Despite some good moments, everything about the first two GOP presidential primary debates this year is a failure. They've lost their value, and it's time for a reset.
The main problem is that these aren't debates, and haven't been in decades. They're shows for the egos of the moderators, with wannabe presidents as their props.
A real debate is not run by moderators who choose the topics, questions, and respondents. A real debate would let the candidates speak and address each other in a civil manner. All they need is a referee to curb microphone hogging.
As for their numbers, fewer candidates in stage is of course better. But to close them to mavericks who might rise from obscurity with a notable performance, by raising topics nobody else will, would be an own goal -- for the health of the party and country, we need to hear diverse voices early in the process, to be winnowed down in short order. Not clear to me how best to achieve that balance.
I might disagree a little on the definition of a debate. It’s okay to have a moderator, a set of topics (one or two is best), and then give the candidates the time they need to answer. As debates have become less civil over time, rules have emerged and evolved. Also, the media wants more control for their own agenda(s) as we’re seeing with Fox Business. They certainly don’t qualify as “debates” today.
It's exactly because it has become a media show run by them for their own interests, that I think this format is invalid. Perhaps a moderator is needed, but that person should not pick the topics -- the candidates themselves should. Anything else is canned, just like scripted interviews in any medium. Let the give and take among them set the terms -- it will be instantly obvious who the uncivil ones are, and let the voters pass their own judgment on them. And why should the moderator, if we must have one, be a mass media reporter? It's like letting the class dunce choose today's lessons! Why not a respected businessman or other professional, perhaps much more representative of American voters? You, with your experience in government, campaigns, and debates, would be excellent, and so no doubt would many others practically unknown to the general public!
A wonderful suggestion for which I’m grateful. I would be The Best moderator, as both a journalist and a long time Republican activist. Having said that, there are others who are The Best, including Chris’s colleague at Salem, Hugh Hewitt, the best interviewer in media today. And I think Chris would be excellent. The key is to have allied conservative/center-right media driving the show. I can think of others.
The main problem is that these aren't debates, and haven't been in decades. They're shows for the egos of the moderators, with wannabe presidents as their props.
A real debate is not run by moderators who choose the topics, questions, and respondents. A real debate would let the candidates speak and address each other in a civil manner. All they need is a referee to curb microphone hogging.
As for their numbers, fewer candidates in stage is of course better. But to close them to mavericks who might rise from obscurity with a notable performance, by raising topics nobody else will, would be an own goal -- for the health of the party and country, we need to hear diverse voices early in the process, to be winnowed down in short order. Not clear to me how best to achieve that balance.
I might disagree a little on the definition of a debate. It’s okay to have a moderator, a set of topics (one or two is best), and then give the candidates the time they need to answer. As debates have become less civil over time, rules have emerged and evolved. Also, the media wants more control for their own agenda(s) as we’re seeing with Fox Business. They certainly don’t qualify as “debates” today.
It's exactly because it has become a media show run by them for their own interests, that I think this format is invalid. Perhaps a moderator is needed, but that person should not pick the topics -- the candidates themselves should. Anything else is canned, just like scripted interviews in any medium. Let the give and take among them set the terms -- it will be instantly obvious who the uncivil ones are, and let the voters pass their own judgment on them. And why should the moderator, if we must have one, be a mass media reporter? It's like letting the class dunce choose today's lessons! Why not a respected businessman or other professional, perhaps much more representative of American voters? You, with your experience in government, campaigns, and debates, would be excellent, and so no doubt would many others practically unknown to the general public!
A wonderful suggestion for which I’m grateful. I would be The Best moderator, as both a journalist and a long time Republican activist. Having said that, there are others who are The Best, including Chris’s colleague at Salem, Hugh Hewitt, the best interviewer in media today. And I think Chris would be excellent. The key is to have allied conservative/center-right media driving the show. I can think of others.
Agreed! And thank you!