Posted on 08/11/2015 7:39:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Twenty-four million people tuned in to watch the first primetime debate among 10 Republican presidential candidates. What were they expecting, a love-in?
Some conservative critics dumped on Fox News with a vitriol usually reserved for liberal media.
David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network said Fox (where I appear as a commentator) should be "utterly ashamed," calling the questions asked of Donald Trump "unethical and downright nasty."
"Shame" was a word frequently used by critics of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace.
Rush Limbaugh was slightly more restrained. Limbaugh objected to the "war on women," question asked by Kelly of Donald Trump. Limbaugh said the "war on women" is a Democratic construct and is the kind of question one might expect from the "drive-by media," as he calls the rest of the journalistic pack.
Liberals, like New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, praised the questions asked by the panelists, which will likely further anger conservatives.
While every viewer probably had questions they wish had been asked, overall I thought the panel's choices were fine. The Baier question about whether all the candidates would support the nominee exposed Trump as something less than a party loyalist. He wouldn't say when he had become a Republican after many years as a Democrat and his contributions to Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton, which he said were necessary in order to do business in New York, might sound to some like influence-buying.
Alexandra Petri of the delightfully named Washington Post blog, Compost, wrote that Kelly's "God question" (from a Facebook participant) was not the kind "...that belong on a stage with this kind of stakes." Yes it does, because several of the candidates are openly Christian and often invoke religious language in support of their political positions. It was an appropriate question in 1976 for Jimmy Carter, who was open about his faith. And it was appropriate when reporter Fred Barnes asked Walter Mondale if he was a born-again Christian during his 1984 debate with President Reagan.
As one with some experience in responding to aggressive questioning from liberal TV and radio interrogators, here are some suggestions for the candidates should these questions come up again.
The real war on women is an economy that has left a record 93 million people out of the labor force; 56 million of these non-workers are women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The war on women is also about the 56 million aborted babies who will never have a chance at life thanks to the lies Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers tell women about their babies. The candidate could praise alternative pregnancy help centers where women who have unplanned pregnancies receive help and support and those who have had abortions can experience healing.
A candidate might also respond to the "God question" by saying the belief that God favors America or Americans over other countries and people is idolatry. As the prophet Isaiah said, God sees all nations "like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales" (Isaiah 40:15). That should cause candidates to reconsider Abraham Lincoln's line about it being more important that America is on God's side, than God being on America's side.
Jeb Bush did the best pivot of the evening. Asked about his role as the former director of the Bloomberg Family Foundation, a philanthropic organization headed by Michael Bloomberg, which has donated to Planned Parenthood, Bush said he was there to promote education and knew nothing about the company's contributions to other causes. He then detailed his pro-life record as Florida governor.
That's the way to respond. If the candidate doesn't like a question, deflect it and give an answer to a question that should have been asked.
Liberals praising the Fox panel should encourage panelists at the Democratic debates to follow that network's example and ask tough questions of those candidates, especially Hillary Clinton. But after eight years of the media mostly worshipping President Barack Obama, I'm doubtful that will happen.
You mean like Bill Clinton?....................
By no sane measure was Bill Clinton “good Presidential material”.
Then again, as a Society, we’ve lost our minds more than once.
Bill Clinton may not have been “good Presidential material”, but he is a great ‘politician’......................
We need an honest debate where the issues are fairly framed and the debaters (not the moderators) do the rebutting. Let's see who's willing to take on whom, who's willing to take a position on which issues, what are those positions, what are the oppositions to those positions.This is what the Fox moderators stole from the candidates and the viewers on Thursday night. They usurped the role of rebuttal and made the candidates individually argue their positions with themselves instead of the other candidates. And then knowing this was going to be the format, they staged meaningless personal questions that had no viable rebuttal opportunities from the other candidates.
What candidate is going to interject in the middle of a crude mysogeny question? What candidate is going to rebut an "any word from God" question? What candidate is going to jump into Megyn Kelly's question to Jeb Bush that "your brother's war was a mistake" or the Bush dynasty question?
There were a half-dozen questions where one candidate was asked to attack another candidate.
With questions like that, how can we truly see the positions of each candidate? When the questions are lowball and undeserving of the stature of Governors, Senators, and business leaders, then why should we take seriously the fallout from such a farce?
- Wallace to Rubio: Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is...
- Wallace to Cruz: Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues, but he says you do nothing to grow the party...
- Wallace to Trump: Governor Bush has called those remarks, quote, “extraordinarily ugly.” I’d like you — you’re right next to him — tell us — talk to him directly and say how you respond to that...
- Kelly to Christie: Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing he bulk collection of people’s phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?
- Baier to Rubio: Senator Rubio, why is Governor Bush wrong on Common Core?
- Wallace to Christie: Governor Huckabee says he can save Social Security and Medicare without doing any of that. Is he lying?
- Kelly to Bush: Governor Bush, I want to ask you, on the subject of name calling of your fellow candidates, a story appeared today quoting an anonymous GOP donor who said you called Mr. Trump a clown, a buffoon...
A true debate should let the candidates engage each other. A better format would have been this:
1. A question is taken from a candidate's campaign speeches and asked in a neutral way. What would you do about unemployment?
2. Candidate gets 1 minute to speak.
3. Each other candidate, chosen randomly, gets 1 minute to rebut.
4. Original candidate gets final 30 seconds to close out the question.
That's 10 1/2 minutes, assuming 10 candidates. Add another minute or so for overages and call it 12 minutes. With each candidate drawing one question from their own campaigns and getting an equal opportunity to respond to the other candidates, that's 120 minutes for 10 candidates. Add another 30 minutes for breaks and you have a two and a half hour event. Each candidate gets 10 and a half minutes to speak across all issues.
No moderator interruptions or arguing back to the candidates. It's the candidates vetting each other's policy positions.
-PJ
Shut up Cal. A debate is where a moderator asks a question and every candidate gets a chance to answer.
“format was known before-hand”
Fox notice to participants:
“The format will be comprised of nicely tailored personal attacks by the moderators, on each of the participants.”
Whatever makes you feel better about supporting a liberal like Trump...
(excerpt)
We all know,or should know, that the ‘stars’ of Fox News or any network newsreaders are self indulgent, self promoting and very sensitive about anyone doubting their relevance and status in the ‘journalistic’ community.
We also know that, or should know, that ‘stars’ must always dominate any interview they conduct, to have more ‘focus’ on them instead of the interviewee by asking them questions that takes longer to ask than can be answered and interrupting constantly.
(posted prior to the debates)
Dear Dead,
Your turban is broken.
Nothing I wrote indicates support for Trump.
Each candidate was attacked.
How would you characterize Megan’s snarky “Did God give you a message?” question to Cruz?
“Each candidate was attacked. How would you characterize Megan’s snarky “Did God give you a message?” question to Cruz?”
Exactly. Every candidate was treated badly. I just wish they would have responded to her attack directly.
I have a shemagh... Close as that gets.
Each candidate was asked tough questions. Some handled them better than others. If you think these were tough, wait until CNN/MSNBC get ahold of them.
I thought Ted’s answer showed a level head.
“”In our final moments here together, we’re going to allow the candidates to offer their final thoughts. But first, we want to ask them an interesting closing question from Chase Norton on Facebook, who wants to know this of the candidates: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.””
“CRUZ: Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: I’m the son of a pastor and evangelist and I’ve described many times how my father, when I was a child, was an alcoholic. He was not a Christian. And my father left my mother and left me when I was just three years old.
And someone invited him to Clay Road Baptist Church. And he gave his heart to Jesus and it turned him around. And he got on a plane and he flew back to my mother and me.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: I would also note that the scripture tells us, “you shall know them by their fruit.” We see lots of “campaign conservatives.” But if we’re going to win in 2016, we need a consistent conservative, someone who has been a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a national security conservative.
There are real differences among the candidates on issues like amnesty, like Obamacare, like religious liberty, like life and marriage. And I have been proud to fight and stand for religious liberty, to stand against Planned Parenthood, to defend life for my entire career.
And I will be proud to continue to do so as president of the United States.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)”
I was expecting a frank, objective discussion of the myriad of serious issues the US is facing by the various candidates that would allow me to make a thoughtful, informed choice of whom to support.
That's not what I got.
Faux News did a huge disservice to its 24 million viewers.
The one 'gotcha' question was the opener and everyone watching had Trump's 3d party "leverage" on their minds. No one should have been surprised, and particularly not Donald Trump!
Probably everyone on FR is glad that he brings to the front issues that Cruz & others have been shut out on and he should be praised for that. But it's absurd to get all insulted because he responded like a New York real estate mogul - bullying rather than trying to convince or clarify.
The difference between an internal insurrection and spiteful secession is wide and has long term implications.
I thought it was a huge service as it exposed the establishment rinos and forever destroyed Kelly and Wallace.
I saw a recent headline that Fox News has been transferred to Murdoch’s sons who are intent on taking it in a mainstream (MSM) direction. I was in a hurry and did not read the article and turned off my computer. Now I can’t find it again or I would post it.
Cal must not be a student of Moderator Body Language. And the sneering, “Has God spoken to you about this?” to Cruz is not a question about his faith. It is an attack on his faith.
From the Fox News bios: Cal Thomas joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1997 and serves as a political contributor. Additionally, he appears as a panelist on “Fox News Watch” (Saturdays at 2:30 & 11:30 PM/ET).
Rupert Murdoch's sons, taking charge of Fox media empire, will face new digital realities
Or this one from Fox Business?
Agreed...this is my problem with the "debate"; someone should have put Kelly, and the other two stooges in their place.
Heck, I could have sent Kelly running off stage sobbing if she would have axed me the Rosie O'Donut question.
I would have axed Kelly if she thought Howard Stern was waging a war on women when he asked her, and she answered questions about her, "anatomy" and about her husband's, er, "anatomy".
I would have told her I was confused on the rules of engagement on this war and that she seems to be selective on what constitutes war on women. I would have said Kelly seemed to enjoy this skank-like conversation.
Trump should have teed off on that one.
We will see how the next debate will go.
In Fox behaves like CNN and CNBC and CBS and NBC then we will know the fix is in for the uniparty (we already know it).
Schedule for debates.
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/
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.