Replies

I agree with you that the ideal model is to have the candidates debate one another rather than moderators but such an ideal is not practically possible with ten individuals and less than two hours of actual time. If two candidates dispute one another, as happened twice in the debate as I recall, eight candidates get no exposure during that time. When we have such an ungainly number of candidates vying for attention, the moderator simply has to play a larger role. It is unavoidable.

I agree that there were issues that were not covered but the character of the candidates and their biographies are always relevant issues. It is better to establish that in the beginning of the campaign season than later. If issue a) is discussed but not issue b), the very same criticism can be leveled, that the wrong issue was raised. These choices have to be made by the moderator. I happen to believe that the credentials of the candidates are essential questions and issues to get out of the way in the first debate. That the moderators undertook to do.

I would like to reproduce a reply posted in the wake of the debate which repeats some of the points of my initial reply in this thread but which is perhaps worth considering again:

Michael Barone was spot on in his judgments about the quality of the interrogators.

It is not the job of the interrogator to pump up or to deflate any individual campaign but it is their job to determine if someone in the Republican field will run against that field as an independent and spoil the Republican's election chances. It is their job to question a candidate about his past assertions especially assertions which reasonably label him a misogynist when the Democrats last several campaigns revolve around accusing Republicans of hating women.

Indeed, the Fox moderators would have been remiss had they not put these questions to the panel and to Trump individually. They asked hard questions of all the candidates but Trump was doubly vulnerable, first because he had so many problems in this background and, second, because he overstepped the bounds in his replies. Should the moderators not have asked Trump about his bankruptcies? Do we really believe that the Democrats don't know about them, that the Democrats don't know about his comments about women? Do we believe that the Democrats will fail to campaign on these issues should we be foolish enough to nominate Trump?

If Trump turned his answer to Megan Kelly from a triumph when he damned political correctness to a major gaffe when he belittled her individually, the fault is not Megan Kelly's but Trump's. If Trump brags about giving money to Democrats and getting favors in return and that does not wear well with the Republican electorate, that is not the moderators' fault, that is Trump's fault. If Trump brags about Hillary Clinton coming to his wedding because he paid her off, it is not the moderators' fault if he sinks in the polls as a result. If Trump cannot come up with evidence of Mexican government culpability but dissembles and rants, it is not the fault of the moderators if the audience catches on.

Trump supporters who are trying to push the blame for Trump's failures on to the moderators are casting about to explain character flaws in their man. Dr. Krauthammer who is not right on every issue every time got this one right, as did we who predicted this outcome, this is the beginning of the unraveling of Donald Trump's media Ponzi scheme.

Re: “I agree that there were issues that were not covered but the character of the candidates and their biographies are always relevant issues.”

You make a very valid point about the unwieldly format of the debate and therefore the need for more direction of discussion on the part of the moderators, and, as I stated previously, I agree that questions regarding the character and past record of the candidates are absolutely appropriate questions, but I disagree that they were appropriate in a debate format.

Those questions, in my opinion, should be asked in an interview or a press conference, not in a debate on the national issues, which is what I, perhaps mistakenly, thought a debate was supposed to be about.

Whether good or bad, the cat IS out of the bag in regard to Mr Trump. If he ultimately implodes, so be it. That is what the primary process and campaign season is for, to weed out the unqualified candidates (at least we hope that’s what happens).

By the way, I always appreciate your thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments, and that you don’t engage in personal attacks. We may not completely agree on this issue, but know that I am with you on the ultimate goal, to turn the country back to constitutional government.