primaries it is Dem moderators
“Republicans Should Never Agree to a Mainstream Media Moderator Again”
Agreed. But you can be sure they will.
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.