It was called a debate. It was not a debate. The way I would have handled the debate would be to ask one question and let each candidate give their answer. Have cards with each candidate's name on a card. Shuffle the cards and then turn them over. That would be the way the candidates would take turns answering the question. After their answers repeat the order to let each one take issue with the others' answer. Then ask another question and repeat the process. The moderators asked questions that sounded general but were in fact pointed at one person. Some candidates got only three or four questions in the two hour period. I wanted to hear questions about policy and what would change from the Obama administration. I don't want to see one candidate attacked. Same question to all and when they answer don't argue with them or question are they sure that's their answer. The moderators thought they were as important as the debate.
The moderators said that they wanted to ask each candidate a question about each issue, but that they had to cut down on the number of questions due to time constraints. There were 10 candidates on stage and they only had 2 hours to do the debate.
The moderators wanted to ask different questions of different candidates because the moderators clearly had favorites and an agenda. Typical of the media. The moderators used 31 minutes of the two hour period asking their long winded questions and panning for the camera.
Yeah, who cares what Trump called Rosie. Who cares how Kasick would treat a lesbian daughter. Who cares if the Good Ole Boys would support the winner. Stick to the issues. It was a sad "debate". But of course all other journalist will praise the questions and the way the moderators handled themselves -- that's an arrogant group sticking up for each other.
I agree the GOP debate was not very helpful for the voter. When we consider both the quality an quantity of candidates, It is difficult to imagine how it might have been a useful contribution to me. This debate did not inspire me to vote for anyone...hopefully there will arise someone (anyone) that makes me want to go to the polls, but as of now it looks like I'm sitting this one out....Again.
I agree. In my mind, targeting individual candidates rather than posing questions for the entire group harks back to ol 'Tears and Tampax' Barbara Walters and her STUPID generic question asked of very important World Leaders of, "If you were a tree what sort of tree would you be?" I nearly puked the first time I heard her pose that question to a person dealing with major national and international problems and thought to myself, "Holy crap, look at just how far journalistic standards have plummeted in this nation!" So yes, pose a handful of IMPORTANT questions that each candidate gets a crack at answering and select the person to answer on a random basis. But then again that 'debate' was really all about boosting Fox New's ratings; it was in other words . . . show biz.
None of them are there to talk about policy. It's all personality and superficial nonsense. That's politics for you. Remember when Obama was talking policy after he was nominated by the Democrats? The left was looking optimistic then, except those on the left who were actually intelligent - who saw through the facade and quite rightly predicted that he'd be just another establishment hack, just like Bush, Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, Carter (to a lesser extent), Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, etc, etc. One thing I'll give you Americans - never ever take your primaries system for granted. The ability to actually choose the candidate makes such a difference. Round these parts the party simply makes the decision for us. A Trump or a Paul wouldn't even be a possibility. Sure, at the end of the day you're still left with a bunch of establishment hacks as Presidents, but at least you get a broader choice of the field. Very few other countries have that ability.
It is foolish to even call that mess a debate. Easy enough to look up the definition of debate. If FOX can't even use language properly it is foolish to expect FOX to contribute anything productive to the process of picking the candidate best for America.
I see this morning Trump is still leading the pack. The people saw through the moderators like a window pane. The only people defending Kelly are other journalist. Those journalist also defended Rather when it became clear he showed a fake document on his news program.
Yes, that's more typical of a real debate. This was not a debate, it was a game show. The objective was infotainment, not information. It was a beauty pagent for the GOP candidates that Roger Ailes picked, and the special guest star was the guy who excited the Fox news angry white man audience and delivered the ratings. A lot of the rest of the country tuned in to see what the Trump fad was all about. It had the dignity and substance of a trashy reality show. But it was a very well done and carefully planned trashy reality show.
Why would I be jealous? You misinterpreted my post. I'm more conservative than John Wayne. But I don't fall for the propaganda put out by all the media types. They like to talk about themselves, their profession, and give themselves awards. One of the most narcissistic professions in the world.
