The unwarranted assumption is that Fox should be a special pleader for the Republican Party, or even one candidate in that party, or even a candidate who might or might not be in that party. Fox has its own agenda-surprise!
Intellectual honesty compels us to concede that the questions asked of Donald Trump and the other Republicans were perfectly in order given the context of the times. Should Donald Trump and the others not have been asked in a Republican debate whether or not they will go rogue? Should Donald Trump in an age in which Democrats are alleging a war on women, not have been confronted with his misogynistic comments? Should Marco Rubio who had been accused of being too young and too inexperienced to be president, not be asked about his qualifications for the office? And so on.
Do we really think the Democrat opposition researchers are not already well acquainted with every aspect of the biography of every one of these candidates? Should we really think that the Democrats are not prepared to exploit fully these statements of Donald Trump in which he called a female a "pig?" Do we really think that if Fox doesn't mention it it will never be mentioned?
Intellectual honesty compels us to say that politics is not beanbag and debate is not an occasion to grasp hands and sing kumbaya. A news organization's job is to make news and to expose the candidates to the people. I have said several times on these threads, Trump supporters turned on their televisions to watch a beanbag contest and Megan Kelly came to a political debate.
This is by necessity an adversarial process because a field of seventeen people has to be winnowed down to only one person and the American system is the survival of the fittest in which we say one who would be president must be able to fight in the contest and win. The American people have a right to consider whether they want a man of Trump's intemperance and bellicosity to be president of the United States. They cannot make that judgment unless they are informed by the questioner about his biography. If a candidate is good enough to be president, a candidate should be good enough confront his own biography. The people are entitled the judge the candidate by considering his character. That character is best revealed in adversity.
Fox has performed a great service to Donald Trump and to the other candidates. It is better for these matters to be aired now well in advance of the election in an atmosphere in which the candidate can make his explanation than in a Democrat media dominated debates or, even worse, in an air war in which Hillary's hundreds of millions of dollars worth of campaign ads simply carpet bomb the Republican. Megan Kelly did her job as did the other Fox moderators. Intellectual honesty compels us to admit that if George Stephanopoulos was wrong for planting an IED in a presidential debate, Fox would be equally guilty for not exploring obvious, relevant political questions.
The complaints about Fox moderators come from a misconception and a disagreement about the nature of their proper role. Moderators are interrogators not enablers.
