Apparently, Bruni has embraced the American tradition of covering presidential campaigns as if they were horse races. Bruni tells us who had the best zingers and who responded to awkward questions with the most poise. But he tells us nothing about who uttered the most falsehoods, whose positions are out of touch with reality, and whose positions are downright unconstitutional. Bruni would have been more credible if he had noticed Chris Christie's police state mentality, Mike Huckabee's longing for a US theocracy, and the fact that Donald Trump never backed up his claims about Mexico with a lick of evidence.
15
Donald Trump bases his entire career on making incendiary comments that receive widespread media attention and is then upset when the media call him out on these comments? I sympathize with Megyn Kelly as a woman - regardless of her agenda, she drew attention to disgusting comments made by a man who clearly views women as inferior; and who then proceeded to further demonstrate this by talking down to her.
19
AN INQUISITION Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of the Inquisition in Spain, who was, himself, Jewish, went to the tower of a church one Friday evening after sunset and remarked to his companion that he could tell which houses were Jewish because their chimneys were not smoking. With that he was able to entrap converts to Chrstianity who observed their Jewish traditions clandestinely. So whose chimney was not smoking among the Republican contenders? Trump, accused of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) had smothered his fire. Kasich could wrongly be accused of being a RINO, but he's what the Republicans NEED to be: decent and mature. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz couldn't manage to light their fires. The remaining sex were blowing smoke! At full blast! So, if there were to be an Inquisition and the candidates tried before it, they'd not have much of a bonfire to burn them at the stake. Because they could all afford to bribe the Inquisition to let them slip out of the country. That way they'd fill the coffers of the Church while getting out of town. And let's face it folks, the Church of the Inquisition prized gold above ashes.
3
Let's hope the Democratic candidates will be subjected to the same questioning.
12
It is sad commentary on the state of the nation that only righties can ask tough questions of other righties without being accused of being pro Democrat. For me that just shows that all these folks live in La La Land and have little if any connection with reality.
19
An article that calls bickering about hugs a "substantive debate" is pretty hard to take seriously. Never thought I'd say this, but I kind of felt bad for Trump. Someone needs to explain to this author what the role of the moderator in a debate is. It's not to launch petty attacks and insert yourself in the debate, but to pose substantive questions and then MODERATE the debaters, hence the name. I think Trump is a clownish buffoon, but it's not the job of Fox News hatchet men (and woman) disguised as moderators, to attack him. The memo from Ailes has clearly come down saying Trump has to go before he does any more damage to the remaining Republican clown car.
15
Where does one find the Kool-Aid Republicans drink? And how do 10 people who have checked exactly the same answers on the Republican purity questionnaire (OK, not Trump) find anything to argue about? I know Prohibition was repealed 80-some years ago, but whatever it is these 10 are drinking is some downright dangerous stuff. Maybe in this case there oughta be a law.
Entertaining but hardly substantive, raucous until a God question shooed them back to their pews (except for Trump who, despite anything he has ever said believes he is the highest form of life to ever have evolved and, undoubtedly, in his own immortality), this crowd of choirboys is, unfortunately for the Republican voters, the cream de la cream of their party. You dance with the one that brung ya and keep a smile on your face.
Maybe it's the water, not the genuine imitation chemical flavor-like coloring powder.
Entertaining but hardly substantive, raucous until a God question shooed them back to their pews (except for Trump who, despite anything he has ever said believes he is the highest form of life to ever have evolved and, undoubtedly, in his own immortality), this crowd of choirboys is, unfortunately for the Republican voters, the cream de la cream of their party. You dance with the one that brung ya and keep a smile on your face.
Maybe it's the water, not the genuine imitation chemical flavor-like coloring powder.
6
As a conservative myself, I found the candidates' reaction to Mr. Trumps' comment about Rosie O'Donnell appalling. Not Donald Trumps' comment in and of itself, he's a clown and we all know that. But the lack of reaction from any other candidates, and the fact that he got the loudest applause of the night then.
Surely, I told myself, Surely, someone will call him out! "Hey guys, people already think there is a war on women. How about we not insult any like 6 year old bullies while we are up here during this debate?" Alas, it never came.
Unbelievable, and quite disgusting. These jokers want to be President.
Surely, I told myself, Surely, someone will call him out! "Hey guys, people already think there is a war on women. How about we not insult any like 6 year old bullies while we are up here during this debate?" Alas, it never came.
Unbelievable, and quite disgusting. These jokers want to be President.
26
Apparently there were 4 debates yesterday and Bruni watched the 2 that I missed.
7
Hey Frank,
Maybe Fox News is actually more "Fair & Balanced" than given credit for.
Maybe Fox News is actually more "Fair & Balanced" than given credit for.
13
Notice how Trump threatened Megan for asking a perfectly valid question?
18
It was "great theatre" if you like wrestling matches, with hoots from the audience when someone slammed someone else into the floor. There was no insistence on the truth; statements like "the deficit is increasing" were allowed to fly by when they are just figments of the imagination. You promised 4% growth, or 250,000 new jobs? Well, that was just aiming high, not a promise. Better theatre than the old style of debates, maybe, but still a trip into lalaland.
8
Fox did a better job than any of the other news media debates from 8 years ago. The lamestream media threw nothing but softballs at Obama and Clinton. Of course the Democrats refused to allow a Fox moderated debate. I remember the shock on Clinton's face when Stephanopoulos asked the only hard debate question of the entire primary election, which he did only because Sean Hannity dared him.
11
The author states that "Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. "
Can't we say that about all of them. The great (?) thing about Trump is that there is no pretense.
Can't we say that about all of them. The great (?) thing about Trump is that there is no pretense.
5
I can't wait for the Democratic Party debates. If they ever have them.
Maybe MSNBC can host it and ask the really hard ball questions like ...
"Mrs. Clinton, does being a woman and the wife of a former President give you an advantage over your opponents in running this country?"
"Senator Sanders, which is better - Vermont or Canadian Maple Syrup?"
"Mr. Vice President (Biden), is it true you commute every day by train from Delaware to Washington?"
Oh yeah, should be a "sit on the edge of your seat" event.
Maybe MSNBC can host it and ask the really hard ball questions like ...
"Mrs. Clinton, does being a woman and the wife of a former President give you an advantage over your opponents in running this country?"
"Senator Sanders, which is better - Vermont or Canadian Maple Syrup?"
"Mr. Vice President (Biden), is it true you commute every day by train from Delaware to Washington?"
Oh yeah, should be a "sit on the edge of your seat" event.
13
A thoroughly pitiful performance by 3 Fox incompetants. And it happened before one of the largest viewerships ever for Fox. Megyn Kelly was a giddy boob. The debate itself was entertaining in a comical way.
3
How big of a megalomaniac does one have to be to think they know what God wants a President to do, or to ask such a question in the first place? The Rushmore Presidents want their faces removed...the GOP and Fox have abandoned their values.
4
If it ends up being Hilary vs Trump Hillary has Megyn Kelly to thank. I knew Trump was obnoxious but his stance against women woke me up to how he truly feels about the opposite sex and HC will use it to her advantage. As a centrist I am open to watching shows to the right as well as to the left and MK is a highly intelligent woman and I enjoy her program.
4
What's God got to do with it, and which/whose God ?
Has Secular gone into hiding?
Has Secular gone into hiding?
11
Fox/GOP treated Trump like a party crasher, which I suppose he is.
4
Congratulations on a fabulous and perceptive column, Mr. Bruni. You absolutely captured the most important outcome of the night: how a truly "fair and balanced" Fox News hard news team destroyed years of attack and slander by Obama's countless propagandists. It makes you wonder what else Mr. Obama's acolytes have been trying to sell us.
8
Anyone fair-minded who watches Fox regularly knows that they typically tow the GOP's right-wing party line. But other than choosing who got to take part and requiring that viewers pay cable or satellite fees to watch the "debate," they couldn't get away with doing that last night and knew it. We have to ask: is Fox News the place that God wants the debates to take place? To male citizens have to pay to watch them? I am sure that Murdoch and the folks at Fox know the answer to that question...yes, of course.
3
I think Wallace looks better in eyeglasses.
4
If for nothing else it was worth it to get a long hard look at the nightmarish future these men hold in store for us. We cannot say we were not forewarned.
btw: Are there no women Republicans. Or did the men order them to stay at out of it?
btw: Are there no women Republicans. Or did the men order them to stay at out of it?
6
By all accounts, Fiorina won the second tier debate. It will be interesting to see if she is allowed to join the boys in subsequent debates.
8
The real headline is "Donald Trump has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President".
Trump is the 5th columnist of the Clinton campaign and his right wing republican cheering section will see him sitting in the front pew at Hillary's inauguaration on January 20, 2017
Trump is the 5th columnist of the Clinton campaign and his right wing republican cheering section will see him sitting in the front pew at Hillary's inauguaration on January 20, 2017
4
Don't think for one instant that Fox is embarking on a new path, turning away from their far right, neo con pandering. Make no mistake, this was merely a publicity stunt because they knew millions were watching, if only to see Trump crash and burn. As soon as the stage lights dim, they will return to their old ways.
7
Mike Wallace would be proud of his son.
2
Why does it take so long for a post to appear? I was politically correct with my comments.
1
That's the way it works here, especially if it's a popular article. Frequently takes 2-3 hours for a comment to be posted, and sometimes never, especially after comments have been closed. Doesn't matter whether from right or left....they don't discriminate, although they won't post the outrageous flaming type comments one sees at Fox, USA Today, etc.
They asked the right questions? ISIS couldn't be talked about enough while a more real threat, gun violence here at home, couldn't be addresses over the course of two hours. Or three, if you count the earlier debate. I guess it wouldn't matter as this lot would all say the same thing. But remember that time a guy shot up 20 kids at a school and we did nothing? I'd still like to maybe do something.
8
I totally disagree that the Fox panel, or the Facebook contributors, asked "all the right questions." Really? Not a single question about climate change. Not a single question about Citizens United and the Koch Bros. funding of these candidates. Not a single question about college student debt. Only 1 question about race. When that last question before the final statements was asked -- something like, What is God telling you would be the first thing you should do as President, on Day One?, I thought we had reached a new low in US politics. How was that a debate question for candidates not running for church leader, but for U.S. government office, in a country with a constitutional requirement for separation of church and state?? In addition, when the candidates provided false or at best misleading answers on their records, not once did the Fox panelists correct them. I'm a fan of Mr. Bruni's, but certainly not on this one.
9
Chris Wallace has really aged. However, it has been two years since I have watched Fox News. Cut the cable after witnessing the Fox hit team manipulate the last election. They haven't changed.
5
A debate question you will never hear:
"Mrs. Clinton, why did you receive tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments through a Canadian arm of your foundation that is not required to report donations, while running the State Department on a secret email server hidden in your home?"
"Mrs. Clinton, why did you receive tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments through a Canadian arm of your foundation that is not required to report donations, while running the State Department on a secret email server hidden in your home?"
6
Oh, sweetie. John Kasich is not a decent man.
7
He's 100x more decent than Hillary.
2
What's with this comment "She {Fiorina] may not have any business running for president..."? Her long executive experience is much more relevant to the job of president than Obama's experience as a back-bencher US and state senator.
6
I would add that Mr. Bruni has missed the point entirely if he thinks Trump lost with Republicans. I am still amazed; "brilliant," "riveting," "savage"? It's like saying Gilligan's Island is an exploration of the anthropology of culture developing in isolation. Completely divorced from reality - with the possible exception of immigration, they didn't seriously address any of the nation's truly pressing problems in any serious way.
10
Put a fork in Perry/Santorum/Graham/Gilmore/Pataki. Who would give them money after their unmoving performances?
Fiorina has regurgitated the same sound bites over and over, so much so that she didn't even have to look at notes. Heck, I can spiel out 3/4 of what she says word for word. She just has an ability to memorize and retain what she just memorized. Bet if you interrupted her mid stream, she would have to start all over again because it seems to robotic.
Fiorina has regurgitated the same sound bites over and over, so much so that she didn't even have to look at notes. Heck, I can spiel out 3/4 of what she says word for word. She just has an ability to memorize and retain what she just memorized. Bet if you interrupted her mid stream, she would have to start all over again because it seems to robotic.
5
Perfect analysis- unusual for NYT.
4
How can you say hooray - no mention of climate change at all - even to deny it, no mention of the counter-factual belief in the tax rate/growth rate relationship, no mention of incomes, etc., etc.? This was fake toughness. Toughness would have been "Do you believe in evolution and why should we take you seriously as a candidate for president of the US - manifestly a product of the enlightenment and all that goes with it - if your answer is no?". Or "On what evidence do you base your belief that lower taxes automatically and invariably increase growth rates?" Etc Etc. You have accepted their framework - sorry, very little intellectual effort there.
8
Why would they want to talk about that fallacy?
1
The moderators asked provocative questions, but they didn't call candidates on answers that were flat wrong. Dodd-Frank doesn't eviscerate small and medium banks--it targets those banks deemed "too big to fail." They could have had a deeper discussion of difficult issues, but they made this about them. Politics shouldn't be theater. Give me Cronkite any day.
7
Your a commentator, so of course you have your opinion. But saying the panel asked all the right questions makes me wonder what debate you were watching.
Isn't the most important issue in all of our lives about how we are fouling our own nest with climate change? Not one question there.
We've become a corporate oligarchy based on money and influence. No question there.
We're in two non-sensical, neo-con sponsored wars, each for about 10 years, and now some Republicans want to bomb Iran. No questions there.
Umm, what would be your energy policy for the nation? No question there. Infrastructure? Whiff. Affordable college educations for our young? Whiff.
Aren't these the defining, fundamental questions of our era?
Isn't the most important issue in all of our lives about how we are fouling our own nest with climate change? Not one question there.
We've become a corporate oligarchy based on money and influence. No question there.
We're in two non-sensical, neo-con sponsored wars, each for about 10 years, and now some Republicans want to bomb Iran. No questions there.
Umm, what would be your energy policy for the nation? No question there. Infrastructure? Whiff. Affordable college educations for our young? Whiff.
Aren't these the defining, fundamental questions of our era?
9
Man-made climate change is a fallacy. Why would they even want to waste our time talking about it?
1
The most important -- maybe the only important -- moment was when Trump boasted of being able to buy politicians, including the Clintons and everyone on the stage: I've given money to all of them, he said, and they all come when I call. That, he said, is evidence that our system is broken.
Yet I haven't seen any mention of that exchange in any of the coverage so far.
Yet I haven't seen any mention of that exchange in any of the coverage so far.
11
You are very naive if you don't understand the point he was making.
In the debate Walker said he balanced the budget in Wisconsin. That was an outright lie. There is a 1.3 billion deficit in the state budget that was just passed by the legislature here about two weeks ago. I don't know how he thought he would get a way with (another), a big lie re his affect on WI l on national television. Here in WI his approval rating is at 40%. Even the conservative newspapers in the state have turned against him in recent articles. Walker is still living in a dream world, running around the country in his futile (imaginary) shot at the presidency. He was clearly lack-luster in the debate. Pretty sure his polling numbers will soon take a nose dive. He has decimated the state by playing to the Tea Party, and we are sick of him here. The state of Minnesota, our neighbor, has prospered in every significant way, while business, education and social programs in WI have languished. On the stage Walker looked like the political neophyte he is among the big fish. Poetic justice as far as I'm concerned.
14
Keep in mind, the audience is the primary voter. This stage of the contest isn't about being a centrist, nor a compromiser.
I hate to say it but the article missed all of the body language, facial expressions, interrupting, and other non-verbal posturing which is crucial to these events.
In that department Trump came away the clear winner. The others were almost a bit scared of him, and the moderators, including Megyn Kelly, were actually feeding him a non-stop stream of set-up lines for easy jokes, but didn't dare respond to his non-verbal actions, such as when Trump regularly interrupted the moderators or made faces at them. The cameras were more than happy to show this off.
I hate to say it but the article missed all of the body language, facial expressions, interrupting, and other non-verbal posturing which is crucial to these events.
In that department Trump came away the clear winner. The others were almost a bit scared of him, and the moderators, including Megyn Kelly, were actually feeding him a non-stop stream of set-up lines for easy jokes, but didn't dare respond to his non-verbal actions, such as when Trump regularly interrupted the moderators or made faces at them. The cameras were more than happy to show this off.
2
The election is over a year away and it is much too early for all this. It is bad for the country to be subjected to this on an almost continuous basis so far in advance of each election. Too much money diverted from productive purposes for too long, people diverted from the real issues for too long, plus too much anxiety. I refuse to read or watch or listen to anything having to do with elections until well into next year, including this article, and will not buy any products that advertise related to such "news" or events. I urge others to do the same. I will continue posting this on each election related item I see.
2
Let us now see how Hillary Clinton is treated when she faces a moderator. I doubt that she will be dug into as much. And I agree with you, Mr. Bruni, it was very interesting and refreshing. It is my belief that one of them will be the next president. Most of the nation is very tired, if not actually disgusted, with the socialist turn the democrats have taken. It has help very few, headed our nation into an economic abyss, and cast the civilized world into chaos.
8
The Democrats "headed our nation into an economic abyss"? I didn't realize that George Bush was a Democrat.
7
To a lot of us Republicans, President Bush wasn't far off being a Democrat. Especially when he bailed out the banks and Goldman Sachs.
If Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination I think he should run as an independent...Democrat, that is. He was a Democrat until a few years ago, so NP.
This debate was what all of the previous Dem debates never were, done well and were important.
5
"She may not have any business running for president"
How incredibly sexist.
It'll be interesting to see if liberals treat their candidates with as much thoroughness as Fox did conservatives.
How incredibly sexist.
It'll be interesting to see if liberals treat their candidates with as much thoroughness as Fox did conservatives.
6
Exactly. Fiorina has as much business running as Mitt Romney did or Trump does for that matter.
2
Can you imagine Hillary in a debate of this type?
6
I had to watch the online clips. I thought it was hilarious that Fiorina was channeling Maggie Thatcher and is jonesin' to mop the floor with Hillary Clinton. I think the center of the entertainment may soon make a paradigm shift. She wants it bad!! Watch out Donald. Watch out world!
3
Having heard him for the first time, I was very impressed with John Kasich, Governor of Ohio. He came across as a straightforward person who had his own moral compass and was not towing only the party line.
In my mind, he won the debate.
In my mind, he won the debate.
6
I liked Kasich and was almost ready to give $10 to his campaign when I remembered that he was a Republican.
It's sad that I like John Kasich more than Hillary Clinton right now.
It's sad that I like John Kasich more than Hillary Clinton right now.
4
I am a libertarian and it was refreshing to hear 17 admit that government is responsible for where we are now. You can love it or hate it but government is responsible. And it was a relief to hear the questions about issues that matter instead of hearing the adolescent whinings from the ambitionless shoe-gazing victimhood persons of the liberal party. It was refreshing to have adults stand up and not talk about fabrication phantoms of the left like student debt, Citizens United; the role of money in political campaigns, the Koch Brothers, climate issues and income inequality. How will the left ever explain Hillary Clinton if they were given a dose of truth serum? I don't believe in God but it was nice to hear people moved by something altruistic and larger than themselves in contrast to the left slobbering over every victim they can find from prisoners to illegal aliens. The left will be silent when faced with their sickening IRS scandals and the VA failures. Looking forward to another debate.
2
First it was Barack Obama. Now it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
We really are toast and deservedly so.
We really are toast and deservedly so.
2
I felt very much as you did, Mr. Bruni, but less articulately.
1
I must admit, I did tune into this "debate" as I thought it would be a form of entertainment (what goofy thing will Trump say), and as I suspected it was. I'm not sure who had the most phony look...Magyn Kelly's eyebrows or Donald Trump's hair. Anyhow, Fox got what they wanted: millions of dollars for an entertaining show. it was highly predictable; almost Jerry Springer like showman ship. And why does "God" always have to come into political debate? How can someone's religious beliefs be a measure of someone's ability to serve as commander-n-chief. Last I checked there is a separation of church and state in this country.
3
The moderators were not that good in the second debate. They mostly centered on Trump and let-the rest give their political speeches. When one asked the candidate if he would allow a mother to die rather than have an abortion, he just skirted around without answering yes or no. Ben Carson had little chance to talk and give full answers. Asking if god spoke to them was inappropriate. How we communicate with God in our prayers is none of their business. What is important is if that faith would impact a president on abortion, war, immigration, gay marriage. We don't need someone who wishes to impose his religion on others. ISIS does that. John R. Kasich answers were the most impressive and his discussion of whether he would love his daughter if she was a lesbian was great. The question was ridiculous and the inappropriate. Hopefully the next debate we will have questions that help us understand each candidates ability to lead diverse nation inn a dangerous time
4
First of all, sounds bites, despite your analysis here, were not exorcised last night. Most of the candidates simply ignored the questions asked, and reverted to answering with their talking points. Which were lies. Second, did you notice that both Rubio and Huckabee - and I'm going to assume Cruz and the rest of the so-called, misnamed "pro-life" bunch - were willing to let a pregnant woman die rather than allow her to have an abortion that could save her life? That policy position alone reveals these candidates as savage relics of another century. It was a disgusting, appalling display of misogyny, homophobia, ego and ignorance. All the way around.
7
The FOX manipulation machine in action.
2
" It was great television, and even better politics." It sure was!! I was extremely surprised but excited that Fox hit so hard. Good on them.
2
Love reading the NYT picks--full of people venting their angst over the fact the their imaginary issues didn't get any play in prime time. That debate was by far the best I have ever seen. The moderators' first question for each candidate was a brutal gut-punch, and the following ones weren't any less challenging. This debate should be a model that all future ones aspire to equal--well done, Fox News.
8
Thank you, Mr. Bruni, for your concise and poignant assessment/characterization of the Fox News Channel's orchestration and execution of the Republican debate. In contrast to the conspicuously partisan posture that many of the other networks adopt, the FNC
produced both a format and approach to the event that is reflective of their integrity and diligence in being "fair and balanced". I could only wish that the other networks would take notice and quit being minions or sycophants to the progressive left. These are serious times, serious issues, and require serious consideration about both the leadership and direction our country is heading. Thank you, sir, for offering serious commentary.
produced both a format and approach to the event that is reflective of their integrity and diligence in being "fair and balanced". I could only wish that the other networks would take notice and quit being minions or sycophants to the progressive left. These are serious times, serious issues, and require serious consideration about both the leadership and direction our country is heading. Thank you, sir, for offering serious commentary.
7
I'm sure Trump has already lost much of the female population's votes. His immature, misogynistic, catty remarks regarding "women he doesn't like" are beyond pathetic. His audacity at demeaning John McCain when he never had the guts to serve his country himself (a heel spur? Come on... at least make it a heart murmur!) is beyond laughable. He may "unzip" his fictitious financial net worth ("Look! Mine is bigger than yours!") but nothing can make him become more than he is: A carrot-topped, little man with a shocking case of arrested development and a bloated ego to match. No way he could ever serve as leader of this country! Compassion, depth of character and maturity are all requirements. He flunks on all accounts.
6
The FOXNEWS trio looked like the three stooges especially Megyn Kelly. Trump knocked it out of the park in spite of their incompetence. If I were Trump I would send FOXNEWS a bill and demand that everyone stand up and give him a standing ovation from Murdoch all the way down because the ONLY reason the rating were as high as they were was because of Trump.
1
Trump made the debate refreshingly alive. He was the only one who was impulsively spontaneous (other than Rand Paul who looked like a teenager with a temper tantrum).
The moderators did not ask any important issues brewing in this country: climate change, issues of economy, inequlity, guns and surge of shootings in public places, prisons and mental health, surge of police shootings, etc.
It is unbelievable that they seem to be living in a different planet!
Bashing women's rights over their bodies and badmouthing Hillary were the big topics and the majority of the puppets eagerly jumped in. Questions and answers over abortion rights were deeply offending and appalling to women voters.
Finally, who are these Godless creatures talking about God? Ask Pope Francis about his opinion in that department as none of these clowns qualify to open their mouth in the presence of the Pope, servants of the poor and disadvantaged.
That is authenticity! The rest of them -- just phoney personalities, hypocrisy and liars.
The moderators did not ask any important issues brewing in this country: climate change, issues of economy, inequlity, guns and surge of shootings in public places, prisons and mental health, surge of police shootings, etc.
It is unbelievable that they seem to be living in a different planet!
Bashing women's rights over their bodies and badmouthing Hillary were the big topics and the majority of the puppets eagerly jumped in. Questions and answers over abortion rights were deeply offending and appalling to women voters.
Finally, who are these Godless creatures talking about God? Ask Pope Francis about his opinion in that department as none of these clowns qualify to open their mouth in the presence of the Pope, servants of the poor and disadvantaged.
That is authenticity! The rest of them -- just phoney personalities, hypocrisy and liars.
14
Heh Bruni, why not just come out as a proud republican? Too embarrassing? People will talk?
1
While I shall always remain a print edition fan of the Times and faithful subscriber, doing so gives me its digital edition. And Frank's column was not in the morning's print edition. (Another insufferable David Brooks, writing on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu!) Frank's take is laudable as usual. But alas, as I elected not to watch the clowns' performance, I had no frame of reference for some of his allusions that I would have benefited from, such as the god stuff near the end. I watch the clip here and thought Kucinic came across as the most presidential of them all. If he fails to ignite support, I must wonder if he will always regret entering the fray so tardily. And what a blessing that Cruz seemed hardly there. And I think that says a lot--about how FOX regards him and how his persona adjusts to a shared platform. Did we learn more definitely about these trolls? Nope. Even the probing FOX questions didn't reveal any hidden brilliance, covert wit, introspective compassion, or reasons any of them should be president. May we expect better from the next debate? We may expect it but it is doubtful.
1
Not a very accurate report, but at least NYT puts such dreck in the opinion section, unlike AP.
1
What (still) perplexes me is that Christie is still being harassed for hugging President Obama when he came to NJ to help all the Hurricane Sandy victims. As a New Yorker who lived thru Sandy (and 9/11) why does Rand Paul (and other Republicans) mock Christie for attempting to pull his state together in the face of one of our worst natural disasters in modern times? Was it so outlandish of the governor to care about his people rather than what is party would think? I am just baffled by this? Are the Republicans so short sided that they feel Christie is an Obama supporter because he was grateful for the help? And then (last night) when Christie came back with his 9/11 hugs response I was even more astounded. Why would he not own a moment that showed him crossing his “party” lines for the good of the people? Shouldn’t this be what government is about…us?
8
To some Republicans, the President is just as much an enemy as ISIS is.
4
The feeling seems mutual, eh.
At least last night was a vigorous debate on the Republican side; when is the coronation on the Democrat side?
4
Democratic
1
Major faux pas; just avoid the issue like a good Gruber.
The amount of television and print time devoted to these affairs is really astounding. I'll tune in when it's whittled down to a few viable candidates. And I would also ask that the media stop calling these forums "debates". They aren't debates. A debate is a thoughtful forum to address topics in depth. Perhaps no one believes the public would sit through a real debate. Once the candidates are chosen, instead of entertainment, a series of true debates focusing on the major issues of our time, should be scheduled. Forums with 1 minute answers and 30 second rebuttals are not debates. They just play into the "sound-bite" media coverage that is a factor in hindering our ability to make good decision regarding who should lead this country.
2
What Fox doesn't seem to realize is that the same dynamic is at work when they attack the Trumpet as is at work when the left attacks the Republican base for being stupid and not aware of the real issues.
The more the left attacks the Republican base that way, the more the Republican base expands, as more and more people who are just regular Joe's identify with the attacks as being elitist.
The more Fox attacks the Trumpet for being a blowhard and not to be taken seriously, the more the average Joe identifies with what he says, and his base expands.
Watch out for the Trumpet!
The more the left attacks the Republican base that way, the more the Republican base expands, as more and more people who are just regular Joe's identify with the attacks as being elitist.
The more Fox attacks the Trumpet for being a blowhard and not to be taken seriously, the more the average Joe identifies with what he says, and his base expands.
Watch out for the Trumpet!
1
I am surprise by the comments in NYT Picks - I think Fox did well in avoiding soft-ball questions and challenging candidates to face some of their dominant criticisms. In the next debate, though, I would want them to force answers to the questions of "what would you do as president if ..." rather than letting the candidate slip by with "not what President Obama did"
1
With massive audience exposure from both parties, Fox had to be deliberately on the attack, to maintain any credibility as a "news" organization with everyone except their hardcore fans. Nice marketing strategy for them. Maybe not so much for the Republican candidates.
1
This was the best debate I've ever watched on television in this social-media world we live in now, combining theater and substance without the cringing that I usually feel when watching candidates being grilled and trying to avoid a soundbite that will haunt them forever.Very informative. I know the candidates better now. Bravo Fox
3
I find it shocking that not even Frank Bruni was able to muster some level of outrage that at least two candidates for President -- Walker and Rubio -- went on public record last night as advocating letting the mother die in order to save a fetus created from rape or incest. This is extremism at its disgusting worst, and for supposedly God-fearing men to utter such horrible statements is beyond the pale.
11
Its too bad none of the MSM will question the democrats in such a fashion. what the liberals fail to realize is often we conservatives are harder on our politicians than they are on their own. Had a republican done half the things as untoward as Hillary she wouldnt even be in the running.
7
Read my mind!
Not true. Hillary has essentially done nothing but serve her country. All accusations are trumped up misogyny.
Not normally a fan of the NY Times or of Frank Bruni either... but this column was mostly spot on... especially the comments about the Donald.
1
How about a Kasich-Fiorina ticket? That could beat Hillary and whoever. BTW, Frank Bruni, God bless your clear-thinking, beautiful mind and writing.
3
Mr. Bruni:
What you saw last night was not a debate, it was a state fair. There was hardly enough gravitas on that stage to keep the candidates feet on the stage. Once the cleverly positioned "tough" questions were asked, upfront, to allow each candidate his turn at being indignant the debacle began. No real commitmant to any policy was uttered by anyone, with the unsursprising exception of abortion and God.
The real indicator of Fox'es seriousness was the post event analysis which looked like a high school civics event. Frank Lunz? Raise your hands sampling? I thought I was watching a parody of a Jack Black movie. The overt mission was clear: will someone, please, make the Donald go home pouting,
once and for all. Fox obliged. Mr. Bruni, you are easily impressed. Mr. Trump
was not. Though the Donald deserves it, this was nothing more than a hatchet job.
What you saw last night was not a debate, it was a state fair. There was hardly enough gravitas on that stage to keep the candidates feet on the stage. Once the cleverly positioned "tough" questions were asked, upfront, to allow each candidate his turn at being indignant the debacle began. No real commitmant to any policy was uttered by anyone, with the unsursprising exception of abortion and God.
The real indicator of Fox'es seriousness was the post event analysis which looked like a high school civics event. Frank Lunz? Raise your hands sampling? I thought I was watching a parody of a Jack Black movie. The overt mission was clear: will someone, please, make the Donald go home pouting,
once and for all. Fox obliged. Mr. Bruni, you are easily impressed. Mr. Trump
was not. Though the Donald deserves it, this was nothing more than a hatchet job.
2
The field of candidates needs to be thinned. FOX made a first good step at that. Serious policy questions needs to come when the field is narrowed to the most serious candidates.
I could not disagree more. The moderators seemed to go out of their way to try to ask questions that they thought would make them appear smart and hard-edged, questions that elicited absolutely no information from any of the candidates on any subject. They were attempting to put the focus on themselves, rather than the candidates. Instead of open discourse about important issues, we got defensive answers to jaundiced interrogatories. The debate was a complete waste of time, in my opinion.
2
"They articulated their positions with clarity and passion." Really??
4
For a night, the Fox commentators were not right-wing Republicans first and journalists a very distant last. Have they finally become "fair and balanced"? No way, but it was a refreshing moment nonetheless.
FOX news has always been fair and balanced. Opinion shows, not so much.
I agree with Frank's general assessment, especially his praise for the Fox moderators with whose political positions I usually disagree. I do not think the exchange between Christie and Paul was that good. Paul should have responded to Christie's oversight comment by saying we cannot trust anyone with the data he does not want collected, instead of saying we can't trust Obama with that data.
1
How did I miss the Time Machine that turned Gov Christie into the sitting governor during 9/11?
5
Can we all imagine how much better condition of our country would be if, in 2008 or 2012, our current President had been subjected to similarly thorough vetting?
3
Obama saved the United States and is a hero worldwide. You have witnessed a legend and you're lucky to have been alive to see it. Go see Dylan while you still have the chance, too.
2
I'm sorry, but Marco Rubio just does not have the gravitas to be President. Neither does Scott Walker. The only viable candidates to come out of the debate were J.E.Bush and John Kasich.
1
What was with that God question near the end? Separation of church and state is a good thing.
5
You don't understand the concept evidently. Its only purpose is to keep gubment from promoting a religion.
For anyone who still doubts it, the debate underlined once and for all that this is truly the Fox News Primary. All roads to the GOP nomination lead through Fox News. Fox News is the GOP gatekeeper, kingmaker, policy clearinghouse and arbiter of party orthodoxy.
To reinforce the point and assert its control over the proceedings, Fox News actually began the debate with the administration of a GOP loyalty oath, requiring all candidates to raise their hands and vow their support of the party under the oversight of Fox News.
This is the first time in American history that a political party has been administered by a television network, a truly frightening development in the history of our democracy.
To reinforce the point and assert its control over the proceedings, Fox News actually began the debate with the administration of a GOP loyalty oath, requiring all candidates to raise their hands and vow their support of the party under the oversight of Fox News.
This is the first time in American history that a political party has been administered by a television network, a truly frightening development in the history of our democracy.
9
As usual, pundits seem to be missing the point. This was not a traditional presidential debate, but rather an ideological screening; an inoculation of the candidates and the viewers against each candidate's core weakness; and a presentation of the Fox Bubble -- the bizarroworld in which the United States is in a state of disaster -- to any mainstream Americans who happened to have wanted to check in, with ten thousand cheering fans as if the crazy things these folks were saying were actually reasonable activating the social consensus heuristic. This is the same effect as having thirty chefs oohing and aahing over the ginsu knife's ability to cut through a can and then a tomato.
If this were a serious affair designed to inform the American people, the "audience" would have been asked to not respond (a la Jim Lehrer or any other actual journalist). Questions would have been asked from outside the far right ideology.
Did anyone notice that Kelly presented the notion that an abortion after rape amounts to two wrongs as a rock solid assumption, rather than -- as it once was -- a broadly accepted exception even by the staunchly anti-abortion folks?
And the candidates all agree, and the crowd roars its approval, and sudddenly the idea that government should force a rape victim to carry and give birth to her rapist's offspring has become accepted as normal and acceptable to think.
If this were a serious affair designed to inform the American people, the "audience" would have been asked to not respond (a la Jim Lehrer or any other actual journalist). Questions would have been asked from outside the far right ideology.
Did anyone notice that Kelly presented the notion that an abortion after rape amounts to two wrongs as a rock solid assumption, rather than -- as it once was -- a broadly accepted exception even by the staunchly anti-abortion folks?
And the candidates all agree, and the crowd roars its approval, and sudddenly the idea that government should force a rape victim to carry and give birth to her rapist's offspring has become accepted as normal and acceptable to think.
6
I am surprised by how much those in the media are swooning over the moderators. I guess given that they are from Fox, the expectations were very low.
Frankly, I found them slightly goofy and amateurish, and often wondered if they knew at the end of the ads that the microphones were on. It was more like a high school event, not a presidential debate.
Frankly, I found them slightly goofy and amateurish, and often wondered if they knew at the end of the ads that the microphones were on. It was more like a high school event, not a presidential debate.
7
How many think that CNN will ask such real, honest, probing questions of the bunch the dems are running when the those few "debates" actually happen? Will they ask REAL questions of hillary about her e-mail fiasco or about the clinton foundation scandals and hold her to real, honest answers?
Will they ask the proud socialist REAL questions or lob nerf balls at him?
Will they have the integrity Fox News has?
The never have so far!
Will they ask the proud socialist REAL questions or lob nerf balls at him?
Will they have the integrity Fox News has?
The never have so far!
5
God, the repetitive talking point. Just put a link to Red State and be done with it!
The clown bus stopped in Cleveland on Thursday and the clowns did not disappoint! This group makes Texas look less embarrassing. FOX was as ridiculous as always, up to Murdoch's standards!!
5
You forgot to put in the last line of your column.
"Now maybe the other networks will learn how to be journalists?"
"Now maybe the other networks will learn how to be journalists?"
4
"hooray for Fox News" What? Where to begin with that. I'll just point out the most obvious thing wrong with that. Not a single question was asked about climate change. This is especially astounding since the President just announced his new climate initiative.
7
FOX was attempting, unsuccessfully, to derail Trump's candidacy. The GOP wants him out and believes that the people supporting him do so because they are ignorant of the man he really is.
They are not. Trump's supporters know exactly who he is. His hatred of immigrants, sexism, jingoism, and cynical opportunism are the very characteristics they gravitate to - he is the epitome of what "modern conservatism" has degenerated into. Ironically, FOX News has a lot to do with that.
They are not. Trump's supporters know exactly who he is. His hatred of immigrants, sexism, jingoism, and cynical opportunism are the very characteristics they gravitate to - he is the epitome of what "modern conservatism" has degenerated into. Ironically, FOX News has a lot to do with that.
4
"A Foxy, Rowdy Republican Debate" ?
This isn't a comedy program or reality TV show, it's part of our (allegedly) democratic processes and system of government!
When will the new media and professional pundits step up and stop treating this like some fun and games spectacle and begin to treat this with the seriousness it demands?
How about analyzing what these characters have to say on REAL ISSUES that demand serious attention?
My God, we need Jon Stewart now, more than ever!
He was the ONLY guy willing to actually address what these politicos are saying/doing and also to speak truth to power! (And as he himself said, he started doing that because the news media had appropriated its responsibility to do it!)
This isn't a comedy program or reality TV show, it's part of our (allegedly) democratic processes and system of government!
When will the new media and professional pundits step up and stop treating this like some fun and games spectacle and begin to treat this with the seriousness it demands?
How about analyzing what these characters have to say on REAL ISSUES that demand serious attention?
My God, we need Jon Stewart now, more than ever!
He was the ONLY guy willing to actually address what these politicos are saying/doing and also to speak truth to power! (And as he himself said, he started doing that because the news media had appropriated its responsibility to do it!)
5
After all seventeen are riddled by friendly fire get ready for the "Draft Mitt" movement to take up the slack.
This review will come as a surprise to readers who sneer at Fox but have never watched it. It doesn't surprise me, a regular viewer of Bill O'Reilly and Megan Kelly. Fox provides the smartest comment and infotainment on television today, with contributions from left and right even when viewed through a conservative-centrist lens. What we saw in the debate was just a sample of what happens every night, as regular viewers know so well.
4
These 'journalists' have grown accustomed to inserting themselves into every story that they 'cover'. Maybe we should allow fifteen minutes for the candidates to ask the reporters some questions about their stance on the issues...
Bottom line is Kelly may be tbe Queen of Fox, but i didnt tune in to be entertained by her silly questions.
Bottom line is Kelly may be tbe Queen of Fox, but i didnt tune in to be entertained by her silly questions.
1
It was a good show and proved that FOX NEWS is indeed "Fair and Balanced". This could have been a softball throwing contest; instead each of the candidate was required to put on their body armor and defend.
You can bet your last button that the democratic debates will be a snooze-fest compared to last night's republican lashing.
You can bet your last button that the democratic debates will be a snooze-fest compared to last night's republican lashing.
6
The "debate" was all about ratings. It was clear that FOX wanted its audience to be - first and foremost - entertained.
1
Look for Trump to ultimately lose the GOP nomination but sign some lucrative under the table deal with the RNC in exchange for not running as 3rd party candidate.
1
"On Thursday night in Cleveland, the Fox News moderators did what only Fox News moderators could have done, because the representatives of any other network would have been accused of pro-Democratic partisanship."
I'm reminded of one of the Star Trek movies, where the Klingtons had a saying, "Only Nixon went to China." Very perceptive, Mr Bruni.
I'm reminded of one of the Star Trek movies, where the Klingtons had a saying, "Only Nixon went to China." Very perceptive, Mr Bruni.
Fox did yeoman work -- for the RNC. They destroyed Trump and, more important, made a third-party run an issue that will divide true GOPers from traitors.
I wonder if the refreshing aggressiveness of the Fox moderators was due to the ascendency of James and Lachlan Murdoch. The brothers' longstanding, intense dislike of Roger Ailes is well known. Mr Ailes remains president of Fox News (and has other titles as well), and was allowed to preserve at least a semblance of autonomy in a belated press release affirming his continuing "special" relationship with Murdoch père, but the bottom line is he reports to James Murdoch, and his contract is up next year. One imagines that what James wants, James shall have: that's the Murdoch MO. Especially when it makes for great television.
I always thought the perfect answer to asking Trump "Where's the proof that the Mexico is sending its illegal immigrants" would be: "Is Mexico doing anything to stop them?
Ted Cruz won the debate. The flamboyant and foxy men may have caught some attention but the substance filled gravitas candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, won the debate.
2
Imagine MSNBC doing a tough job with Obama in '08 or '12.
What's your best memory in the state senate?
What's your favorite passage in Dreams from My Father?
You opposed the Iraq War, how would you parlay that into effective foreign policy as president?
What's your best memory in the state senate?
What's your favorite passage in Dreams from My Father?
You opposed the Iraq War, how would you parlay that into effective foreign policy as president?
4
Entirely to effusive Frank. You were obviously sucked in hook line and sinker by your exceedingly low pre-game expectations.
So the most startling thing about this debate was the performance of the Fox News moderators.
Don’t tell me that wasn’t totally contrived!
The really substantive and tough stuff was apparently off limits.
Guess it was better than what was expected -- the usual Fox pandering to right of center right.
Bottom line -- how do we get beyond the celebesque, grandly staged theater and on to the real grit?
So the most startling thing about this debate was the performance of the Fox News moderators.
Don’t tell me that wasn’t totally contrived!
The really substantive and tough stuff was apparently off limits.
Guess it was better than what was expected -- the usual Fox pandering to right of center right.
Bottom line -- how do we get beyond the celebesque, grandly staged theater and on to the real grit?
Mr. Bruni, The debate was a charade. Fox News tried to give credibility to the ten out-of-touch egomaniacs pretending to have what it takes to lead our country. Fox was like Crusty the Clown trying to sell a defective and dangerous toy gun to an audience of gullible kids.
2
When and if Clinton opens herself up to debate, I hope that the moderators the Democrats chose will be as hard-hitting as the Fox Three. Wishful thinking, tho. Who can ever forget Candy Crowley and George Stephanopoulos...poodles for Obama. Chuck Todd...ugh!
5
Fox did make it entertaining and did throw hardballs. But they did not raise the serious issues that Republicans famously ignore. No nuance, no attempt to gauge an accurate understanding of history, and the present realities both here and abroad. Nor did they address the real problems facing our country and our democracy.
Still, it was enlightening: John Kasich stood out as the leading pragmatist, a guy with a head AND a heart. Jeb is strong, but is "W"-eighted down by his family's past. Christie is right with them, best chance to pick up moderates. A tea-party candidate has no shot in the general and therefore will not make it past the primary.
Still, it was enlightening: John Kasich stood out as the leading pragmatist, a guy with a head AND a heart. Jeb is strong, but is "W"-eighted down by his family's past. Christie is right with them, best chance to pick up moderates. A tea-party candidate has no shot in the general and therefore will not make it past the primary.
1
Trump is not-not being a team-player. The GOP has tried to oust Trump and essentially are attempting to bully him out of contention from the very start. They unfairly patronize him just because he's not a career politician unlike some of these lying say-anything-to win candidates. Trump says it like it is, and the GOP doesn't like that they couldn't control him. But that's why people- including the left should love him. He has his own money. He doesn't need to be a puppet for the GOP. He will do whatever is best for the people. The people love Trump, as evidenced from several polls and obvious overwhelming support- and that can't be denied. For whatever inexplicable and idiotic reason the GOP thinks their "golden boy" is Bush. No one will vote for another Bush. Everyone knows it. The GOP is in denial if they even consider it. If they do that, it will play out just like the MCain campaign did. He wasn't popular overall, but the GOP big wigs decided that's who they wanted. And we paid for it. Dearly. And STOP ignoring Carson. He's brilliant. Let's get this fixed GOP, for the sake of our country. If not, IT'S ON YOU. Vote Trump 2016....Or just about anyone else but lying Hellary. #anyonebuthillary2016
1
I disagree with a bunch of the commenters about the moderators. I am a died-in-the wool progressive and no fan of Fox News, but the moderators asked some excellent questions. Yeah, there were some they could have asked, but overall they did a great job. I cannot recall a recent debate where questions were as consistently pointed, fearless and openly critical. Here's my take on the candidates' performance:
Most Invisible (tie): Ted Cruz and Ben Carson
Most Smooth: Marco Rubio
Most Angry: Donald Trump
Most Surprising (in a good way): John Kasich
Most Clueless (& Scary): 10-way tie (just kidding, or am I?): Mike Huckabee
Most Policy-Wonk(y): Jeb Bush
Most Likely to Punch Someone (tie): Chris Christie and Rand Paul
Most Sleepy: Scott Walker
Most Invisible (tie): Ted Cruz and Ben Carson
Most Smooth: Marco Rubio
Most Angry: Donald Trump
Most Surprising (in a good way): John Kasich
Most Clueless (& Scary): 10-way tie (just kidding, or am I?): Mike Huckabee
Most Policy-Wonk(y): Jeb Bush
Most Likely to Punch Someone (tie): Chris Christie and Rand Paul
Most Sleepy: Scott Walker
2
I wish I could read every comment. I learn so much from my fellow commenters.
At one point last night, my husband, who was an unwilling viewer of the circus, said, "Why are they constantly talking about Reagan? That's where all the trouble started." Excellent question.
There's a lot more that was wonky about last night, especially the mushy question at the end about God. Why? If I chatted endlessly about God, and dragged God out into my position statements, I think God would be a bit...embarrassed...to be embraced in that way.
Maybe God will forgive us for our God-mania. I hope so. All I know is that God is not political in my life. These monkeys give God one-armed squishy hugs, while bear-hugging their egos -- and Reagan -- with the other arm.
At one point last night, my husband, who was an unwilling viewer of the circus, said, "Why are they constantly talking about Reagan? That's where all the trouble started." Excellent question.
There's a lot more that was wonky about last night, especially the mushy question at the end about God. Why? If I chatted endlessly about God, and dragged God out into my position statements, I think God would be a bit...embarrassed...to be embraced in that way.
Maybe God will forgive us for our God-mania. I hope so. All I know is that God is not political in my life. These monkeys give God one-armed squishy hugs, while bear-hugging their egos -- and Reagan -- with the other arm.
3
The words "Trump" and "gravitas" don't go together. Might anyone imagine Mr. Trump speaking to Angela Merkel or Aung San Suu Kyi in the manner in which he addresses most women?
1
He and Putin have a lot in common.
Yes, of course we shouldn't just believe them. But will that translate to not just believing Hillary Clinton, either? Looks like the paper that almost always pampers Democrats by ignoring their misdeeds needs to get back to provoking them. It's like the Times is afraid of their own story about Clinton's e-mails. Much more has come out, but haven't heard any more great reporting from them.
3
Winners were Fiorina, Perry, Rubio, Kasich, Cruz, Carson and Huckabee. All came off as "Presidential," well prepared and emphasized "jobs, jobs, and more jobs."
Losers were Billory, Obama and the Democrats. Eight years of government overspending and their Great Recession is ENOUGH.
Losers were Billory, Obama and the Democrats. Eight years of government overspending and their Great Recession is ENOUGH.
3
Not to belabor a point, but the economy was already crashing as Obama took office, we were (and to a great extent still are) embroiled in essentially pointless wars. Wars started by the previous administration while they happily cut taxes. Those wars, fractured the remaining stability of the middle-east fueling Al Qaeda and spawning ISIS. The already totally debunked "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq was used to bamboozle Congress and the people that the threat was real. The Bush White House used up the remaining trust people had (including Congress) to believe the President and his administration (anyone remember Colin Powell's testimony) and lets not forget "Shock and Awe", or "you go to war with the Army have not the Army you want" and last bus not least that incredible example of pre-pubescent theater - "Mission Accomplished" by Bush on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Nope, that snowball started rolling downhill in 2002 and by the time Obama was President both the wars and the economy were in a shambles. Getting it stopped, turned around and hopefully not making a bigger mess in the process was a miserable job and the mess was left by Bush.
From abroad I sit in a good place to gauge reaction and sift through the fog of a nascent campaign. Given Trump's past and present coziness with the Clintons, it appears that they have struck some deal with him. Remember, there would be no Clinton presidency if billionaire (sound familiar?) Ross Perot had not siphoned votes from Bush 41. I think this is the game-plan all along for trump and Hillary. Donating heavily to Bill Clinton and then to Hillary, as well as their foundation,Trump's bona fides are suspect. If he can poll even 7-10% of the electorate, Hillary's election is assured. Game over.
2
They're all not that clever.
Why the congratulatory note to the host of the event last night, Fox? The questions were loaded, but not w/any sort of policy substantive points to consider, leaving the evening to ponder fear, the GOP's main commodity. Militarize for war, build the wall, keep women as carriers for fetuses as in Atwood's HANDMAIDEN novel, lower taxes, bust unions, which are busted, and continue on a path of no-nothing, nativist, atavistic attitudes from another century, at least. Economic disparity? Voting rights problems? Racism? Violence? What debate?
4
Given the # of candidates & the rich field of topics one could have grilled each of them on, it is understandable that the moderators/inquisitors didn't have time to ask all the good questions that will hopefully be asked in the upcoming debates -- rounds 2, 3, 4, etc.
But have to give it to Fox -- the inquisitors did a good job with the time they had. It was apparent that Megyn Kelly (or her handlers) learned something in law school.
But have to give it to Fox -- the inquisitors did a good job with the time they had. It was apparent that Megyn Kelly (or her handlers) learned something in law school.
1
Megan's first question shows exactly what WRONG with politics.
No person should EVER swear their alligence to a political party.
Just look at Hillary Clinton: she's the leading Democrat but will probably go to prison because of her email server scandal. Should the Democrats promise to sink their ship just to support HIllary?
It was a childish question and Trump was the only one to see through it.
No person should EVER swear their alligence to a political party.
Just look at Hillary Clinton: she's the leading Democrat but will probably go to prison because of her email server scandal. Should the Democrats promise to sink their ship just to support HIllary?
It was a childish question and Trump was the only one to see through it.
That would be something, Hillary in cuffs and doing a perp walk. Only in America.
Winners in political spin and their base ate it up. They filled most of the time with talking about God and their superior claim over american women and their healthcare decisions for their family planning. Apparently, these men don't think American women have the intelligence or right to make their own health decisions. These repiblican men are getting little too close to Sharia Law for me where women are second class citizens and the men make their decisions for them. Interestingly, Rubio and others lied about small businesses but kept talking about their faith. Apparently, playing loose with facts or as we call " lying" to win at any cost is their true religion.
4
Never thought I would type these words, but nice job Fox News. Credit were credit is due, those moderators were heads and shoulders above what we see from other networks in the past. Insightful questions, appropriately tenacious and certainly not afraid to skewer a few fatted calves.
Realizing that while it all made for good television, which is after all the business they're in, it revealed more about the candidates then any debate I've seen previously.
While part of me would dearly love to be in a position to have to argue with Megan Kelly about replacing the cap on the toothpaste, a much greater part of me would think long and hard before getting into that, or any other, argument with her. One very smart, very tough lady. Great questions.
PS: One question: Am I the only one who finds Ted Crus genuinely frightening, based on his affect alone. While Donald Trump's facial expressions, when combined with the peculiar tilt of his head, was a spot-on initiation of Mussolini, Cruz looked like he was channelling Adolf Hitler. He just looks like someone who burns over bright with private inner fires and mistakes his demons for archangels. I think we can all agree that he should be kept far away from the nuclear launch codes.
Realizing that while it all made for good television, which is after all the business they're in, it revealed more about the candidates then any debate I've seen previously.
While part of me would dearly love to be in a position to have to argue with Megan Kelly about replacing the cap on the toothpaste, a much greater part of me would think long and hard before getting into that, or any other, argument with her. One very smart, very tough lady. Great questions.
PS: One question: Am I the only one who finds Ted Crus genuinely frightening, based on his affect alone. While Donald Trump's facial expressions, when combined with the peculiar tilt of his head, was a spot-on initiation of Mussolini, Cruz looked like he was channelling Adolf Hitler. He just looks like someone who burns over bright with private inner fires and mistakes his demons for archangels. I think we can all agree that he should be kept far away from the nuclear launch codes.
1
Any chance the Democrat media (all non-Murdoch print and electronic) will emulate Republican Fox in asking similarly tough questions of their candidates? Not a chance, and just to make sure that one of their Ezra Klein/Jon Stewart types does not get out of line, Democrats have delayed their "debates" for ten weeks so that Hillary can wrap up the nomination.
3
The only people not suprised by the tone and aggressiveness of the moderators questions are Fox News viewers. Wallace and Baier are two of the best interviewers in the national media and Megyn Kelley is an assassin. All three are equally as tough on Republicans as Democrats. If your only exposure to Fox News is watching edited clips of Hannity and O'Reilly on MSNBC you would not know this.
4
It was nothing but a bunch of men standing around shouting, trying to out macho each other. It was quite simply awful. It's amazing to me how low American politics has sunk - and it's Fox News that has done the sinking.
1
Thursday night's debate was theater with nothing substantive asked or answered. There were no questions about climate change, abortion rights or other women's issues, Citizens United and how it has affected political campaigns, and of course nothing about gun control.
The entire event was a sham. Any congratulations to the Fox News moderators are unwarranted and I'm surprised any are offered in this column.
The entire event was a sham. Any congratulations to the Fox News moderators are unwarranted and I'm surprised any are offered in this column.
• Words cannot express my utter disappointment with last night's debate. As a regular Fox viewer, all I heard during the week leading up to the debate was about how hard the Kelly, Baier and Wallace team worked to create the perfect set of questions...questions that proved so tilted against the candidates that the New York Times was reveling in celebration of the Fox News hit piece. In a single but broad initial stroke each candidate was asked to defend themselves on their most negative possible point. Nearly all are conservatives who get little press outside of the conservative media and when they do so they are attacked. This was to be their moment where they could be introduced in a relatively safe environment to fair minded Independents and disenfranchised Democrats who want to learn what the Republicans were offering. Instead, immediately out of the gate each was systematically attacked and criticized for their worst past conduct, positions or transgressions instead of the national and international issues that concern the audience. For anyone tuning in who were unfamiliar with these ten men, the adage that first impressions are lasting impressions holds true. Any voter flirting with the idea of giving the Republicans any kind of consideration was treated a line of questioning that made them look either incompetent, mean or misinformed thereby validating any misgivings those potential supporters may have had about Republicans.
They looked "incompetent, mean or misinformed" because they are. In a world where Donald Trump is the most appealing candidate for the GOP, the utter buffoonery that encompasses the rest of the "candidates" is staggering.
The first debate highlighted the Republican War on Women, how is is that a party can be so pro-life/anti-abortion and want to kill Planned Parenthood's ability to reduce abortion with family planning and contraception?
Then seek to kill post birth healthcare, food stamp programs, and preschool education as a useless entitlements.
Apparently Republican pro-life commitment ends at birth!
Then seek to kill post birth healthcare, food stamp programs, and preschool education as a useless entitlements.
Apparently Republican pro-life commitment ends at birth!
2
The right's "pro-life" stance is utter hypocrisy.
Biggest winner: John Kasich. Kasich could essentially argue that he'd accomplished more in Ohio that Scott Walker claims to have done in Wisconsin, but without throwing workers and the poor under the bus. Kasich might have slipped momentarily, however, when in answer to LGBT questions he mentioned a notion novel to current Republicans: Unconditional love. It played well to a "home crowd," but he didn't appear harsh enough to win many Tea Party votes.
Biggest losers: Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. At times Carson seemed intent upon proving that, when discussing anything other than neurosurgery, he's no 'brain surgeon.' Most disappointing was his response as to whether he would resume water boarding. How does someone constrained by the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm" fail to profess an aversion to torture in prisoner interrogations? He also seemed to think the U.S. military -- still 18 times the size of whomever occupies second place -- is too small.
Huckabee complained that there aren't enough air-worthy B-52s, which could also be argued regarding the B-17 and Curtiss Jenny. Huckabee continued an Elmer Gantry-esque pretense that he is a friend of Israel, although responses vis-a-vis both foreign and domestic policy seethed with systemic undercurrents of -- I didn't coin this term -- Christo-Fascism.
Perhaps the best foreshadowing of the debate was an MSNBC shot of ten empty wooden podia. With nothing for scale behind them, they resembled a semi-circle of outdoor lavatories!
Biggest losers: Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. At times Carson seemed intent upon proving that, when discussing anything other than neurosurgery, he's no 'brain surgeon.' Most disappointing was his response as to whether he would resume water boarding. How does someone constrained by the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm" fail to profess an aversion to torture in prisoner interrogations? He also seemed to think the U.S. military -- still 18 times the size of whomever occupies second place -- is too small.
Huckabee complained that there aren't enough air-worthy B-52s, which could also be argued regarding the B-17 and Curtiss Jenny. Huckabee continued an Elmer Gantry-esque pretense that he is a friend of Israel, although responses vis-a-vis both foreign and domestic policy seethed with systemic undercurrents of -- I didn't coin this term -- Christo-Fascism.
Perhaps the best foreshadowing of the debate was an MSNBC shot of ten empty wooden podia. With nothing for scale behind them, they resembled a semi-circle of outdoor lavatories!
2
Fox news has created a new and better standard for televised political debate. Thanks to their boldness we can now expect that whomever moderates the debate between Democrat candidates, and between the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees, will meet this new standard. A good thing has just happened.
4
What Democrat candidate debate? They have declared there will not be one.
John Kasich was the ONLY adult on the stage. He is the leader that could reform the Republican Party back to a level above a mob. Let's see if that works?
1
If I hadn't known better, I would have thought I was watching MSNBC or CNN coverage. Too many "gotcha" questions and questions that sounded like they came from left wing blogs. The Crowley crowd would have been proud.
2
I don't understand writing about all of the minor things and leaving out all of the good they said. I thought all seventeen did fantastic and I would be more than happy to vote for any of them compared to as Marco Rubio said the democrats who can't even come up with one good candidate.
2
I look forward to seeing you on "Last Comic Standing".
look, trump is a clown, but you, frank, are worse.
"And thus, in the first minute of the debate, Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. He never quite recovered. His admission of political infidelity was the prism through which all of his subsequent bluster had to be viewed."
this is simply despicable. it's also utterly wrong. what you are saying here is "loyalty to party uber alles". how can you possibly claim that someone who stand by his or her views and refuses to kowtow to to a majority is unprincipled? just what principles are you lionizing here? dedication to membership in a gang? seriously, what color is the sky on your world?
you, sir, embody EXACTLY what is wrong with our politics. this is the "with me or against me" thinking that has turned the debate between team donkey and team elephant into the crips and the bloods. you embody unprincipled gang warfare. our side must win, who cares how! THAT, sir, is what is unprincipled.
while i do not agree with trump, i do support his right to stand by his beliefs and laud willingness to stand up the the party bullies. if both sides had more of that, politics in this country might actually work.
"And thus, in the first minute of the debate, Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. He never quite recovered. His admission of political infidelity was the prism through which all of his subsequent bluster had to be viewed."
this is simply despicable. it's also utterly wrong. what you are saying here is "loyalty to party uber alles". how can you possibly claim that someone who stand by his or her views and refuses to kowtow to to a majority is unprincipled? just what principles are you lionizing here? dedication to membership in a gang? seriously, what color is the sky on your world?
you, sir, embody EXACTLY what is wrong with our politics. this is the "with me or against me" thinking that has turned the debate between team donkey and team elephant into the crips and the bloods. you embody unprincipled gang warfare. our side must win, who cares how! THAT, sir, is what is unprincipled.
while i do not agree with trump, i do support his right to stand by his beliefs and laud willingness to stand up the the party bullies. if both sides had more of that, politics in this country might actually work.
1
Actually no, its not about loyalty to party, its about loyalty to a political belief. If arrogantly running as a third party candidate - which never wins - and enabling someone who is completely on the opposite side of your philosophical / political beliefs to win is more important to your ego than seeing someone who you agree with 80% win than that is a problem. No, actually YOU and people like you are the problem, where personal ego comes before willingness to compromise and work toward the greater good.
Tough questions ? Why didn't Chris Wallace ask Jeb on the anniversary ( yesterday) of his brother receiving the August 2001 PDB titled "Bin Laden planning to strike US" what he would have done : a) clear brush b) order a tall ice tea c) call Dick Cheney ???
1
Because its been answered dozens of times. The actual report was effectively: there may be an attack at some point in the future in some way. The same warning that is given practically every day.
1
I usually turn these things off after 20 minutes of talking points, but was totally engaged throughout. What a refreshing contrast to the tepid, boring discussion we're getting among the Democrats. Let's hope the Democrats, when they do get around to a debate in October, have a passionate, lively debate. CNN has a high bar to clear after last night's Fox moderators.
1
True to form for Fox. Moderators are supposed to take back stage to the candidates. Just pose the questions. Instead, the Fox show began right from the get-go playing the "gotcha" game with Trump (not that I in any way am a Trump fan). Kelly's "I'm grander-than-any candidate" showboating detracted from the evening, and the discrepancy between the attacking questions for Trump and the cream puff ones for the others was transparent. If, for no other reason, I would like to see Trump get the nomination or become the 2016 version of Ross Perot in order for him to go on the offensive against Fox. Their "fair and balanced" act would certainly be exposed because they would be unable to veil their disdain for the Donald, especially a Donald whose third party option would sink any Republican chance to win the general election.
I doubt that Donald Trump will run as an Independent. My guess is that, if he doesn't get the nomination, he'll use that threat to become the nominee for Vice President. That way he could be the attack dog for a candidate with more....gravitas.
The Don won hands down, and the polls will show it !!!!!
Let CNN take notice, the bar has been raised
Let's hope they hold the Demorats to the same standard
Let's hope they hold the Demorats to the same standard
Remember that all the people saying that a 3rd party candidate can't win are the same people who assured us that Trump was finished after his remarks about McCain.
Perot got 20% of the vote & he was no where near as popular as Donald Trump.
The time has come to dump the corrupt 2 party system.
Perot got 20% of the vote & he was no where near as popular as Donald Trump.
The time has come to dump the corrupt 2 party system.
You can tell a lot about a person in how they answer questions about their weaknesses. Hurray to Fox for that. However, the moderators thought they were the stars of the show and took too much time away from the candidates. And why did Fox air so many commercials during the event. It was a two-hour debate shrunk down to an hour and 20 minutes. Hats off to Mr. Trump as well, because he brought in the ratings for the debate and though he came across as less than presidential, Republicans everywhere owe him a debt of gratitude. Without him, most of these candidates would not have brought their A game and brought confidence to Republicans and moderate Democrats as well that the Republican party is indeed okay.
Fox ran those commercials because the sold them for a lot of money. They are a business that has to pay for all the talent and for the largest news gathering team in the world. By the way, the ratings are YOOOG! Household rating of 16.1 (Nielsen) which makes it the highest rated show of the last MONTH.
Rubio/Kasich or vice versa. Kasich is a serious, decent, compassionate man with more experience than the rest of them.
1
Such praise, any praise, by NYT for FoxNews is disorienting, but welcome. Now let's count down how long it takes anyone in the media to ask the first barbed question of Hillary.
1
I still have only one take away from the little I watched and what I have read; if a republican succeeds Obama in the White House... America is dooomed.
2
What a joke. Fox loves Trump . Not for his ability to win but the money he brings in and loving a living example of in what they report. C**p.
1
If the American public gave some serious thought to the debate, they would realize one thing: the candidates have no sense of shame.
That's dangerous!
That's dangerous!
4
You have to separate the opinion shows on FoxNews (Hannity, O'Reilly, even Megan) from the outstanding political reporting often found on the channel. Bret Baier's 6pm show covers all the bases and Wallace's Sunday morning show is often filled with pointed questions intended to make his guests squirm. If last night's candidates thought they were getting a night off, they were proven wrong in the first minute.
2
I very much like your column but I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Fox moderators asked any tough policy questions. What about national security? Fixing roads? Their stance on the economy and keeping it going in the right direction.
Trump is a disgrace and yes, he has a right to run for the nomination but he is a clown and a big mouth.
Trump is a disgrace and yes, he has a right to run for the nomination but he is a clown and a big mouth.
There are more debates coming, this is one of a couple. They cant ask everything in one night. Grow up.
I rarely agree with Bruni, but he nailed it this time: This was about bearbaiting. If you listened closely, you could hear the chains as they came of the ground and then fell back when time was up for each.
The pleasure was all in the minds of the "inquisitors"--for the audience the sorry affair was like watching a cohort of polar bears dancing for the fish-shticks coming their way.
This was about those in front who took themselves and their self-appointed gate-keeper duties too seriously, not about who's headed to the top spot in the GOP. Bottom line: a debate is between, not among.
The pleasure was all in the minds of the "inquisitors"--for the audience the sorry affair was like watching a cohort of polar bears dancing for the fish-shticks coming their way.
This was about those in front who took themselves and their self-appointed gate-keeper duties too seriously, not about who's headed to the top spot in the GOP. Bottom line: a debate is between, not among.
1
It was great television, something I never expected from Fox.
1
What became clear to me last night was that women who cast their vote for anyone on that stage hate illegal immigrants more than they respect themselves.
Whats clear to me about your comment is you hate any woman who disagrees with you politically more than you even bother to pretend a faux concern for women's rights.
What I thought most important was each candidates' emphasis on "curing what ails us." Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Sorry Democrats, but 2% average GDP growth, the never ending Great Recession, and general malaise of the nation ain't cutting it.
1
The term "flip flop" has often been used to disparage candidates for political office. In view of Donald Trump's obvious flip flops in his "political development" I fail to understand why that term wasn't used in reference to him. If anyone has ever been guilty of flip flopping it has to be "the Donald".
A good article Mr. Bruni.
A good article Mr. Bruni.
Well, I'm sorry I missed it after reading this. My wife, a pretty partisan Democrat, started yelling when the Fox News logo appeared on the screen so I had to switch to the real estate channel to calm her down. Instead of open borders and voter backlash I got open concept and tiled backsplash. But this brawl points out something that should both encourage and worry Democrats. This level of rancor, compared to the almost total unanimity of views on the left, will make it hard to reconcile the various factions of the right after the nomination process is over, but it also shows a healthy and vigorous spirit that is mostly lacking in the tired, century-old platitudes of the Progressives. Once the terminally fading Mrs. Clinton is no longer a factor can you imagine a 'debate' between Biden, Sanders and Warren with the crewe from MSNBC baiting them with tough questions? We are moving into a turning-point in our history and this was just Act One.
2
The FOX strategy: "roughen up" their republicans a bit but attack and smear when the Democrats solidify their candidate. The moderators were just following orders. Don't be fooled.
It's called "Doing their job", something most other networks/media outlets can't do because they're too busy being Gunga Din to the Democrats. Obama wasn't challenged this hard during 2008/2012 campaigns, and even had Candy come to his aid in 2012. Now Hillary isn't being challenged this hard. Sure, the media is running the occasionally stories about her servers, but if closing a bridge gets 24/7 news coverage but breaching national security gets the occasional 2nd page mention, you can't compare the two.
The fact that people today are like: "Wow, FNC was really tough on the candidates" just serves to show that we, as a country, can no longer recognize what "good media" is. And THAT is the foundation of all our problems.
The fact that people today are like: "Wow, FNC was really tough on the candidates" just serves to show that we, as a country, can no longer recognize what "good media" is. And THAT is the foundation of all our problems.
2
Love these comments, exceptionally insightful and well thought-out. Almost as good as the article itself!
1
Frank, as much as I'm drawn to comment on the substance of your piece, I instead must compliment you on the style. Simply, your writing is beautiful. You haven't lost a step from your earlier days writing about dining and and the wonder of Eloise and the Plaza.
Regarding today's piece, I agree about the moderators coming out swinging. Hopefully, this will trend in the future debates on both sides.
Regarding today's piece, I agree about the moderators coming out swinging. Hopefully, this will trend in the future debates on both sides.
The only thing missing was the chance to hear Jon Stewart's wrap which would have to say something about the real winner of the debate: Fox News!
Now if we get the rest of media to ask the tough questions. Hillary might be in trouble, if she were in fact asked the tough questions. The other media outlets ought to try it. They might get some their credibility back.
2
There is something pathological and disturbing about Donald Trump that would be a disaster for America. Just say no to Trump.
I generally detest Fox News, but they didn't pull any punches last night. Frankly, as an Independent voter I didn't see much that would persuade me to vote for anyone in last night's so-called debate. The unelectables (Huckabee, Carson, Trump, Rand, Christie, Cruz) need to step aside quickly for the good of the party and allow for real debates on how the remaining candidates can help America to be a better place to live. Let's hear some real plans for their prospective presidenciies besides promising to repeal everything done in the past 7 years.
1
It was a farce that made me glad to be a Canadian.
1
Brilliant editorial, and Fox comes of age as a serious, although highly partisan network.
While Frank Bruni makes important points and observations, I believe he missed the major achievement of Fox in both debates; one which may aid the Republican cause more than anything else they have done.
They emphasized the apparent weaknesses of each candidate and left us all to see how well each faced the challenge.
In the first panel, the set was the challenge. The questions didn't matter. Instead the panelists' noses were rubbed in their relative obscurity. To hold it in an empty arena with people moving around, preparing for the "real" debate, said it all. If one of them could overcome that insult, then he (or I think in this case, she) proved he/she was worth real consideration.
In the main event, by hitting each candidate with questions Democrats would be throwing at them, they gave the faithful an insight into how he would handle himself in the rough and tumble of the General Election.
As one from the other side, I admire, and am also dismayed, that they chose this path.
They emphasized the apparent weaknesses of each candidate and left us all to see how well each faced the challenge.
In the first panel, the set was the challenge. The questions didn't matter. Instead the panelists' noses were rubbed in their relative obscurity. To hold it in an empty arena with people moving around, preparing for the "real" debate, said it all. If one of them could overcome that insult, then he (or I think in this case, she) proved he/she was worth real consideration.
In the main event, by hitting each candidate with questions Democrats would be throwing at them, they gave the faithful an insight into how he would handle himself in the rough and tumble of the General Election.
As one from the other side, I admire, and am also dismayed, that they chose this path.
1
We must've watched different debates. Aside from John Kasich and Dr. Carson, the whole thing was an undignified sideshow. Gotcha questions from the wanna-be-celeb-moderators, and poll-inspired, clichéd answers from the candidates. I cringed for 2 hours.
A gathering of Fools, all playing "Me First, Me Too." Rarely have we seen a such pool of candidates, each uniquely unqualified and lacking the maturity, knowledge, rationality, and gravitas to be President.
I found the whole show very light on serious discussion. So much of what is profoundly serious to this country was not touched on much - or at all. That rather makes sense though, as the GOTP has done little to address *anything* pressing that real Americans need action on for years. Why have a debate that highlights the fact they are the Party of No... no progress, no jobs program, no progress on education, no health care alternatives, no progress on infrastructure...
The GOTP have really nuked themselves. They have run anyone with a rational, level-headed, or moderate position out of the Party or at least out of actual leadership. Now, only the ranters, distorters, and radical ideologues remain.
Of course, they have plenty to show on repression of voters, economic and gender inequality, destruction of Safety Nets for the poor and unemployed, Obama conspiracies, lots of entitlements to the Rich and Powerful, and of course, their ever urgent fantasy that their religous liberties are under attack....
I found the whole show very light on serious discussion. So much of what is profoundly serious to this country was not touched on much - or at all. That rather makes sense though, as the GOTP has done little to address *anything* pressing that real Americans need action on for years. Why have a debate that highlights the fact they are the Party of No... no progress, no jobs program, no progress on education, no health care alternatives, no progress on infrastructure...
The GOTP have really nuked themselves. They have run anyone with a rational, level-headed, or moderate position out of the Party or at least out of actual leadership. Now, only the ranters, distorters, and radical ideologues remain.
Of course, they have plenty to show on repression of voters, economic and gender inequality, destruction of Safety Nets for the poor and unemployed, Obama conspiracies, lots of entitlements to the Rich and Powerful, and of course, their ever urgent fantasy that their religous liberties are under attack....
4
Frank, "hooray for Fox News." Welcome to the echo chamber. Now go home.
BlindStevie
BlindStevie
2
The Fox News Moderators were petty, argumentative and abysmal. The worst of whom was Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace did not acquit himself at all well. With so many people at lecterns, in such a short amount of time, you would think Kelly could come up with a more substantive question than Trump's "War on Women." Megyn . . . grow up! You looked like a little girl at the county fair with that permanently plastered grin. Unprofessional. It wasn't about you and it wasn't about the candidates. It was about us, the citizenry and Fox squandered a chance at a significantly more substantive debate.
3
You are obviously as blind to your own smoke as was Megyn Kelly and her partners in crime. This wasn't so much a quest for truth as it was a desperate show of force by the media. Fox was trying to make themselves out to be king makers and it was obvious that their choice was not Donald Trump. After the stab at Trump on the very first question and the 2nd at Ben Carson I was disgusted and turned it of. And let's not even talk about he demeaning way in which Fox treated the seven candidates in the prior debate before an empty crowd. The whole thing was one of the worst things in the media I have ever seen including Mort Downey and Jerry Springer.
2
The beauty of all this is that people are even calling Fox to task over this "event". They are, and always will be, as consistent as Michael Jordan in the last minute of a tight ball game.
Yes, the questions were tough but only by the standards of a compelling reality TV show, not in providing a dependable forum for choosing a president. The Republican Party deserves much of the blame for fostering a field of so many dependable extremists with their predictable stances against almost everything. But this was another example of our debased, out-of-control, money-above-all election system in which average voters are at best spectators looking for entertainment.
4
Good start to the whole nominating process. More exposure is good for the country. When does the Democratic clown car debate occur? I can't wait to see HRC skewered by non-party member, Bernie Sanders. Just like the Donald, he's an outsider, upsetting the neat little china shop that Hillary had set up.
Trump's refusal to pledge support to the eventual nominee makes sense and puts him ahead of the others.
All the others have now classified themselves as 'good losers' while Trump classified himself as a 'winner', dedicated only to winning himself, and for the country. and specifically not interested in supporting the Republican establishment.
It is actually a good negotiating stance.
Imagine a negotiator going into a negotiation saying that they will accept whatever happens and are not willing, under any circumstance, to walk away from the table.
That said, Trump is a bloviating buffoon and I would never vote for him, but the rest of the Republican candidates are also buffoons. who just score lower on the bloviation scale, including Christie.
All the others have now classified themselves as 'good losers' while Trump classified himself as a 'winner', dedicated only to winning himself, and for the country. and specifically not interested in supporting the Republican establishment.
It is actually a good negotiating stance.
Imagine a negotiator going into a negotiation saying that they will accept whatever happens and are not willing, under any circumstance, to walk away from the table.
That said, Trump is a bloviating buffoon and I would never vote for him, but the rest of the Republican candidates are also buffoons. who just score lower on the bloviation scale, including Christie.
3
They missed all the substantive issues and went for the headlines. All the subjects that mean little. Trump's stupid comments about women. Would they support the republican nominee. These issues have already been answered. No one went into any substance about how they'd improve the economy. Saying you will have a booming economy means nothing. Wheat happened to climate change? They all stood by their patented one liners.
2
I think author Roxane Gay said it best: Someone needs to dig up Huckabee's back yard. There's probably something there.
1
Yes, I agree that the “Debate” was well worth watching, and I noted how apropos the phrasing of the questions was, as compared to the answers. Just like in Kennedy-Nixon, the viewers probably got more of the nuances, facial expressions and body language, as compared to those in the Cleveland arena.
It was indeed hard to believe that FOX was actually asking pointed questions, and occasionally noting that the candidate did not answer the question that was asked. Keep in mind, however, that FOX has been lambasted for excluding some of the candidates. This might have been a novel way of paring the field down--crashing and burning, and exiting--to pare the field down. But, I do believe that the next debate will be aired on another channel.
All in all, the participants still did respond in candidate-speak. When Scott Walker was asked about his state’s poor jobs performance, he said that he was re-elected because his state prefers a governor who aims high, rather than low. Oh, and he’s behind better preparing students for the future. I truly question the loonies in Wisconsin who did re-elect him. I also wonder how you can improve education by drastically cutting the budget of your flagship state university.
That’s somewhat how all of the candidates responded--with arguments that appeared to be in-line with the questions asked; but, that would only apply in the GOP Twilight Zone.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
It was indeed hard to believe that FOX was actually asking pointed questions, and occasionally noting that the candidate did not answer the question that was asked. Keep in mind, however, that FOX has been lambasted for excluding some of the candidates. This might have been a novel way of paring the field down--crashing and burning, and exiting--to pare the field down. But, I do believe that the next debate will be aired on another channel.
All in all, the participants still did respond in candidate-speak. When Scott Walker was asked about his state’s poor jobs performance, he said that he was re-elected because his state prefers a governor who aims high, rather than low. Oh, and he’s behind better preparing students for the future. I truly question the loonies in Wisconsin who did re-elect him. I also wonder how you can improve education by drastically cutting the budget of your flagship state university.
That’s somewhat how all of the candidates responded--with arguments that appeared to be in-line with the questions asked; but, that would only apply in the GOP Twilight Zone.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
Now that the "inquisition" is over, let's get the fire, the horses, and the chains ready. (BTW, reasonable questions do not actually constitute an inquisition, as you suggest.) However the questions that also should have been asked, about the candidates' plans and proposals for fixing our nation's serious problems, other than the quality of presidential candidates, were never asked.
2
It was hardly a debate. It was a series of questions and whatever the candidates wanted to say next, sometimes an answer but not always. The panel seemed intent on giving Donald Trump a hard time, asking him over and over and over would he promise not to run on a third party ticket. They didn't like his answer so they asked it again. The other side of the coin were the soft questions thrown at Bush, who still seemed nervous and stiff in his replies. He even stumbled on the question that was a plug for his new book. I would not be happy if I had invested money in him.
The questions not only showed a bias for a particular candidate, but for the GOP mindset. They did not ask about the environment, or student loans or how the trickle never came down since Reagan and the other Bush's tax policies came into play.
Kasich came out ahead of the pack, with Rubio close behind. The rest of them were just there spouting overly rehearsed slogans and jokes. You could tell it was a joke, because the candidate telling it was the first to laugh.
T
The questions not only showed a bias for a particular candidate, but for the GOP mindset. They did not ask about the environment, or student loans or how the trickle never came down since Reagan and the other Bush's tax policies came into play.
Kasich came out ahead of the pack, with Rubio close behind. The rest of them were just there spouting overly rehearsed slogans and jokes. You could tell it was a joke, because the candidate telling it was the first to laugh.
T
2
The GOP wants Bush and Fox complied.
Say what you want about Fauxnews but last night they hammered the candidates. If people tuned in thinking they would lob up a lot of softball anti-Dem questions boy were they surprised. I don't think CNN or MSNBC if they had been the moderators would have gone after the candidates nearly as hard as Fox did last night. In fact, not even close to what Fox did.
1
Fox is merely culling the ridiculous herd for the GOP. Bush will be the candidate, and DT will run as third party. Hello President Clinton.
Why is nothing made about Jeb's absurd comment that he was "Veto Corleone"?
1
Not a mention of it being the anniversary of Hiroshima and of the Voting Rights Act which the republican party seems so hellbent on demolishing. No mention of racial conflicts except one question at the end for Carson who blamed minorities for causing division. Income disparity? Don't ask. It seems the republicans expended not one second of effort to get the vote of one African/American, one Hispanic, or one woman in this debate. And I'll bet it went over the heads of most of those hotheads in their "base."
4
Debate? What debate?
That was either a TV game quiz show or a Sunday morning "news" interview show.
Lincoln and Douglas had a debate. And so did Burr and Hamilton.
That was either a TV game quiz show or a Sunday morning "news" interview show.
Lincoln and Douglas had a debate. And so did Burr and Hamilton.
2
Someone go and watch the post coverage on Fox. It seemed rather obvious to me that the Trump/Kelly exchange about his language towards women was and should be a headline. Here is a potential leader of the free world openly insulting women and reducing us to what we look like....
Ye afterward it took Ms. Kelly herself to bring it up.....and her two male counterparts SAID NOTHING. Ackwardness, silence, subject changed. What???
Koch Brothers may have bought Fox and that crop of ridiculous candidates, but they will not buy the rest of America.
What a disgrace.
Ye afterward it took Ms. Kelly herself to bring it up.....and her two male counterparts SAID NOTHING. Ackwardness, silence, subject changed. What???
Koch Brothers may have bought Fox and that crop of ridiculous candidates, but they will not buy the rest of America.
What a disgrace.
4
It would have been nice to see Fox include a non-Fox commentator on the panel. Is the Republican Party really going to let a TV network set its agenda?
1
"Is the Republican Party really going to let a TV network set its agenda?"
Is that a serious question, or are you pulling our collective leg? Fox IS the republican party.
Is that a serious question, or are you pulling our collective leg? Fox IS the republican party.
I simply hope the Democratic debates ask the same hard-nosed questions of the Democratic candidates. Does Hillary actually think lying about the cause of the Benghazi compound assault was worth the political cover it gave President Obama in the 2012 election? Does she believe she should have short-circuited FOI requests of her State Department tenure by using a private e-mail server (the only logical reason to have it). For Mr. Sanders, how can the country's economy survive the excessive corporate tax rates he's recommending?
Hopefully they will ask the hard questions . . .
Hopefully they will ask the hard questions . . .
3
So, by the hard questions you mean the GOP talking points?
Trump won. Regardless of this Op-ed opinionista, Trump reached the common voter, tweaked the raw topics that Obama and friends so deliciously provide (illegal immigration, rotten economy, awful foreign policy etc etc etc), and was strikingly honest of his business mind - he gave to democrats/repbulicans because he purchases them - like every other big business and special interest. He was rough, but refreshing. It's not time to put details on the table yet. I don't know if he'll move to the next round, but he certainly can set the agenda of the RNC - and the RNC hates it!
3
I believe the best debates would be if Democrats were on Fox and Republican were on other channels. However there is no way that Hillary and any Democrat would put themselves in front of Fox as they cannot handle it.
3
Well that wouldn't work because Fox wouldn't ask Hillary what flavor of oatmeal she likes
1
You might as well say that a Democrat candidate should debate is a session moderated by Reince Priebus.
I disagree with Bruni. Trump's admission that he might run as a third-party candidate was actually courageous. He, like millions of us, senses the deep danger in having one of the other clowns in the oval office. Imagine, no Obamacare; another war(s) in the middle east; women's health, even their lives sacrificed for the unborn; the inhumane treatment of millions of people right here at home; a return to torture and all that says about America; more "trickle down"; destruction of the safety net; dismantling of Social Security and Medicare. If my only choice was between one of those nine men and Trump, believe me, I would take Trump! Thank goodness for the Democrats and for Hillary!
5
"They both scored points," maybe. "They both made sense," not a chance! The same goes for the other sorry eight. The GOP is simply not a sense-making machine.
When all is said and done, however, on polling day wey ought to remind ourselves of six words: Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Court, unless we want more of what Citizens United has done to turn the American political process into an plutocratic auction gallery.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
When all is said and done, however, on polling day wey ought to remind ourselves of six words: Supreme Court, Supreme Court and Supreme Court, unless we want more of what Citizens United has done to turn the American political process into an plutocratic auction gallery.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
I did not watch on purpose because i did not want to see the theater between over aggressive and arrogant reporters going after politicians and candidates who are always against something but never for anything.
There is already too much yelling and screaming in America, orchestrating debates to increase that does not serve us well. Using a competitive debate process to pick the fittest candidate does not serve us well. We need listening, inclusion, peace and a a sense of collective responsibility, not more rugged individualism.
There is already too much yelling and screaming in America, orchestrating debates to increase that does not serve us well. Using a competitive debate process to pick the fittest candidate does not serve us well. We need listening, inclusion, peace and a a sense of collective responsibility, not more rugged individualism.
I've liked you well enough, Mr. Bruni, but your description of the debate and the candidates bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I saw last night. I can't help thinking you reached your conclusions before the debate began.
Hard questions? Not ONE about Climate Change, Income and Wealth disparity and the shrinking Middle Class,Citizens United, skyrocketing Healthcare costs, or the looming Student Debt crisis.
This was GOP extravaganza choreographed by the GOP network, and I'm left wondering how God felt about being dragged into it.
This was GOP extravaganza choreographed by the GOP network, and I'm left wondering how God felt about being dragged into it.
3
If the GOP had any guts, they would throw Trump out of the party. The fear that Trump would run as an independent and thus give the presidency to Hillary Clinton is unfounded. Trump does not have the patience. skills and organization to get on enough state ballots to pull that off.
Since when is considering a third party run "political infidelity?" Do the dumbos and jackasses own all of us?
3
This was a debate? The questions we need answers to were never asked
like "What besides saying no to every one of President Obama's initiatives has the Republican-Tea Party done the past 7years?"
like "What besides saying no to every one of President Obama's initiatives has the Republican-Tea Party done the past 7years?"
2
Excellent column, Mr. Bruni. Kasich and Fiorina were winners in my eyes; Trump is doing the Clintons a favor.....
1
While the Republican debaters were waging their War on WOmen, they overlooked the fact that Planned Parenthood is the best friend they have. The best way to prevent abortion is to supply birth control to all men and women. Not only does that prevent abortion, it also helps population control and disease prevention. Planned Parenthood has long been the resource for
responsible prevention of pregnancy and thus abortion. Instead of castigating women, why not also make men be pro life and use birth control?
responsible prevention of pregnancy and thus abortion. Instead of castigating women, why not also make men be pro life and use birth control?
1
Bruni does a good job at describing the Republican debate but the best analysis I have seen is that of Camille Paglia - spot on and hilarious.
1
This is NOT debate! It's a variety show, a couple of comedy hours back-to-back. I've seen nothing remotely resembling debate from any of these candidates, even the Ivy graduates. Debates are, virtually by definition, issue-centered; they are not group interviews that incite colleague bashing, or worse, that resemble verbal firing squads, during which moderators take pot shots at the candidates. Are debate coaches now teaching teams to just skip the research, to ignore the rules of logic as they engage in argument building? Last night I heard 10 grown men, most claiming to be reasonably well educated, display nothing more than their mastery of the propaganda techniques they had learn in junior high: name calling, loaded language, transfer, artificial dichotomy, plain folks, cause - effect mismatch, cherry picking, weak inference, faulty analogy, scapegoating, and so on. No wonder most of these guys oppose common core; they are terrified that they could find themselves in front of an audience capable of critical thinking, reading, and listening. I was enlightened by nothing I heard last night. Nothing grabbed my mind. Nothing opened a new door for me. Nothing fed my hunger.
2
I was astonished by how much time of the two hours was consumed by the trio of Fox personalities & brief breaks for more self-serving network promotions or out-right ads than was consumed by the candidates actual talking. The American public was treated to a sham of a political discussion. By no stretch of the imagination worthy of comparison to how Lincoln & Douglas argued years ago for a Senate seat.
I was extremely disappointed with Meghan Kelly and the rest of the commentators. They reminded me of Liberals. The asked stupid questions of Trump...almost at a teenager level. All she did was bring up the past and lead no questions talking about his plans for the future. We all know the stupid stuff she brought up.........who the freak cares! We are betting on Trump to lead the future......we ALL need to know more details on that. GROW UP Fox news! You may have just lost me as a viewer!
1
Debate was great change from the softballs the lib press tosses to Hillary who is still hiding in her bunker.
3
I've always liked Fox because they ask tough questions of BOTH sides and they tend to put real differing opinions on the screen. The other media (New York Times, hint, hint...) should take notes because this is what I want from my media. Ask the hard, uncomfortable questions and stop being the house organ for your favored position. When I engage liberals about why they don't like Fox, I usually find they never watched and are judging based on some cartoon image created by MSNBC, NYT or some other Democrat propaganda machine. It is obvious to me that the Democrat party largely avoids Fox because they don't like tough questions.
4
Before commenting: I have been a Cruz fan. I have been a Fox fan. The moderators are top notch people. Here was my take: 1. Trump is not presidential. He is a divisive, narcissistic, tempestuous, napoleonic and thin skinned man who will change course whenever it suits him. In those ways he is another Obama. He will need to bow out and endorse in six months. Most likely he will endorse Cruz. 2. Megan Kelly was after him and maybe rightly so. Megan is a ferocious equivalent to the way Bill O'Rielly (sp?) used to be. 3. Cruz was pretty much ignored. Payback from Washington, sorry. 4. Fiorina should be top 10 or even top 5. She would make a super VP. She just can't win a particular state for the election. 6. Rubio did well. Please stay in. 7. That was not a debate. That was a group interview. 8. Except for Fiorina and 5 others, the rest should go home and go back doing whatever what they do best. Thank you. 9. I would take ANY of them over Hillary. I would take any of them and OR their pets at home over Obama. 10. For most of them, it takes guts, patriotism and commitment to do what they are doing. God bless them.
1
Is anyone old enough to remember when debates were civil discourse about the issues, and not a sideshow of zings and one-liners and pandering to a bread-and-circuses audience?
The great democratic republic that our founding fathers fought and died for has been hijacked by the one percent with the deepest pockets. Are Americans really so gullible they believe this dog and pony show?
None of these candidates understand the true face of struggling American workers. Almost a majority of us are on public welfare programs like food stamps, section 8 housing, and SSI, because of low wages. Health insurance is unaffordable (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $24/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $11/month life insurance). Two thirds of young adults have student loans to which they cannot pay back due to lack of good jobs in the community.
It is a shame what the government of the greatest country in the world has become.
We get the government we ask for. We deserve the government we get. Demand better.
The great democratic republic that our founding fathers fought and died for has been hijacked by the one percent with the deepest pockets. Are Americans really so gullible they believe this dog and pony show?
None of these candidates understand the true face of struggling American workers. Almost a majority of us are on public welfare programs like food stamps, section 8 housing, and SSI, because of low wages. Health insurance is unaffordable (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $24/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $11/month life insurance). Two thirds of young adults have student loans to which they cannot pay back due to lack of good jobs in the community.
It is a shame what the government of the greatest country in the world has become.
We get the government we ask for. We deserve the government we get. Demand better.
3
Minus the swimsuit competition, I thought I was watching the 2016 Mr. USA Pageant.
And in tomorrow's NYT will we read a swooning over Hillary bit of fluff by David Brooks?
Please don't be fooled Mr.Bruni you ought to know that the Fox was only guarding the hen-house.
Please don't be fooled Mr.Bruni you ought to know that the Fox was only guarding the hen-house.
John Kasich gets accolades for saying he would love his daughter even if she were homosexual. Wow, what a decent and compassionate man. Who says all these Republicans are heartless?
I disagree with any premise that this was anything but theater for Fox. The moderators relished the spotlight, and the clowns danced on the stage for them. The audience hooted and hollered. I don't see how this could be considered as serious politic, at all.
1
"Candidates should have to convince us."
Mr. Bruni, please now be consistent and ask this of Hillary Clinton, the Entitled One. She hasn't convinced anyone of anything, and feels she doesn't need to. Will you hold her to the same standard to which you hold these Republicans?
Mr. Bruni, please now be consistent and ask this of Hillary Clinton, the Entitled One. She hasn't convinced anyone of anything, and feels she doesn't need to. Will you hold her to the same standard to which you hold these Republicans?
5
It is amazing how many Democrats watched the entire debate. They are concerned or fearful that maybe the GOP candidates are not the fools they are trying to make them out to be every day with their comments to the NYT and the help they get from constant "hit" pieces written about them by the NYT and other left leaning media outlets. Bottom line: None of the GOP candidates are fools and the final candidate, whoever that may be, will beat Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election, assuming Hilary is not behind bars before next summer. FOX got some of the ridiculous accusations that the left continually asks of GOP candidates in hopes of tarnishing their chances to beat Hillary out of the way. They are now old news. Trump was attacked by FOX who apparently doesn't want him to be the GOP nominee, but Trump responded well to their questions designed to tarnish him.
3
Ridiculous hyperbole typical of a Republican. Democrats are rightfully concerned due to Fox's appeal to the low information voter, not due to the quality of GOP candidates.
1
The best "debate?" I have heard in my adult life. Thought a lot of the questions and was very disappointed in Donald Trump. He was not the consummate gentleman that a president should be much like Obama, crude. Said stupid things. Contrary to Trump I thought all the questioners were very good.
Stuck to the important things in America today and gave us an excellent of these men thinking on their feet. Hopefully the next debate will be a smaller group so we can get to the nitty gritty of the field of candidates.
Stuck to the important things in America today and gave us an excellent of these men thinking on their feet. Hopefully the next debate will be a smaller group so we can get to the nitty gritty of the field of candidates.
I too was impressed with Fox. I rarely watch TV so all the staging one saw- the audience - large and in tune with Republican sound bites- added to an overall non-debate forum. But that said, the questions allowed me to see the candidates rather than listen to their answers. Eventually I was just sad to see all those males trying to posture rather than really get deeply into their belief structures. Only a few showed the qualities of leadership we look for in our major corporations- poise, adaptability and most importantly a sense that they aren't God.
Your comment that Fiorina has no business running for president was uncalled for. The opposition seemed to revel in electing ideologically driven neophyte the last two times and there was no such invective for that.
Ms Fiorina stood out as one of the few who could have negotiated with Iran and achieved a successfu deal. Just watch her when she is in a debate with that other woman who has no business running for president.
Ms Fiorina stood out as one of the few who could have negotiated with Iran and achieved a successfu deal. Just watch her when she is in a debate with that other woman who has no business running for president.
5
Of course you would be accused of bias if you did what Fox did last night. That's because coming from the New York Times, it WOULD be bias. Stop your screaming and groaning. It's a fact. How can this be?! Because you don't give your candidates hell. Meaning the most liberal Democrats on your stage always get a pass from their past and their "carrot haired loopy statements". You never grill them. You never hold their feet to the fire. You reserve that for Republicans, and EXTREME situations that you have tried to ignore, but can't any longer on the liberal side. Fox has also been fair to these candidates over a long period of time. You haven't. You only cover their "wackiness", their "extremeness" and that's all we ever get from you in terms of coverage of conservatives. That's why NOBODY trusts. The left doesn't even trust you anymore. You're just ammo in their arsenal. They know the bias sandwich they get when they read the NYT. They know it has very little intrinsic value as a result.
4
Were we watching the same debate, Mr Bruni? Fox may have asked pointed questions but did nothing to challenge the lies the debaters presented as answers. Lie after lie. Job creation. Pro growth. Iran. Iraq. Planned Parenthood, Abortion. Women's rights. Same sex marriage. Trump's fortune. The role of God.
Who told the truth about his accomplishments? Name me one.
Who told the truth about his accomplishments? Name me one.
3
A follow-up question I wish had been asked: Does the Fourteenth Amendment really require that rape victims be imprisoned for nine months until they give birth? Oh come on, you can't be serious, really?
Megyn Kelly is head of the Fox News hit team to take Donald Trump out. She used our limited time last night to ask a silly sexist question for the sole purpose of discrediting Trump. She thrives on getting attention for herself. Fox News, as in past Presidential primaries, under the direction of Rupert Murdoch will use every tactic they can to manipulate the election. Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Chris Wallace and Karl Rove are the core of the Fox News hit team. Just watch as they slip comments and innuendos into their statements. Their goal is to keep chipping away at Trump until they have their man at the top. I think their man is Jeb Bush.
If the moderators were attempting to build ratings, they failed miserably...for the long term. I have been a long time fan of Megyn Kelly and a supporter of her rise. But there has always been a little nagging doubt in my mind about which was more important to her, the story or her career. Last night she came across as having an ego and a mean-spiritedness every bit as large as Donald Trump's. Her question to Ben Carson who has a towering intellect, about past gaffs made him appear to the uninformed as a stumblebum by citing multiple mistaken foreign affairs answers/comments on his part. Citing one error would have been enough, but no, she had to grind it in citing several, making the man appear to be wading into waters well above his head and by contrast the short-sighted ideolog who presently occupies the White House a foreign affairs savant. How sad for our country. Dr. Carson is a man of great intelligence and integrity; qualities sorely missing in our current leadership.
This was about Fox, not about America. As a show, it was choreographed and rehearsed. There were leaks about how Megyn would perform. Chris Matthews (how did he get his job?) declared it would be Kelly versus Trump. And the winners? Fox shareholders.
Disappointed in this column. The "debate" was embarrassing, beginning with the unprofessional banter among the moderators in the opening minutes.
I think Mr. Bruni is right. This was excellently run by Fox. Outstanding television and it did force candidates out of their comfort zones. FWIW im a Democrat and I rarely watch cable television.
1
While it was good theatre let's not go overboard slapping Fox news on the back. It wasn't until the last minute that someone from the audience came forward and reminded the questioners that no one had talked about veterans issues. I don't think veterans should be an "afterthought".
Thanks, but no hosannas to Fox News for airing the first debate of the GOP campaign season. Their ethos - Conservative, Republican - is the same as always - the TV voice of the Koch Bros and big Republican donors who want only to get one of their candidates back into the Oval Office. Hands down, the standouts among the First Tier of poll-chosen wannabe POTUSes were Gov, Chris Christie, and Dr. Ben Carson. JEB! wasn't passionate, just bragged about running Florida, but did aver that NOW he doesn't agree with his Big Bro's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Rand Paul was testy, Cruz, mediocre, Rubio still wet behind the ears, and Walker and his Harley of no-account. Huckabee was a laffriot with his insistence on personhood for women's eggs, Trump - with petulant mien throughout - was the target and was knocked off his plinth by the three Fox moderators - Chris Wallace channeling his Dad's voice, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier. As for the Second Tier of Wannabe POTUSes, "the early happy hour", before the main event - Jindal, Perry, Pataki, Santorum, Gilmore and Graham were forgettable. Carly Fiorina stood out as she explained brilliantly why Donald Trump was in First Place at the start of this Republican race - and we all know why. So, yes, nice of FAUX News to bring us that Republican entertainment last night, and weird to have the candidates thank God out loud at the end, given separation of church and state. None of the 17 GOP candidates looks electable this time around.
I see and Billory - old, completely corrupt and incompetent - is?
1
Fox put on a "fair and balanced" show for the first minutes of the debate. A world where Planned Parenthood is a proved villain and lowering taxes for the rich is an achievement is not the one I want to live in, even for two hours. Turned off the debate after the first 30 minutes.
So I'd been hearing a lot about Ben Carson (at least from my conservative high school friends on my Facebook feed), so I was a bit curious about him.
And what did he say? That Democrats, including Hillary, are all working from the Saul Alinsky playbook of 'how to destroy America."
A mainstream GOP presidential candidate (after all, he made the "top-10" debate) thinks the Democratic party's explicit aim is too destroy this country.
Now I get why people have dubbed this crop of candidates "the clown car."
And what did he say? That Democrats, including Hillary, are all working from the Saul Alinsky playbook of 'how to destroy America."
A mainstream GOP presidential candidate (after all, he made the "top-10" debate) thinks the Democratic party's explicit aim is too destroy this country.
Now I get why people have dubbed this crop of candidates "the clown car."
1
Frank, while I appreciated the directness (and snarkiness) of the questions, I didn't find the entire exercise to be either debate or inquisition. It was more like a 2 hour game of "truth or dare." Entertaining, but not terribly enlightening or insightful.
Interesting times.
The "shoot em ups" at the cinema mimic the violence on the screen.
A Presidential "debate " mimics a badly written farce.
The Republican congress mimics the behavior of the mentally ill, denied their medication.
The shocking has become the expected.
The "shoot em ups" at the cinema mimic the violence on the screen.
A Presidential "debate " mimics a badly written farce.
The Republican congress mimics the behavior of the mentally ill, denied their medication.
The shocking has become the expected.
5
Noteworthy that Mr. Bruni thinks that the most impressive candidate was Carly Fiorina, and yet she 'has no business' running for President. May I suggest he has no business in this piece, referring to another man's misogyny.
1
This was in no way a debate between the wannabe presidents applying for the highest office in the land, if not even in the world.
Fox 'news' hosted an entertainment show by confronting those on stage with their prior misogynist, anti women, pro war, god and bible laced comments.
Not one question about why all of them consider climate change a 'hoax', not one question about their small government 'trickle down' economy, not one question about why we are now the country with the largest inequality of all OECD countries, and the list goes on and on.
This whole 'debate' was a theater of the absurd. And no, Jeb! was not gaffe free. He once more completely bungled his reply as to his brother's Iraq war by stuttering that ISIL was actually only the result of President Obama foreign policies.
Fox 'news' hosted an entertainment show by confronting those on stage with their prior misogynist, anti women, pro war, god and bible laced comments.
Not one question about why all of them consider climate change a 'hoax', not one question about their small government 'trickle down' economy, not one question about why we are now the country with the largest inequality of all OECD countries, and the list goes on and on.
This whole 'debate' was a theater of the absurd. And no, Jeb! was not gaffe free. He once more completely bungled his reply as to his brother's Iraq war by stuttering that ISIL was actually only the result of President Obama foreign policies.
2
I agree with you, Mr. Bruni, regarding the very serious questions that were asked by the Fox Moderators, but since there was no rebuttal by the moderators to the answers, and most of the time the candidates chose not answer the charges directly, it was not a good debate!
It's not enough to throw questions at them, one has lto be aware of the facts, and if the questions asked arenot being answered then a follow up shuold have been made. This was not done for each question that was not satisfactorily responded to. In most cases canned talking points were the answers. Actually, the only candidate, like it or not, answered each question was Donal Trump!
All in all, we learned that all the candidates tlaked about destroying/repealing what Mr. Obama has done in the last 8 years, and that is the only clear strategy they offered, if it can be called that. And the answers to foreign matters, I suppose none of them know much about diplomacy, they're all ready to go into war, and this is scary!
It's not enough to throw questions at them, one has lto be aware of the facts, and if the questions asked arenot being answered then a follow up shuold have been made. This was not done for each question that was not satisfactorily responded to. In most cases canned talking points were the answers. Actually, the only candidate, like it or not, answered each question was Donal Trump!
All in all, we learned that all the candidates tlaked about destroying/repealing what Mr. Obama has done in the last 8 years, and that is the only clear strategy they offered, if it can be called that. And the answers to foreign matters, I suppose none of them know much about diplomacy, they're all ready to go into war, and this is scary!
2
Where is Gail? Who will speak for women's --humanity's--issues until she comes back? Why are the male columnists so tone deaf when it comes to the Republican obsession with zygotes?
3
Frank Bruni shows integrity, "hooray for Fox News." He avoids the lefty-sclerotic, knee-jerk scorn for anything spelled "Fox." Yes, it was a surprise to me too, a remarkable performance not by any of the candidates but instead by the three Fox moderators. Relentless with assertive, pinpoint questions, they kept me watching.
2
The debate confirmed for me the fact that Trump has contempt for the American political process and the people whom it has placed in office. His 'answers' oozed with scorn for anyone with the temerity to challenge him about his shady business practices or his 'solutions' to America's problems. He displayed a level of stupidity in dealing with issues (a high wall solves everything on the border) that places him on a level with Sarah Palin. No sane candidate would want to engage in a debate with this man because his unchecked use of invective would degrade the encounter to an exchange between an adult and a spoiled child. Those people who praise Trump for his 'honesty' and lack of guile should consider that, in him, these traits reveal a mean-spirited, insensitive man, incapable of empathy with anyone who is less fortunate than he is. He is the poster child for political dysfunction.
4
I would propose a line in favor of Kelly's treatment of Trump, especially in view of his starkly repulsive threat not to be "nice" to her, and paradoxically against the habit of bear-baiting on display, as if correcting for Jon Stewart's complaints about Fox's complaisance. I don't say, "Hooray for Fox News." I say, this insinuation of itself into the "debate" as a predicate for its exchanges, is same old/same old Fox. It was telling, that they all cowered before it, except Trump; and rather than exhibiting a vigorous independent media, the evening showed us the oppression these candidates welcome, to toe the line of a vulgar indignation. How peculiar, that they risk exposing their lie that "guns don't kill." Fox is the gun, they are its agent.
Sorry Frank, it was not particularly good politics. Great television, perhaps, at least in the terms which we've come to understand the role of television in our lives these days.
Good politics consist both of challenging the candidates on their most vulnerable points but also requiring them to confront those challenges directly. I don't recall a single follow-up question in which the moderator said, directly or indirectly, "You didn't answer the question." The "barb" as you call them, was thrown but when it was deftly brushed aside with a canned response the show moved on to the next "barb" thrown at someone else.
As television, it was infuriating from the moment I turned it on until the glorious moment I turned it off. I had not watched Fox T.V. (except in doctor's waiting rooms, motel lobbies, and nursing homes) for years and it was all I feared it would be and more. Three nearly giddy moderators working for an hour ahead of the "debate" to please a sports-arena-full of cheering "fans" and and keep the hype alive. Then more of the same throughout the program. The audience was asked to find some level of moderation in their responses but were left to themselves to do so. Knowing the acoustics in a venue like that I doubt that more than a handful of the audience could understand what was being piped to them via reverberation.
There were no winners, except perhaps Fox News itself. For me, I'm going back to watching it only at the doctor's office, motel lobbys.
Good politics consist both of challenging the candidates on their most vulnerable points but also requiring them to confront those challenges directly. I don't recall a single follow-up question in which the moderator said, directly or indirectly, "You didn't answer the question." The "barb" as you call them, was thrown but when it was deftly brushed aside with a canned response the show moved on to the next "barb" thrown at someone else.
As television, it was infuriating from the moment I turned it on until the glorious moment I turned it off. I had not watched Fox T.V. (except in doctor's waiting rooms, motel lobbies, and nursing homes) for years and it was all I feared it would be and more. Three nearly giddy moderators working for an hour ahead of the "debate" to please a sports-arena-full of cheering "fans" and and keep the hype alive. Then more of the same throughout the program. The audience was asked to find some level of moderation in their responses but were left to themselves to do so. Knowing the acoustics in a venue like that I doubt that more than a handful of the audience could understand what was being piped to them via reverberation.
There were no winners, except perhaps Fox News itself. For me, I'm going back to watching it only at the doctor's office, motel lobbys.
Frank, you seem to say that The Donald blew it, yet in another story in The Times the headline reads: "Donald Trump steals the show mixing politics and pizazz.".
I know there is a big difference between showmanship and leadership, but I don't think it applies to politics these days. I did not watch the show, but I am delighted that the Fox people seemed to act like journalists.
I know there is a big difference between showmanship and leadership, but I don't think it applies to politics these days. I did not watch the show, but I am delighted that the Fox people seemed to act like journalists.
1
The whole thing is rigged. The GOP oiligarchs of Texas and Saudi Arabia as well as AIPAC will make sure Jeb will be the GOP nominee for President. The news media is out to get Hillary with the NY Times leading the way. The writing is on the wall. Jeb will be the next President and Schumer and Bibi will succeed in starting another war in Iran with young Americans doing the bleeding and dying. Americans are the sheep being led to slaughter by the Times, AIPAC, Likud, and again Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Adelman.
3
Wow, Marco Rubio really does believe God fathered him in the womb. That was apparent from his appearance on CNN just now.
That is what the anti-abortion racket is really about: winning official respect for psychotic narcissism like Rubio's.
That is what the anti-abortion racket is really about: winning official respect for psychotic narcissism like Rubio's.
We don't need the media to choose who we will get as the candidate
I doubt that HIllary would have had the guts or the stamina to participate in either debate. Can you imagine her trying to keep up with Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz or even Donald Trump? Also, I wonder if Megan & Co. would be as hard on the Dem front runner as they were on the GOP candidates? For the same reasons mentioned by Mr. Bruni, I seriously doubt it.
2
These men revealed a truly barbaric hatred of women. It is hard to understand how in the 21st century, in an advanced nation that led the way for women's rights, this can be so. Trump openly resorted to nasty, mysogynisitc insults. Walker made some incoherent statement about how women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancy have other options than termination of the pregnancy. Really? Please tell us what those magical solutions would be - prayer? Incantation? (This particular bit of nonsense always ignores the brutal fact that when a mother dies her fetus also dies. Not saving the mother leads to two deaths.) -- so much for being pro-life.
I'm beginning to be nostalgic for Mitt's binders full of women.
I'm beginning to be nostalgic for Mitt's binders full of women.
4
I didn't watch.
Nothing new.
I did listen to CBC and BBC recaps.
CBC played bits which spoke for themselves.
BBC metaphored, "a wall of suits."
We are the model of democracy run amuk.
The world laughs.
Nothing new.
I did listen to CBC and BBC recaps.
CBC played bits which spoke for themselves.
BBC metaphored, "a wall of suits."
We are the model of democracy run amuk.
The world laughs.
1
Might there be some way we could amend the constitution allowing for the legal abortion of fox news?
The debate was nothing more than Fox trying to encourage fiery responses from Trump and some of the others. Can anyone actually say they learned anything from this group? Republicans only spout grandiose sayings followed by their usual arguments that they will cut the deficient by starving the government with tax breaks and low regulations. The biggest areas of discourse were left out, like income inequality, healthcare fixes, environment positions and job creation. Never do Republicans tell us how they will do things except the worn out trickle down that by all empirical evidence does not work and hurts the economy. I always ask, who would think any of these people would make America better?
1
We all need to keep in mind that these republican debates are debates in name only.
In reality, they are Fox's virtual idea of a train wreck set on fire with an gasoline tanker truck. They are not meant to be illuminating, they are produced and staged for one reason, and that is to provide entertainment.
And that they do.
And they will encourage Donald to hog the spotlight until he starts to become a real threat, and at that point they will pay him off handsomely to go away, and everybody will be happy.
In reality, they are Fox's virtual idea of a train wreck set on fire with an gasoline tanker truck. They are not meant to be illuminating, they are produced and staged for one reason, and that is to provide entertainment.
And that they do.
And they will encourage Donald to hog the spotlight until he starts to become a real threat, and at that point they will pay him off handsomely to go away, and everybody will be happy.
"... Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. He never quite recovered."
I am a septuagenarian, a retired physician, and a life-long slightly left of center independent who, surprisingly, finds myself agreeing with Trump on many of the substantive issues (when he actually gets around to addressing them).
He was neither 'undressed' nor 'unmasked' last night ... unless you are a hermit living in a cave in the wilderness. Everyone who has ever turned on a television or read a popular magazine such as People knows who and what Trump is.
'Unprincipled, naked egomaniac' ... So he's crude and bloviating ... but he definitely has a set of principles ... they're just not the same as Mr. Bruni's. Political correctness is a subjective measure ... constantly in flux. I'd rather hear an unfettered opinion then a PC one. The 'naked' part I leave to your imagination. :)
'He never quite recovered.' ... Recover from what?! He was himself ... which we all expected ... and he says it like it is, unlike the most of the other sycophants who were on the stage.
The Republicans will lose again in 2016 ... unless they offer candidate with wider appeal to the masses rather than pandering to the ultra-right wing crazies. (Romney pandered and lost!) John Kasich and Jon Huntsman are closer to the center ... and would certainly give the Democrats sleepless nights.
Frank Bruini, you're fired!
I am a septuagenarian, a retired physician, and a life-long slightly left of center independent who, surprisingly, finds myself agreeing with Trump on many of the substantive issues (when he actually gets around to addressing them).
He was neither 'undressed' nor 'unmasked' last night ... unless you are a hermit living in a cave in the wilderness. Everyone who has ever turned on a television or read a popular magazine such as People knows who and what Trump is.
'Unprincipled, naked egomaniac' ... So he's crude and bloviating ... but he definitely has a set of principles ... they're just not the same as Mr. Bruni's. Political correctness is a subjective measure ... constantly in flux. I'd rather hear an unfettered opinion then a PC one. The 'naked' part I leave to your imagination. :)
'He never quite recovered.' ... Recover from what?! He was himself ... which we all expected ... and he says it like it is, unlike the most of the other sycophants who were on the stage.
The Republicans will lose again in 2016 ... unless they offer candidate with wider appeal to the masses rather than pandering to the ultra-right wing crazies. (Romney pandered and lost!) John Kasich and Jon Huntsman are closer to the center ... and would certainly give the Democrats sleepless nights.
Frank Bruini, you're fired!
Am I the only one who is literally frightened that the moderators and the candidates were completely comfortable, arguably eager, to discuss how their God talks to them and how this unambiguously Christian God guides our exceptional nation? I'm an atheist, but God help us.
3
The fact that Kasich stood out because "he sounded like a leader, and he sounded like a decent man" is all Frank Bruni needed to say about the debate.
I tried to watch the debate but I could not stay with it for more than about four minutes. The snarky demeanor of the moderators--is moderator the right word in this instance?- with the Roman coleseum-like atmosphere of the audience made me feel ill.
It is exactly the same ill feeling that makes me not watch reality TV where desperate people are willing to do degrading things for money. How was this different from the movie "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" where desperate people do non-stop marathon dancing for weeks in order to be the last one standing to win the prize?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_(film)
Jeering, booing, cheering. Manipulation. Disturbing.
I don't like their politics one bit but this setting was really humiliating, and it is clear that there were lots of people who thought it was great. Abhorrent was more like it.
It is exactly the same ill feeling that makes me not watch reality TV where desperate people are willing to do degrading things for money. How was this different from the movie "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" where desperate people do non-stop marathon dancing for weeks in order to be the last one standing to win the prize?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_(film)
Jeering, booing, cheering. Manipulation. Disturbing.
I don't like their politics one bit but this setting was really humiliating, and it is clear that there were lots of people who thought it was great. Abhorrent was more like it.
1
Didn't watch the "debate", but I'll take Bruni's word that the questioning was sharp and revealing. It may have been an inquisition, but in the end, Fox will embrace one of these candidates, even if it's Trump, and hype him shamelessly. Any doubts about this?
Bruni is off the mark. That 'show; was an embarrasment from both sides of the stage. It was a mr america pagent resembling the worst of reality show self inflicted melodrama. I can only hope pbs hosts a serious debate. this was a personality contest at its worst. megan kelly was simply out of control. we have come to regard this circus as legitimate, and that is the real takeaway.
Interesting debate. I wish all of our political leaders would be asked tough questions and put on the spot all the time. The media has gone soft for the most part. Last night was refreshing.
Fox "news" has always been good at entertainment. Should we be surprised that the "debate" was entertaining?
To praise the Fox network and moderators for asking barbed questions is simply juvenile.
This isn't debate - it's performance art. What does it have to do with effective and intelligent leadership skills?
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't like public speaking and weren't good at it. They would have been utterly trashed by exposure to this kind of lowest common denominator event.
To praise the Fox network and moderators for asking barbed questions is simply juvenile.
This isn't debate - it's performance art. What does it have to do with effective and intelligent leadership skills?
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't like public speaking and weren't good at it. They would have been utterly trashed by exposure to this kind of lowest common denominator event.
As a Repulican I thought the moderators asked some very good, very challenging questions.
Donald Trump made a total ass out of himself. Megan Kelly made him look like the bombastic pig he is
Rand Paul reminded me of Gore in the 2000 debate after his exchange with Christie
Walker's answer about a abortion took him out as serious candidate. To me he came off as clueless
Rubio I thought did very well and seemed very confident and prepared
Santorum? Enough
Graham? Who told him he was presidential material?
I totally disagree with Bruni about Carly Fiorina. Her answers were specific, well thought and showed a clear command of the facts. I think this gives her a much needed boost. She will be in the top tier the next time This comment will get attacked but I think she'd destroy Hillary Clinton in a debate. I support her and hope she wins
Donald Trump made a total ass out of himself. Megan Kelly made him look like the bombastic pig he is
Rand Paul reminded me of Gore in the 2000 debate after his exchange with Christie
Walker's answer about a abortion took him out as serious candidate. To me he came off as clueless
Rubio I thought did very well and seemed very confident and prepared
Santorum? Enough
Graham? Who told him he was presidential material?
I totally disagree with Bruni about Carly Fiorina. Her answers were specific, well thought and showed a clear command of the facts. I think this gives her a much needed boost. She will be in the top tier the next time This comment will get attacked but I think she'd destroy Hillary Clinton in a debate. I support her and hope she wins
3
Can't wait for the real media pros to grill Hillary.
What about those republicans Madame Secretary and but the way, which is it, boxers or briefs?
What about those republicans Madame Secretary and but the way, which is it, boxers or briefs?
1
The FOX News Presidential Debate was not a debate it was a "Show." It played to the GOP business model of pandering to its conservative corps that it untiringly works to energize every day, week, and month.
It started off as a show not a debate when the candidates were asked to certify that they would not run as independents.
What was missing? I don't remember any GOP third-rail questions on gun-safety regulations, the need for new kinds of police and community training, confirmation of the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the need to raise the level of USA education, the need to energize our infrastructure rebuilding, the need to raise our diplomacy might even more to a new level, and the need to counter-attack climate change and expand energy conservation. There were no substantive questions on the 11 million undocumented immigrants and how they may have earned a place for citizenship just based on their performance as quasi citizens. There was no address to what kinds of businesses and jobs and job training might change our income and opportunity equations.
It was show that came out of the inertia of the cabal of FOX News' Hosts and producers and of course the man behind the scenes who is attempting to once again get a Republican elected president of the United States.
Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie -- all present or past governors of MATERIAL states were the hands-down "presidential-class" men on the stage. The rest simply did not make the cut.
It started off as a show not a debate when the candidates were asked to certify that they would not run as independents.
What was missing? I don't remember any GOP third-rail questions on gun-safety regulations, the need for new kinds of police and community training, confirmation of the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the need to raise the level of USA education, the need to energize our infrastructure rebuilding, the need to raise our diplomacy might even more to a new level, and the need to counter-attack climate change and expand energy conservation. There were no substantive questions on the 11 million undocumented immigrants and how they may have earned a place for citizenship just based on their performance as quasi citizens. There was no address to what kinds of businesses and jobs and job training might change our income and opportunity equations.
It was show that came out of the inertia of the cabal of FOX News' Hosts and producers and of course the man behind the scenes who is attempting to once again get a Republican elected president of the United States.
Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie -- all present or past governors of MATERIAL states were the hands-down "presidential-class" men on the stage. The rest simply did not make the cut.
1
This article gives a rather benign and naive credit to Fox Network, which functioned exactly as you would expect as the Republican Party operatives that they are, beginning with a party loyalty oath. The inquisition team targeted candidates according to the wishes of the old party leaders, with Donald Trump getting the toughest attacks. It gave others like Jeb, who is a favorite of the apparatchiks, the opportunity to clarify past remarks, and were not particularly tough in follow up. The exercise was closer to a Politburo inquisition than a real debate.
69
Fox is towing the GOP party line in trying to make el jebe the eventual candidate. The whole point of this charade is to destroy Trump, at all costs. Anyone who doesn't see that is delusional.
I'm sorry Jon Stewart retired from his show. He filtered everything Fox News said so that liberals could comfortably vilify the network with his version of the truth. Now, what are the libs to do? Who will craftily edit those snippets to fortify their belief in the evil of Fox News? Or horrors! They may have to actually WATCH Fox News to find those tidbits to point to: see! see! Look what they said!
The Iran nuclear deal is the American strategic victory in which Iran itself is completely irrelevant.
We have smartly adjusted our national course and abandoned “in your face” approach in conducting our foreign policy. If we stayed on this new course, it would benefit us for the generations to come. That’s a gift that gives eternally.
We cannot let the ayatollahs from Tehran prevent us from taking our best course. If they are foolish enough, they will end up fighting against the identical fools in their neighborhood. That way two adversaries are neutralized simultaneously. It’s win-win situation for us.
The most important strategic decision and the hardest thing to accomplish is to change the wrong course. Doing it after wasting seven decades would be an amazing accomplishment.
The last night Republican presidential debate was a national tragedy, an assembly of the incompetent fools. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker hodge-podged everything, portrayed Iran and ISIS as the allies but nobody corrected him.
The worst nonsense during that debate was that we cannot let Iran destabilize the Middle East. Why? Has it been till now our prerogative, our turf and our area of expertise?
Among all the candidates on the stage there was nobody serving a single day in the US military in any war zone. That’s is the reason why all of them were extremely hawkish.
None of them had any idea what they were talking about. That was the real American tragedy, not the Iran nuclear deal...
We have smartly adjusted our national course and abandoned “in your face” approach in conducting our foreign policy. If we stayed on this new course, it would benefit us for the generations to come. That’s a gift that gives eternally.
We cannot let the ayatollahs from Tehran prevent us from taking our best course. If they are foolish enough, they will end up fighting against the identical fools in their neighborhood. That way two adversaries are neutralized simultaneously. It’s win-win situation for us.
The most important strategic decision and the hardest thing to accomplish is to change the wrong course. Doing it after wasting seven decades would be an amazing accomplishment.
The last night Republican presidential debate was a national tragedy, an assembly of the incompetent fools. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker hodge-podged everything, portrayed Iran and ISIS as the allies but nobody corrected him.
The worst nonsense during that debate was that we cannot let Iran destabilize the Middle East. Why? Has it been till now our prerogative, our turf and our area of expertise?
Among all the candidates on the stage there was nobody serving a single day in the US military in any war zone. That’s is the reason why all of them were extremely hawkish.
None of them had any idea what they were talking about. That was the real American tragedy, not the Iran nuclear deal...
Let's see the DNC picked, softball questions tossed up by CNN for the Dems in October. Fox is fair, balanced and the most responsible media outlet on TV.
3
Or perhaps having one of the moderators coach one of the candidates like they did last time with Obama. Looking forward to the DNC debate in October if it comes to fruition.
All the Republican presidential candidates unanimously claimed that we cannot let Iran destabilize the Middle East.
Why?
Because all the world best expert in that area were right there in front of the cameras.
All of them were supportive of the Iraq War that did the very trick and created the tectonic wave that ruined Iraq, Libya and Syria, the very Middle Eastern countries that had secular socialist governments with backing of the Bath Party that promoted religious tolerance, sectarian cooperation, better treatment of women, and kept the radical fundamentalists under the firm control.
Of course, the destruction of the civil societies in the Middle East created the colossal wave of the refugees from the region that flooded the EU.
By the way, isn’t it ironic that the worst war hawks in this country are the politicians who never volunteered to serve in the US military and never were deployed to a war zone?
Let’s talk about the incompetent, greedy and heartless politicians...
Why?
Because all the world best expert in that area were right there in front of the cameras.
All of them were supportive of the Iraq War that did the very trick and created the tectonic wave that ruined Iraq, Libya and Syria, the very Middle Eastern countries that had secular socialist governments with backing of the Bath Party that promoted religious tolerance, sectarian cooperation, better treatment of women, and kept the radical fundamentalists under the firm control.
Of course, the destruction of the civil societies in the Middle East created the colossal wave of the refugees from the region that flooded the EU.
By the way, isn’t it ironic that the worst war hawks in this country are the politicians who never volunteered to serve in the US military and never were deployed to a war zone?
Let’s talk about the incompetent, greedy and heartless politicians...
1
Very true. Trump, of all the people gathered at the debate, was the only one who spoke against the war in 2004, this is why to deserves to be the next GOP nominee.
In my opinion there was little debate and a lot of "THUMP TRUMP" night. However I also think it "BACKFIRED". Fox was a huge disappointment!
Make no mistake, this was clearly a Fox takedown effort to knock Trump out of the race. The agenda was clear from the opening question. The Republican clown show was designed to make the Donald look bad and to get the campaign back to the usual misleading doublespeak that is the political norm.
Last night was the typical News Food Fight
all the questions were to make Republicans fight Republicans
I am disappointed that Trump didn't bring up the format of the "debate"
and suggest a totally different one for the next debate
Imagine how bad this is going to get when anyone but Fox is moderating
I don't know why they want to play according to the presses rules....
all the questions were to make Republicans fight Republicans
I am disappointed that Trump didn't bring up the format of the "debate"
and suggest a totally different one for the next debate
Imagine how bad this is going to get when anyone but Fox is moderating
I don't know why they want to play according to the presses rules....
Frank Bruni, original, open minded, thoughtful as usual. You are a treasure. Thank you.
Ben Carson seemed lost; Jeb Bush seemed nervous; Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee seemed evil; Scott Walker seemed baked
1
And you seem like a Democrat. So what?
With all the analysis being spread around this morning I have one question
What did they say? Ok two questions - did any of them directly or indirectly answer any of the questions out to them?
Still waiting.....
What did they say? Ok two questions - did any of them directly or indirectly answer any of the questions out to them?
Still waiting.....
1
Donald Trump is the natural, logical conclusion to the maxim, "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." He will do for governance what supply siders did for economics.
It don't matter. I'm still not voting for any of them and I'm still not watching Fox News.
81
Of course not. Democrats bury their head in the sand as they try to justify voting for a candidate who continually lies about her emails, Benghazi and her family's foundation.
1
But you did watch Fox News. Smile.
Good for you. There is something comforting about a totally closed mind.
1
Megyn Kelly could have been extracted right out of Wagner's Ride of the Valkryies. She reminded me of one of the Rhinemaiden sisters of Brünnhilde adorned on stage in preparation for the transportation of fallen heroes to Valhalla. Her battle cry was so strong that psychologically it had the candidates slightly off kilter except for Cruz & Rubio whose speeches could've been lifted right off the bombastic Senate floor. Strangely enough my eyes kept being distracted by the huge size of Rubio's ears, Rand Paul's inordinately fussy curly hair, Ted Cruz's maniacal & sadistic smirk, Ben Carson's excessive use of his hand gesturing as if he was performing brain surgery on stage while invoking the power of God himself, Trump's strange puffy under eye baggage which at times looked like another set of eyes, Jeb Bush's faded greyness, Huckabee's flapping, hanging, sagging quadruple chin resembling a wild turkey and Scott Walker's beady close set eyes & balding spot. I know it sounds trivial although I though that God could've been kinder when doling out the looks. Chris Christie managed to look serious & gubernatorial so I just focused on his attractive skinny tie. John Kasich seemed to have won the entire debate as I appreciated his answer about why he chose to expand Medicaid in Ohio, balance the budget while in Congress as well as response regarding gay marriage. He's the most humane & responsible although Megyn Kelly clearly won the debate & proved true operatic star quality.
2
Shocker! All the conservatives lost. All the RINO's won. There was more honesty on that stage last night than in this article.
It amazes me the amount of Communists that read the NYT and call it news rather than the propaganda it is.
It amazes me the amount of Communists that read the NYT and call it news rather than the propaganda it is.
It's clear that Mr. Bruni doesn't watch FOX often. Kelly and O'Reilly will hammer everyone on everything.
2
And the Headline Reads....
FOX GOP DEBATE/SMEAR CAMPAIGN "BACKFIRES"
FOX GOP DEBATE/SMEAR CAMPAIGN "BACKFIRES"
I was very disappointed in the questioning last night at the debates. It seemed the moderators were trying to start a fight rather than get answers to the problems of our country. That is the problem. The moderators are so into themselves, it becomes about them and how they can get the candidate. I would have liked to have heard Ted Cruz and Ben Carson a little more, but they seemed to be snubbing them. They both have intelligent ideas about tax reform, limited government, the borders, but were not given the chance to express them that much. All in all I would give the candidates a B plus and the moderators a D.
Frank - were you and I watching the same show? If it hadn't been for D Trump I would have fallen asleep. Agreed, Fox asked good questions, but let's also agree that in almost every case, the candidates pivoted off the question and responded with obviously canned answers, rehearsed and researched.
Trump made a lot of friends out there last night because he's a Populist who touches the frustrations of many. Is he a danger to America? Absolutely and in an actual election cycle that will be clear to all so this reader has no worries about Trump actually achieving office. Trump is the Democrats best friend and he made that stunningly clear last night.
Last - Trump will not run as a third party candidate. That would be demeaning to him and he's not about to stand on the outside, peering in. Trump plays from the inside only.
Trump made a lot of friends out there last night because he's a Populist who touches the frustrations of many. Is he a danger to America? Absolutely and in an actual election cycle that will be clear to all so this reader has no worries about Trump actually achieving office. Trump is the Democrats best friend and he made that stunningly clear last night.
Last - Trump will not run as a third party candidate. That would be demeaning to him and he's not about to stand on the outside, peering in. Trump plays from the inside only.
Carly Fiorina was interviewed by Chris Matthews after her performance. She claimed that the US Embassy was in Bengazhi and that we should have just bombed somebody, undetermined, into the Stone Age. Apparently she does not know that the embassy was in a Tripoli and Bengazhi was a location for other uses. Chris Matthews must not know either, because he did not correct her. She then reiterated that Hillary Clinton is a liar, while she herself put out this false information again. Don't these people read? I then tuned out.
1
Now you know why she was fired by HP.
The media rolled out the red carpet for Obama in 2008. They allowed the story to become about the African American with the unusual name who came from nowhere and wanted to be President. They never questioned his lack of experience, or his record. Why? The media did not want to appear racist by going after him the way they did Republicans, or even Hillary. There has been a great deal of soul searching among many in the media about their portrayal of African Americans in the news during the 70s and 80s. They felt (and still feel) guilt about helping foster an image of African Americans as criminals by covering so many of the inner city drug wars of those periods. It is my opinion that the kid gloves treatment for Obama was born out of that guilt - that, and their sympathy towards his politics. The media acted shamefully, and still do, to this very day. I find this article laughable, and filled with irony, particularly from the paper that led the way in shielding Obama from any proper vetting.
1
The point isn't that they missed this question or that, it's that the liberal media would NEVER treat fellow leftists this way. How many "boxers or briefs" interviews have we suffered through over the years?
Go get 'em Fox, you showed them all how it's done!
Go get 'em Fox, you showed them all how it's done!
2
Trump admitting that he might run as an independent might not be a good answer for him in a party debate, but I like it. I hate party allegiance. However, his reason why is telling. He was clear, he will not do it if he loses, but he will if he isn't treated with "respect." This is why I wouldn't vote for him - it is all about him.
4
I'm glad some people had the stomach to watch this "debate."
Mr. Bruni is on the money giving Fox journalism credit for an exceptional job well done for this debate. I would like to see Mr Bruni lead an effort for the Democratic side if given the chance. I would feel good about that knowing Mr Bruni is a fair consummate journalist.
The task of conducting a debate with the breadth of this collective is daunting at best. However, the underbred themes are not adressed in this OP-ED. What about the failures in foreign policy, immigration, and leadership that prompt these questions? This country has a democratic candidate that is not even answering the questions as to why her participation as Secretary of State didn't provide leadership to ameliorate these dynamic issues. Instead we critque and shoot darts at easy prey-the Republicans. Why are we as democrats not focusing on our failures and how we might collectively cure our economic ills to curb unemployment and elevate tax revenue from W-2's?
Why as a party are we not willing to deal with serious issues to return corporate cash that is offshore by lowering corporate taxes and offer attractors for an infusion of serious money into our capital markets? I used to be a democrat for twenty-five years but from what I've seen these past six years I cannot find anyone that really speaks the truth, sees through the failures of this administration sufficiently to articulate pathways to better our country.
Carli Fiorina is the only individual who has the gumption to speak the truth. She broke the glass ceiling for women by starting as a secretary and rose to CEO at HP. Articulate and business smart, with the insight on how to problem solve are some of the attributes we need in a President.
Why as a party are we not willing to deal with serious issues to return corporate cash that is offshore by lowering corporate taxes and offer attractors for an infusion of serious money into our capital markets? I used to be a democrat for twenty-five years but from what I've seen these past six years I cannot find anyone that really speaks the truth, sees through the failures of this administration sufficiently to articulate pathways to better our country.
Carli Fiorina is the only individual who has the gumption to speak the truth. She broke the glass ceiling for women by starting as a secretary and rose to CEO at HP. Articulate and business smart, with the insight on how to problem solve are some of the attributes we need in a President.
2
"It was riveting. It was admirable. It compels me to write a cluster of words I never imagined writing: hooray for Fox News."
Frank, you just then revealed your unsubstantiated, and long-held, bias against FOX News. Where did it come from? FOX hasn't changed. You have.
Frank, you just then revealed your unsubstantiated, and long-held, bias against FOX News. Where did it come from? FOX hasn't changed. You have.
1
A qualifier - I gave up on the debate after the first half hour. It did start with a bang, and the thought came to me that Fox was out to prove to first time watchers (I had to look up the channel number) that it was indeed fair and balanced.
The limited time candidates got for their answers and the way they stuck to their talking points caused me to switch to a dvrd TCM black noir. Soul cleansing.
The limited time candidates got for their answers and the way they stuck to their talking points caused me to switch to a dvrd TCM black noir. Soul cleansing.
Mr. Bruni says that Mr. Trump "never quite recovered" after being asked a tough question about his loyalty, yet the lead story on the Times website is headlined: "Trump Steals the Show, Mixing Politics and Pizazz."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/donald-trump-steals-the-sh...
Somebody's obviously getting it very wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/donald-trump-steals-the-sh...
Somebody's obviously getting it very wrong.
Was there a political debate last night? [touche']
borrowing from william shakespeare: last night was a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
96
and it "crept by at a petty pace" as well.
The debate was also a reminder of the importance of an "inquisitorial" process as a stage in the election campaign. Sadly, the Clinton coup has removed that process from the Democratic nomination, and the consequences may be clear come November.
1
Will we see the progressive alphabet media tear into the Dem candidates or will we see the usual softball slobbering love fest before the inevitable coronation of the Queen of Victimhood? We all know the answer to that. The Democrat Stalinist Party does not allow dissent.
1
I'll eat my hat if the Democrat candidates are ever subjected to the grilling that the Repubs got last night, yet the usual liberal suspects on this thread complain about the debate this morning...
1
If there was a clear loser it was the moderator(s). Megyn's "gotcha" questions seemed aimed at improving her stature, but they apparently to have an opposite impact. The candidates did well. Fox did poorly.
I think you watched a different debate. Many important questions were missed and I heard canned responses.
1
I came away from the debate with one conviction, that Fox News really, really doesn't want Trump to get the nomination.
2
Ah yes, thank God for Fox? How twisted can Bruni get?
1
Someday every knee will bow and every tongue will confess allegiance. Including you, ha!
Obama and Clinton are smiling of course. But one of the incidents that demeaned the moderators most was when the woman moderator interrogated Gov. Kasich about his expansion of Medicaid in Ohio. It wasn't the question or the answer it was her mockingly sneering tone that will forever relegate her to yellow journalism in my mind.
To me, the only one who was moderately impressive was Marco Rubio. The rest were pure politicians, save Trump, who is a Grade B huckster.
1
The "debate" showed us one thing at least, the only candidate who would be a worse choice for POTUS than Clinton is ... Donald Trump.
8
I thought Fox was nothing but right-wing hacks....those were some very tough questions from the Fox right-wing hacks.
1
Democrat debates tend to be dull because the candidates love to talk about creating or administering very specific programs that are designed around some lofty ideal but in practice move the needle barely if at all. Republicans wrap themselves in the flag and preach the lofty ideals. The latter format is much more fun to watch. Also reveals more about the candidates. Last night's debate was pretty darn good, and Fox deserves credit for asking hard questions about what matters to Republicans and moderates. What matters to progressives will be addressed in later debates.
3
With due respect to Mr. Bruni, I don't think the Fox panel asked the right questions. From the beginning -- a question concerning party loyalty, and not concerning any particular challenge facing the country -- the panel' focus was almost exclusively on each candidate's conservative credentials and bona fides, not on the merits of each candidate's position (or even what their position might be). The Fox panel seemed to assume their journalistic mission was to test each candidate's electability and ability to handle their "blemishes," and not the candidates' ability to defend their policy positions. I think Fox got its mission wrong, and both the Republican party and the country were poorly served as a result.
2
Two things never cease to amaze me - the illusion that the NYT would ever be balanced and consider endorsing a republican candidate for anything (it never will), and the constant need to ask presidential candidates questions about issues the president cannot legislate.
Whether its gay marriage, student debt, citizens united, abortion rights, the budget, etc, the president is not able to do very much, except talk. These are topics for the congress to legislate or the courts to rule on.
What presidential leadership is about is can the candidate bring together a people who have been terribly divided by the rhetoric of the team Obama? Can the president align allies as the spokesperson of our country? Can the president work with congressional leaders to clear the hurdles of disagreement? Can he instill a sense of faith in our capabilities as a nation?
Whatever the president might think about planned parenthood may sell newspapers, but it says nothing about whether he/she would be a good leader or not.
Whether its gay marriage, student debt, citizens united, abortion rights, the budget, etc, the president is not able to do very much, except talk. These are topics for the congress to legislate or the courts to rule on.
What presidential leadership is about is can the candidate bring together a people who have been terribly divided by the rhetoric of the team Obama? Can the president align allies as the spokesperson of our country? Can the president work with congressional leaders to clear the hurdles of disagreement? Can he instill a sense of faith in our capabilities as a nation?
Whatever the president might think about planned parenthood may sell newspapers, but it says nothing about whether he/she would be a good leader or not.
3
Frank, I think you are too easily charmed. As a pundit, you need a healthy dose of cynic juice with your Cheerios each morning.
Meanwhile, I have read everyone's commentary and compared to what I saw. It is Rashamon. Everyone is seeing what they want to see. This means the debate, despite the hype, may have no long lasting impact.
Meanwhile, I have read everyone's commentary and compared to what I saw. It is Rashamon. Everyone is seeing what they want to see. This means the debate, despite the hype, may have no long lasting impact.
1
No, Mr. Bruni, the ten people on the stage last night faithfully regurgitated what Fox has taught them over a decade. It is the testing time.
1
I'm old enough to remember when Reagan was dismissed by educated, thoughtful liberals as a mere entertainer who would never be elected president. When he was (and ever after) they became unsettled and incredulous. And yet he won completely the working class with whom his rhetoric resounded, including a huge chunk, in fact the backbone, of the Democratic party (Reagan Democrats), who have been Republicans ever since. Trump knows exactly what he is doing, and he is doing it rather well, and I speak as one of those educated, incredulous liberals. Trump may be crazy, but he's crazy like a fox.
49
"And yet he won completely the working class with whom his rhetoric resounded, including a huge chunk, in fact the backbone, of the Democratic party (Reagan Democrats), who have been Republicans ever since.
Yes, and it worked out so well for them ... not. If only folks learned some history and civics. These clowns who performed last night would never stand a shot of being elected to anything.
Yes, and it worked out so well for them ... not. If only folks learned some history and civics. These clowns who performed last night would never stand a shot of being elected to anything.
1
Someone once said that the trick of politics is to convince both the rich and the poor that you will protect them from each other. Reagan and Trump have mastered that.
1
Heaven knows we don't need anymore lifetime politicians as president. We need fresh blood. Blood that has not been tainted by Washington D.C.
You will never get such honest and tough debate moderators at a democrat debate. Democrats can't stand the truth. Debate showed Clinton could never stand up to a Fiorina or a Rubio.
4
How about a Rubio/Fiorina ticket?
Seen through the prism of these debates, the democrat party shows it's total lack of qualified candidates and any competition for the nomination, instead preferring a coronation. Moving the dem debates back only ensures this process will go as the DNC planned, clearing the field for the convention.
1
"Debate"? I did not see any debating taking place. There were several instances when one candidate would rudely interrupt another's response for the sole purpose of hurling an insult or a throwing out a soundbite but only rarely did the interrupter actually contribute an opposing viewpoint. That is not "debating."
This was a Q&A. Each candidate received a unique question carefully crafted to advance Fox's desired outcome (obviously Fox wants Trump out of the running) and no time was allotted for rebuttals. Calling this appalling spectacle a "debate" is a perfect example of "putting lipstick on a pig."
This was a Q&A. Each candidate received a unique question carefully crafted to advance Fox's desired outcome (obviously Fox wants Trump out of the running) and no time was allotted for rebuttals. Calling this appalling spectacle a "debate" is a perfect example of "putting lipstick on a pig."
1
Let's first see the love-fest of the Democrat debate, so we can compare. My bet is not one barbed question for Hillary.
Carly Fiorina was magnificent. She has as much if not more reason to run For President than anyone else up there or in this country. And she worked her way up from secretary to CEO and she did it without trading on the coattail a of a powerful husband!
2
From everything I've read and snippets I've heard, this was not a debate, but rather hostile theatrics orchestrated by Fox, a news organization that goes for the jugular as its sole purpose is to profit rather than conduct itself within acceptable and reasonable mores. There's a big difference between asking a pointed question and attempting to embarrass and humiliate people who are interested in leading a nation. It's bad for the candidates; bad for the public, but particularly bad for our youth to see such aggressive and destructive interrogations.
I'm not a Republican, and believe some of the questions needed to be answered but not through such a confrontational and undermining forum. And what transpired is exactly what should disgust the country about so much of the "new" press. It has no reasonable standards.
Needless to say, nobody is perfect; everybody makes misstatements and regrets past behaviors, and all people evolve, even Republican candidates. The Fox interrogators showed the exact kind of immaturity and snide, judgmental combativeness usually reserved for nine year olds. But I fear our nation is responding to this adrenalin rush "debating" technique the same way it does so much of its entertainment: ruthlessness and humiliation sell.
I'm not a Republican, and believe some of the questions needed to be answered but not through such a confrontational and undermining forum. And what transpired is exactly what should disgust the country about so much of the "new" press. It has no reasonable standards.
Needless to say, nobody is perfect; everybody makes misstatements and regrets past behaviors, and all people evolve, even Republican candidates. The Fox interrogators showed the exact kind of immaturity and snide, judgmental combativeness usually reserved for nine year olds. But I fear our nation is responding to this adrenalin rush "debating" technique the same way it does so much of its entertainment: ruthlessness and humiliation sell.
37
As I read this piece praising the moderators at Fox for savaging the candidates the way all candidates should be savaged, I wondered aloud why this never happened in both the 2008 and 2012 elections when the non-Fox media had their chance with Barack Obama. They not only pulled their punches, but in many cases aided candidate Obama, as Candy Crowley did. Where were you then to remind us how they should "square their slogans with their records"? Obama has gotten kid gloves for the entirety of his terms from a media that both fears and admires him. It has been quite an embarrassing time in the history of the media in this country. The media brazenly chose sides, something they don't seem to appreciate from the network that "pampers Republicans". It is a disservice to the people of this country for our supposedly free press to be so in bed with one party, a complete betrayal of the constitutional privilege bestowed upon them. Liberals and conservatives alike would be better served by a media that remains impartial.
2
Spot on!
I think the surprise was the AP fact checking. It would appear that a lot of Republcians lied, a lot. There were not a lot of policy questions in this so called debate, but it was on FOX so what do people expect.
I'm very disappointed in Megyn Kelly. I thought she would be more professional. It looks like Rupert Murdoch gave them their marching orders.
More professional, in your mind, would be stroking and pampering favored candidates, the way Obama and Hillary enjoy?
Another cloistered Liberal, who only knows about non-Liberals by listening to the sneering comments of other clueless Liberals, actually WATCHED Fox News. And, of course, was pleasantly surprised.
There's a little less ignorance in the world this morning, and that's a good way to start my Friday.
There's a little less ignorance in the world this morning, and that's a good way to start my Friday.
2
Fox is also controlling the election by holding a faux debate (please don't call it a debate) six months before the primaries and deciding who can participate.
1
When the institutional left compliments Fox News, you know that the moderators did a horrific hatchet job, especially on Trump and Cruz (whom they ignored).
Murdoch gave Megyn Kelly her marching orders: Take out Trump, prop up imbecilic Jeb! She complied.
Murdoch gave Megyn Kelly her marching orders: Take out Trump, prop up imbecilic Jeb! She complied.
1
"Pigs, slobs and dogs, lend me your ears"
Just a big bash fest. Fox taking swipes at everyone, especially Donald Trump. The polls show that has backfired. Trump is Trump. He's not politically correct. He's a real person. Real people say and do things that are not politically correct sometimes.
Your candidate lose ground, did he?
Water boarding is "torture" and not "enhanced interrogation", but Fox News and republicans can't bring themselves to say that word because it would diss their warm and fuzzy relationship with W. After WWII, Japanese war criminals accused of water boarding were executed. The Geneva Conventions states that water boarding is torture and the United States is one of its signatory's. That the Obama administration had not prosecuted any torturers in the Bush Administration is unforgivable.
1
Actually, the Geneva Convention does not mention waterboarding. Many argue that waterboarding meets the definitions of torture in the Geneva Convention, but that is debated. Furthermore, the Geneva Convention specifically applies only to prisoners that meet the definitions in the Convention for "lawful combatants", which terrorists do not. And it only applies to combatants from nations that have signed the Convention, again which Islamic terrorists have not.
Moreover, the waterboarding used by the Bush administration is identical to that used on thousands of our own military in their training. If that is a prosecutable offense, then hundreds of our own officers should be in prison for torturing our trainees.
Moreover, the waterboarding used by the Bush administration is identical to that used on thousands of our own military in their training. If that is a prosecutable offense, then hundreds of our own officers should be in prison for torturing our trainees.
To All:
Anyone that regularly watches Fox News was not surprised at the intensity of the questions or the integrity of the interrogators. And frankly, as one who regularly reads the Times, the New York Review of Books, the Nation, Harper's Magazine, Slate, along with the Wall Street Journal, Reason, and the National Review - guess what? Like a good many enlightened people, I can manage to entertain alternative views while still maintaining my own philosophy.
In short, Fox News is not a punchline - it's got punch. And always has.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
Anyone that regularly watches Fox News was not surprised at the intensity of the questions or the integrity of the interrogators. And frankly, as one who regularly reads the Times, the New York Review of Books, the Nation, Harper's Magazine, Slate, along with the Wall Street Journal, Reason, and the National Review - guess what? Like a good many enlightened people, I can manage to entertain alternative views while still maintaining my own philosophy.
In short, Fox News is not a punchline - it's got punch. And always has.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
4
During the closing remarks, when discussing the personal journeys that brought them to the debate stage in Cleveland, it seemed that all of the candidates were born poor black children.
Except Carson, of course.
Except Carson, of course.
3
"And Donald Trump had to listen obediently, even meekly, as Megyn Kelly—the one woman on Fox News’s panel of three debate moderators—recited a squirm-inducing litany of his misogynistic remarks through time."
Good grief. If there had been two women on the panel would the lone male have been called "the one man on Fox News's panel of three debate moderators?"
We all knew Megyn is female and we knew the other two were not. What is the point? That Fox News is anti-female?
Good grief. If there had been two women on the panel would the lone male have been called "the one man on Fox News's panel of three debate moderators?"
We all knew Megyn is female and we knew the other two were not. What is the point? That Fox News is anti-female?
2
Fox asks tough questions of Republicans. I remember when CNN asked Bill Clinton what type of underwear he wore.
3
Or was a teenager that asked that question?
That was an MtV Townhall, not MSNBC.
Ugh. Not MSNBC. CNN, rather. My point being that the context and tenor of the question was different. Much like your remark, I gather, but to say that another news network lobbed such questions is incorrect.
BTW, I loved the question about Trump's corporate bankruptcies. Chris Wallace did everything he could to make them sound like a travesty, even to the point of trying to solicit sympathy for investment banks that have been screwing us over for decades!
The US is in a situation now where we are so far in debt we may never get out, and the politically acceptable solution to this for the past eight years is to borrow more money and if you can't do that, create it out of thin air.
When Trump's businesses wound up in that same state, he did the correct thing, which was file for Chapter 11 protection, reorganize the business having the problem, make arrangements with his creditors to pay them back, get a deal in place and make it happen. So who's the real problem here? Someone who ignores a financial mess until it threatens to sink us and then uses borrowing and imaginary money to create a "solution" that everyone knows is doomed to failure, or the guy who recognizes the problem, puts a credible plan in place to resolve the issue, and acts on it?
The US is in a situation now where we are so far in debt we may never get out, and the politically acceptable solution to this for the past eight years is to borrow more money and if you can't do that, create it out of thin air.
When Trump's businesses wound up in that same state, he did the correct thing, which was file for Chapter 11 protection, reorganize the business having the problem, make arrangements with his creditors to pay them back, get a deal in place and make it happen. So who's the real problem here? Someone who ignores a financial mess until it threatens to sink us and then uses borrowing and imaginary money to create a "solution" that everyone knows is doomed to failure, or the guy who recognizes the problem, puts a credible plan in place to resolve the issue, and acts on it?
2
Trump was given the opportunity to defend his actions, and he did so. Seems to me that is the purpose of the question.
I expected the debate to have all the depth and civility of a UFC cage match, and I got everything I expected. The candidates, the moderators, and the crowd all played their parts perfectly. Wonderful entertainment, but this was the most accurate summary and sorry example of today's political process I could imagine. As a democracy, I think we're in deep trouble, and reducing the political process to reality television isn't going to help solve the problem.
4
I think Trump's "political infidelity" is merely a display of a man supporting what he supports and not a particular party. That's what we want in a president--a man who has a vision for a better America but who is not beholden to one party or any special interest money. I may not agree with him on a lot of things, but he sure speaks to me when he talks about sealing the border and stopping illegal immigration while welcoming those who come here legally. He speaks to me when he says we have to get tough with China and other countries on trade because the people who have been negotiating with those other countries are obviously poor negotiators. His point about the Mexican border is that the Mexican government is pulling a 21st century Mariel boatlift on us, and I think he's probably right, and his statement that some illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers isn't racist. It's true.
1
Fox's inquisition of the nominees last night displayed they were seeking rating points over debating points. Advertised as a debate paradoxically turned into a display of stupidity by its moderators. Today I know as little about the candidates as I did an hour before this horrifically staged event. Questions to Trump were absurd and he treated them as such. Rand Paul needed anti-anxiety drugs to keep him still. Ben Carson may have been funny in his responses but he displayed once again his ignorance of world and local events. Someone should take Fox to task for the nonsense they asked the candidates. In the end we did not have a debate but a wrestling match pitting three against ten. Mark Davis MD
41
Perhaps Fox should have asked the candidates about their favorite ice cream flavor? Or maybe what kind of tree they see themselves as? I know these types of questions in the past have helped me better understand the candidates seeking the Democrat nomination.
And yet, Obama got elected knowing nothing about the world other than it's been an unfair one for him and he must change it to suit himself. He sure has messed up foreign policy for the next president to try to clean up. I believe Ben Carson is intelligent enough to surround himself with people who know foreign policy and he is a quick learner, so I have no qualms about him becoming president. Heaven knows, he would do so much better than Obama. And he is willing to learn. Something Obama is too arrogant to do.
Some thoughts. I was surprised that Fox didn't throw soft lobs for questions. They didn't cover a lot of other possible points but the questions were challenging. I am surprised at the reaction to Fiorina. As if she said anything worth paying attention to. The only thing she did was to aggressively call Clinton a liar and when Chris Matthews challenged her where she lied, she brought out the old question of whether the Benghazi incident was considered a terrorist attack or not. The confusion was not originated by Clinton, to begin with. it is a political football that chooses to ignore the craziness that is the struggle in the Arab world.
In any event, shouting continuously that Clinton is a liar is hardly a political program. What bothers me is that we are in danger of falling into the old trap of considering someone worthy of consideration because he/she shouts the loudest.
In any event, shouting continuously that Clinton is a liar is hardly a political program. What bothers me is that we are in danger of falling into the old trap of considering someone worthy of consideration because he/she shouts the loudest.
2
On a third party run, what Trump said was more, "No, that is leverage, and I won't give up that political power to you on this stage."
It was the truth, for which he is due credit.
It is also the right answer. Trump is their nightmare, and they deserve it in full measure.
It was the truth, for which he is due credit.
It is also the right answer. Trump is their nightmare, and they deserve it in full measure.
17
It is leverage that he lost the moment he wielded it, sawing off any credibility with the party faithful he claims he belongs to. Whether he realizes it or not, he just threw away a third of the nation's vote, and with it, any chance of even winning a primary. Republican voters won't make the "Perot Mistake" a second time. Not with this clown.
Regards,
Sal Traina
Regards,
Sal Traina
The whole "conservative" agenda is to try to make Jeb no-last-name Bush seem sane and all these supposed, staged "debates" are about is to decide who their money masters will anoint as VP candidate. Any American who is thinking of supporting another Bush for president - or any public office - had better do some background research. Their only purpose for holding public office is to further line the pockets of themselves and their wealthy buddies in the top 1% global financial elite at OUR expense. You can start by reading how Grandpa Bush helped Hitler during WWII, then look up the Savings and Loan "scandal" when George Bush, Sr. was Vice President, and his son, Niel, and the S&L he ran were up to their ears in it. We are witness to George Bush, Jr's giveaway to BIG banks when they tanked the global economy in 2005 and all the wealth flooded to the top 1% while average Americans lost half the value of their 401ks, their homes and many lost their jobs. Do not vote for another Bush or "conservative" candidate beholden to fox so-called news and the other money masters.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Deregulation
http://www.econmatters.com/2014/12/russian-roulette-taxpayers-to-bail-ou...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Deregulation
http://www.econmatters.com/2014/12/russian-roulette-taxpayers-to-bail-ou...
3
You meant to describe Hillary, right?
Best line from the Comments section: "Trump most accurately represents the unhinged Id of many Republican voters." That's one to keep and use. Sorry Person Who Wrote That...I can't find your comment again or I'd cite you.....but I'm remembering that line for sure!
5
Not that anyone is keeping track of my previous postings here, but I had correctly predicted that the GOP establishment (for which Fox is the media arm) will be destroying Donald Trump. It's just started.
4
They missed their aim. Trump did them real damage in return. It was great to see.
3
I can't wait to hear the questions the CNN, NBC, and Univision moderators ask Democrats at their debates... assuming they ever have them. I'm sure all Americans want to know what their favorite colors are, how much they love their families, why they feel it is so important to stand up for the middle class, if it's possible to love your fellow man too much, and all the other softballs they can lob at the Democrats to launch out of the park.
2
In other words, the questions typical of a Republican debate. You are commenting on an article that is praising the fact that republican candidates ACTUALLY had to defend their poaitions.
Or you could be entirely wrong
When a Republican nominee is selected, I will be interested in what he or she has to say about the issues facing our country.
Until then, I could not be less interested in the odd rituals of the Republican press (Fox led by Roger Ailes, media adviser to Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater ally, and producer of the infamous ''Willie Horton'' ad,) which are clearly intended to misinform the public about what is actually happening in the world.
It is worth reading a little about Ailes to understand what he puts on his network. http://bit.ly/1K7ggmS
Professional Republicans seem to be having a family squabble, and the best we can hope is that the ''party of Lincoln'' will emerge by the election next year somewhat attuned to the realities of American life with policies that help more than the 1%. Not very likely.
Until then, I could not be less interested in the odd rituals of the Republican press (Fox led by Roger Ailes, media adviser to Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater ally, and producer of the infamous ''Willie Horton'' ad,) which are clearly intended to misinform the public about what is actually happening in the world.
It is worth reading a little about Ailes to understand what he puts on his network. http://bit.ly/1K7ggmS
Professional Republicans seem to be having a family squabble, and the best we can hope is that the ''party of Lincoln'' will emerge by the election next year somewhat attuned to the realities of American life with policies that help more than the 1%. Not very likely.
5
I really like Bruni's columns, but this early out he has capitulated to the overall media's attitude about the election: that it's a personality contest peppered with gotcha questions about consistency. There was very little about policy last night, or about moving the country forward. Sure, we heard some of the same positions we've heard before, but no new ideas, no vision. And no call by the media, including Fox and Bruni, for anything but more of the same.
7
I call it the "chicken coop" debate. That is FOX ran the hen house and those who "debated" wire directed by their "moderators". A conservative media outlet running the show. Yes, show. another Reality TV show during prime time; I call it "Celebrity Candidate" or "Big Brother's Finest".
If people were expecting true substance; they got none of it. What was said is the same tired old agenda, the tire old talking points and a group of WASPs trying to please the 400 oligarch families funding the election.
In other words, the best debates are those among Americans in bars, bowling alleys, diners and the kitchen table.
I cannot wait for these "candidates" are taken to task by the so called "liberal media". If they felt they were pressed last night, they do not know what pressure is.
If people were expecting true substance; they got none of it. What was said is the same tired old agenda, the tire old talking points and a group of WASPs trying to please the 400 oligarch families funding the election.
In other words, the best debates are those among Americans in bars, bowling alleys, diners and the kitchen table.
I cannot wait for these "candidates" are taken to task by the so called "liberal media". If they felt they were pressed last night, they do not know what pressure is.
6
Can you imagine MSNBC moderators being so tough on Clinton, Sanders, ET AL?
11
The questions weren't really tough. They were intended to skewer for temporary emotional affect rather than to draw out any rational response, which would have challenged the candidates to articulate a defensible platform rather than just dodge mud.
Please. It was spectacle more than substance.
Yes, I can. Without a doubt.
Granted you're starting with low expectations--but you're applauding moderators and a network for a debate that didn't mention climate change? income inequality? student debt? instability in Europe, or any other part of the world, for that matter? China? Russia? voting rights? Citizens United and/or money in campaigns? In his farewell program shortly afterwards Jon Stewart found more than one occasion to talk about buying access.
26
It was a Republican debate. Not a debate about Democrat talking points.
They really do believe that problems ignored don't even exist. They live in a world of magic, and wishing is all it takes to make anything true or false.
1
Mr. Bruni, you made some very good points but you missed the elephant in the room: the debate's questions were all more all less how in toe are you with the narrow minded Republican party line? There were no questions about the country's biggest problems: the huge costs of healthcare and drugs (about 10+ times bigger than in Canada in Europe for about any procedure), the huge costs of college education -- both costs in education and healthcare being in huge disparity with the country's median salary of 47k a year, or a about $2600 after tax, per month. No questions about Citizens United; No questions about how to pay off the trillions in debt; etc. Watching the debate, I felt compelled to pick a phone and ask these questions. It was not a debate about what are your best ideas to fix America, it was a debate about what are your ideas to better promote our ideology. Trump was at disadvantage, a free spirit in a dictatorship of thought, and I think he ought to run as an independent to really bring about all the things he would like and all the things he has the stones to do. I only wish he played it less safe, and challenged the Republican warefare on universal healthcare. I hope he will do all these things, though, once he becomes the next POTUS.
6
Which Trumo? The one who was for single payer or the one who says he's now for a private system?
You do realize there will be 11 more GOP debates, right?
The loser in tonight's "debate" was Fox News. The moderators lobbed one-line, police-style accusations at the accused, and simply accepted whatever nonsense came back at them.
Far from journalism, this event was a typical Fox News fake story, every bit as entertaining as it was mind-numbing and non-informative.
Far from journalism, this event was a typical Fox News fake story, every bit as entertaining as it was mind-numbing and non-informative.
9
I think most of us, who normally don't listen to/watch the Fox propaganda machine, tuned in for the entertainment value, never expecting a substantive debate about the issues. And Fox delivered. It was wholly entertaining, with only a few boring interludes (Walker, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio, Bush).
Not sure we will hear anything of substance until we get down to a candidate from each party and even then I'm not sure their corporate puppet masters will allow anything substantive.
Wonder if age breeds cynicism or if it's really the state of our country?
Not sure we will hear anything of substance until we get down to a candidate from each party and even then I'm not sure their corporate puppet masters will allow anything substantive.
Wonder if age breeds cynicism or if it's really the state of our country?
It's still early and I think Trump will fade into the ether before too long. Which is unfortunate because I think he should run as a third party candidate and take the fringe with him. I sometimes wonder if he's a double agent.
8
Bruni can be as sunny as he wants to but this bunch hasn't a brain amongst them. Fox may have started the fire, but this group has no oxygen and nothing left to burn, just embers that are smoldering to ashes.
7
So according to the writer, the more conservative the candidate the more they lost in his eyes.
The more progressive, the more they looked good.
The more progressive, the more they looked good.
2
I didn't read that at all. Trump was the big loser and there is nothing conservative about him.
Fox did indeed fo something important with this depbate - they made it available only to people who had bought their FoxNews channel!
Essentially, Fox news reinforced the prevalent idea that politicians must be bought to attain office!!!!
Essentially, Fox news reinforced the prevalent idea that politicians must be bought to attain office!!!!
1
What woman in her right mind would vote for Donald Trump? Or any of the other anti-reproductive health misongynists? You'd have to be a total fool. Also, can you even IMAGINE a Democrat saying things like Trump said about women and getting this far? I think the expectations of Republican, Conservatives, and Tea Party men are so low, we just accept the outrageous and ugly comments as par for the course. What kind of people are these? These are men that truly believe only they are worthy, and everyone else, woman, gay, immigrant, African American, etal are lesser beings who don't deserve equal rights and protection under the law. And believe me, those rights will always be in danger if one of these heartless hypocrites gets anywhere near the Oval Office. Caveat Emptor, everyone!
19
Didn't watch - isn't the election still over a year away? - but from what I read it went as I expected. This was the first culling of the herd, nothing more. Bush will be the eventual GOP nominee, with Clinton likewise anointed by the Dems. They can be reliably counted on to maintain the status quo that utterly favors the powerful. But, there is one cheery note from the commentary - looks more and more likely that Trump will run as an independent. That will clear the way for Sanders to do the same. Then maybe, just maybe, we can have an election that will truly mean something, offering a stark, clear choice. And the choice will be stark, whether we understand that or not, and it will be made - one way or the other.
4
The first caucus in Iowa is in eleven months.
Sadly this country is not ready for and Indie candidate, I will not be voting for Hillary who accomplished nothing as Senator and SOS, and I will certainly not vote for a republican in this case it's probably Bush, no more dynasties for me.
The voters in this country will keep things status quo and thus another president who will divide the country and classes all over again just as Obama has done. Nothing of significance to those repsonsible for the financial mess, Obama and Holder both huge disappointments on this front. For all his talk of changing the way things are done Obama has kept them pretty much the same. Hard to put the cuffs on your friends. Hillary and the repubs in bed with Dimon, Blankfein etc all. So who loses? We do again. I will sit this one out, it will be the first time I have no intention of voting for a President.
The voters in this country will keep things status quo and thus another president who will divide the country and classes all over again just as Obama has done. Nothing of significance to those repsonsible for the financial mess, Obama and Holder both huge disappointments on this front. For all his talk of changing the way things are done Obama has kept them pretty much the same. Hard to put the cuffs on your friends. Hillary and the repubs in bed with Dimon, Blankfein etc all. So who loses? We do again. I will sit this one out, it will be the first time I have no intention of voting for a President.
America's elections are our most beloved soap opera.
Trump is no holds barred when it comes to the continuing exposure of the depth and width of the fraud, manipulation and corruption that is being perpetrated on Americans.
We need to get healthy on every level.
Trump is no holds barred when it comes to the continuing exposure of the depth and width of the fraud, manipulation and corruption that is being perpetrated on Americans.
We need to get healthy on every level.
3
We saw very tough questions from FOX to the GOP. Something you won't see from left wing media for Democrats. In fact Candy Crowley even helped Obama in a debate
6
Perhaps the reason Frank Bruni, myself, and a few others were pleasantly surprised with the quality of the debate was because the bar was set so low you could have tripped over it in the dark.
8
Exactly so. Having recently watched some of Britain's Parliamentary debates, as well as one for Canadian Prime Minister, the level of intellect displayed in the Republican debates is appalling. They are really a Ship of Fools.
My greatest fear is that, the only voice of reason on stage, John Kasich, will leave as the Ohio governor to enter this childish fray.
2
I liked Kasich, just like I liked Jon Huntsman.
It's too bad that these kind of people don't get to become President of the United States.
I mean, Jeb....really? Are we REALLY considering another BUSH?
It's too bad that these kind of people don't get to become President of the United States.
I mean, Jeb....really? Are we REALLY considering another BUSH?
Are we really considering another Clinton?
The "debate": yawn, stretch, zzzzzzzz.
To me, those tough for questions at the beginning of the show were asked to give the candidates the opportunity to try out their answers to them in a friendly setting. After all, they are the obvious questions, aren't they?
And I thought the moderators were pretty careful about which candidates were asked which questions about social issues, to avoid scaring off too many mainstream voters. I doubt anyone outside of the most socially conservative voters would have appreciated what Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz would have said about same-sex marriage.
And I thought the moderators were pretty careful about which candidates were asked which questions about social issues, to avoid scaring off too many mainstream voters. I doubt anyone outside of the most socially conservative voters would have appreciated what Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz would have said about same-sex marriage.
Bruni continues on his path of shilling for the republicans, sad, I used to respect your opinion.
3
Jeb Bush's response that the Iraq invasion was due to "faulty intelligence" was an absolute lie. Everyone knows that W and his neocon advisers "cooked" the evidence for the ill-fated invasion which has given rise to ISIS today. That his statement wasn't rebutted tells you more about the realty of Fox News and republicans.
30
Agreed. There was nothing faulty about the lies that got us back into the Middle East. W and his advisors should have to face the judges in The Hague for the neverending nightmare they dragged our country into, and if Jeb believes that those lies were actually faulty intelligence, he shouldn't be running for President - he should be there in The Hague with them, for collusion.
1
The great " debate" was nothing more than reality TV which sadly is what politics and government in today's America have become. It is a total humiliation for America to see Donald Trump make a mockery out of the process and turn it into a vehicle for his enormous ego, PR machine and racist xenophobic venom. Even sadder and more depressing is that so many lower middle class and poor working class Americans believe he is telling it like it is! Fox News created this sad mess that is today's politics and is raking in the profits ensuring that it will continue to embarrass and humiliate us in the process. I am still trying to understand why God was such an enormous part of the debate and a measure of the ability of a candidate to become President of the United States of America.
142
You misunderstand Trump. He doesn't do gravitas, his forte is veritas and he delivered it with gusto. Better the nincompoop we know the the nitwit who will surprise us after his election.
2
You accept lies and exaggerations as veritas?
Heh! It seems Frank Bruni did not watch the same prime time debate that I did! Or, maybe it's just his skewed perspective.
4
"This was an inquisition"
Really? The moderators could appear to ask anything pointed. They knew full well that no "question" would be answered.
No follow up questions exposed the farce.
Really? The moderators could appear to ask anything pointed. They knew full well that no "question" would be answered.
No follow up questions exposed the farce.
8
I had to reread this fascinating article again in the light of day. Frank, you are brilliant. Your way of capturing the essence of this "debate" as an inquisition is just perfect. In the parlance of today, you could also call it the great "Gotch' a Debate".
Because political debates in general are snore fests, the number one aim of FOX was to keep people's attention by dishing out the unexpected. By focusing on what was really a limited number of policy questions, the moderators could launch bombs about character, sexism, and religion while still managing to sound politically professional.
And in general, I thought the moderators were tough and not easily rattled. A good debate is as much about the control moderators exert as well as the questions. Everyone remembers the presidential debate when the PBS News moderator got rolled by an over-confident, overbearing Romney.
And striking first to disarm Trump was nothing short of brilliant. To watch Trump temporarily rattled, only raising his hand half-heartedly until he regained his bearing, was worth the whole show.
Because this is FOX and the GOP candidate, the question of God--something rarely heard in other debates--had to be raised at the end. For me this was the only weak point, in terms of qualifications for office. Mercifully Trump was spared his viewpoints on that issue.
As politico-infotainment goes, this was a doozy. Thanks for your insights, Frank.
Because political debates in general are snore fests, the number one aim of FOX was to keep people's attention by dishing out the unexpected. By focusing on what was really a limited number of policy questions, the moderators could launch bombs about character, sexism, and religion while still managing to sound politically professional.
And in general, I thought the moderators were tough and not easily rattled. A good debate is as much about the control moderators exert as well as the questions. Everyone remembers the presidential debate when the PBS News moderator got rolled by an over-confident, overbearing Romney.
And striking first to disarm Trump was nothing short of brilliant. To watch Trump temporarily rattled, only raising his hand half-heartedly until he regained his bearing, was worth the whole show.
Because this is FOX and the GOP candidate, the question of God--something rarely heard in other debates--had to be raised at the end. For me this was the only weak point, in terms of qualifications for office. Mercifully Trump was spared his viewpoints on that issue.
As politico-infotainment goes, this was a doozy. Thanks for your insights, Frank.
4
Trump may have replied that he *IS* God.
I agree that it was not a debate, but an inquisition and more entertaining than substantive. I also don't think any of the candidates answered any of the attack questions. They did indeed talk about their "talking points". Although I think the candidates should be held accountable, this was NOT an accountability session. At best it was entertaining at worse it was childish. But I guess that is what the Republican party is all about: immature behavior and entertaining. It was like I was watching a sit com. Oh, well, maybe that does best describe the Republican party.
2
The only problem with these debates is that there will be too many of them. Maybe fewer Democratic than Republican and, so far, the Democrats have been reasonably rational.
Fox News (perhaps because of Mr. Murdoch and his son) selected a tough moderators.
My only question: does Web Bush still have a chance to be nominated and elected? Not that I will vote for him but if we have to have a Republican president in 2016, he may be the best guy.
Fox News (perhaps because of Mr. Murdoch and his son) selected a tough moderators.
My only question: does Web Bush still have a chance to be nominated and elected? Not that I will vote for him but if we have to have a Republican president in 2016, he may be the best guy.
If you want a war with Iran, vote for Mr. Bush. If you want someone who appears capable of leading the country without being led by the nose, I'd say "the best guy" the Republican Party could have for their candidate would be John Kasich - and I never would have said that before last night's debate.
Liar! These questions wouldn't have earned condemnation coming from the NYT or NBC as surely both would ask them of Republicans too. They would not be asked of the Democrats as job one for the media is protecting the left. Fox did its job. This is what journalist do. Activists masquerading as journalists do something a bit different. Paging Candy Crowley. Paging Mr. Stephanopoulos.
2
Please stop throwing rocks dk.....we get it; you're a republican. Sheesh.
The reason that the Toronto Star is the best newspaper in North America to read about and understand American politics is that its theatre critic covered last night's debate. I have read a number of comments but the Theatre critic really gets it.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/06/donald-trump-scores-big-in...
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/06/donald-trump-scores-big-in...
2
He must be a liberal as appearances are the only thing they notice not substance
Thanks for the link, Moe. The contrast to the Times horserace obsession is startling, and welcome.
2
The debate I watched showed questioners more interested in hearing themselves than the candidates. Megan Kelly was especially objectionable. They handed softball questions to bush, Rubio etc.... They were clearly overmatched by Trump. Why didn't anyone call out Jeb when he said ISIS and the failure of Iraq was due to Obamas abandoning of Iraq? Did everyone forget that his brothers war fought under false pretenses also had a treaty for our departure, which Obama honored? Unbelievable, that they didn't go after him on that clear lie, especially as he finished his answer with some confused drivel about IRAN.
6
Sorry Frank but I disagree--this was not a debate, it was more like the NBA draft. It was spectacle without substance punctuated by sophomoric comments by Trump and the Fox News folks--primarily Megyn Kelly.
Like many others, I wanted to hear about real issues, not if you talk to God, not how much bigger the military needs to be.
Please Fox, get a real moderator for the next debate, use question from the citizenry, allow more time for substantive answers (if the candidates have one) and sack the self-aggrandizing, bloviating trio used this time!
Like many others, I wanted to hear about real issues, not if you talk to God, not how much bigger the military needs to be.
Please Fox, get a real moderator for the next debate, use question from the citizenry, allow more time for substantive answers (if the candidates have one) and sack the self-aggrandizing, bloviating trio used this time!
2
You may be an exception to the rule, Wheels, but sophomoric comments are the lingua franca of today's America; perhaps you didn't get the memo. Throughout my career as a legal draftsman, I have been advised to dumb my writing down to my audience's lowest potential common denominator. Other than the necessary use of terms of legal art, I have been reduced to drafting at about a 6th grade level these days, and people still seem to lose interest because there are "too many words." Americans seem to be of a mind these days that if your message is longer than a tweet, it can't possibly be worth reading.
Good TV, but a poor debate.
1
Right from the start it was obvious that the RNC had a hand in shaping the questions. Is there anyone here who would run as an independant, and would not endorse the nominee for president? Wow. Because party unity is the most important issue, right? The party wants Trump out of the way. His answer should have been, yes I will run as an independant, because I never signed on to the, Rove, Nordquist, Koch bandwagon.
The entire "debate" had the feel, look and sound of a game show, reality show, and American Idol all wrap in one neat pakage Just a sad demonstration of the polical right not understanding the needs of Americans in today's world.
The entire "debate" had the feel, look and sound of a game show, reality show, and American Idol all wrap in one neat pakage Just a sad demonstration of the polical right not understanding the needs of Americans in today's world.
3
It was entertaining for a little while, but like many commenters, I do not view Fox's role here as kindly as does Mr. Bruni.
And with the exception of Gov. Kasich, I don't understand how any of of these gentlemen could qualify to be POTUS since they all seem to come from another planet way way out there in the universe.
And with the exception of Gov. Kasich, I don't understand how any of of these gentlemen could qualify to be POTUS since they all seem to come from another planet way way out there in the universe.
3
Everybody knows Rupert Murdoch doesn't like Trump. Moreover, he doesn't like a Trump President. So FoxNews has joined the hound of the rest of the media after Trump. After the debate Krauthaimer proclaimed "the end of Trump".
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who had said that. Go see the poll at Drudge.
Point is the political pundit don't get it.
Americans are not looking for Mr Congeniality. They are looking for somebody they believe can have the job done.
I wish I had a dollar for everyone who had said that. Go see the poll at Drudge.
Point is the political pundit don't get it.
Americans are not looking for Mr Congeniality. They are looking for somebody they believe can have the job done.
4
How do you think Mr. Trump would be at handling foreign relations? I believe he would be an absolute horror.
I turned it off when Rubio began giving the same answer to a different question. That said, The forum was more "Beauty Pageant" than political event and Megyn Kelly's false eyelashes didn't help ( or Rubio's giant ears). Too many candidates to get down to anything meaningful, but I thought they each did a good job of turning negatives into positives in their responses save for Trump who looks like a shrunken head and acts like a fool. Christies plain spoken demeanor was good but not presidential, and Paul (petulant), Carson (erudite but nuts), Huckabee (zealot with a soft spot for seniors), Cruz (seems like an illegal immigrant himself) are basically over. That leaves Jeb, Walker, Rubio, and Kasich. Jeb will be the nominee.
31
Those ears are amazing. Whenever he spoke we just marveled at his ears.
Why should anyone care what some random "left of the dial" contributor thinks about the physical traits of candidates? Can a comment get any shallower?
You noticed Megan's eyelashes too? They were ridiculous. She needs to fire her makeup person.
We can now, only wait and see how the main stream media...you know...the ones that carry Obama's water.....address the Democratic contenders. Will they ask the tough questions or continue down the path they have been walking for the past six years, asking questions like, "If you were a tree, what kind would you be"?
1
Dear Mr. Bruni,
Was there some other debate, on some other channel named "Fox" that I missed?
What I saw was 'The Donald Trump Show" as he virtually stole the affair and made it his own promotional vehicle. You claim that "Fox, shudder, News" really held the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's "scrum of ten" 's collective "feet to the fire" as they asked tough questions like "Why should voters believe you" when, in fact, the questions were custom made for these so called "conservatives" to answer without stepping too far out of the "party line", Trump being the exception.
None of these guys were "pressed" to answer any difficult questions with the whole thing, apparently, designed to "dress down" Mr. Trump as he has truly roiled the campaign waters.
And it didn't work; "The Donald" is still running, he's still talking of his own party and the GOP/TP/K.A. can't control him because he's got tons of his own money and will say whatever he feels like which happens to be what the rest of them actually "think" but dare not say.
I do not admire Mr. Trump but I do think he's the best thing to have come along for the campaign of Ms. Clinton and the so called "debate" last night seems to have just bolstered his "image" as the outsider.
I can hardly wait for the next debate. My early prediction is that if Mr. Trump is not in it, the only people paying attention will be the moderators and the attendees as nobody else will be watching.
Was there some other debate, on some other channel named "Fox" that I missed?
What I saw was 'The Donald Trump Show" as he virtually stole the affair and made it his own promotional vehicle. You claim that "Fox, shudder, News" really held the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's "scrum of ten" 's collective "feet to the fire" as they asked tough questions like "Why should voters believe you" when, in fact, the questions were custom made for these so called "conservatives" to answer without stepping too far out of the "party line", Trump being the exception.
None of these guys were "pressed" to answer any difficult questions with the whole thing, apparently, designed to "dress down" Mr. Trump as he has truly roiled the campaign waters.
And it didn't work; "The Donald" is still running, he's still talking of his own party and the GOP/TP/K.A. can't control him because he's got tons of his own money and will say whatever he feels like which happens to be what the rest of them actually "think" but dare not say.
I do not admire Mr. Trump but I do think he's the best thing to have come along for the campaign of Ms. Clinton and the so called "debate" last night seems to have just bolstered his "image" as the outsider.
I can hardly wait for the next debate. My early prediction is that if Mr. Trump is not in it, the only people paying attention will be the moderators and the attendees as nobody else will be watching.
1
The irony is palpable. At virtually the same moment we watched Jon Stewart walk away from 17 years of hosting the single most important news show on TV we also watched Donald Trump self-destruct on national TV and slowly circle the drain that leads to the sewer pipe that is current republican politics. Coincidence? Serendipity? Poetic justice? I’ll take it as a sign that nothing lasts forever, good or bad. Trump is dead. Another victory for karma.
2
Another pathetic demagogue bleating the DNC's "talking" points, hoping for the best. The truth of the matter is that Donald established himself as the person to beat and he will destroy Billary on and off the debate scene. The demagogues are sweating bullets right now, and can't figure out how they are going to dump Billiary before she totally self-destructs.
FoxNews clearly had an agenda last night: take down Donald Trump and the less credible candidates and give the others a chance to set the record straight on issues that could dog them in the months ahead. That, as they see it, will be good for Republicans in the long run. The question to Christie about the credit downgrades was a bit of a softball. He's addressed this before and last night had an answer prepared.
If the debate had really been an "inquisition," the moderators would have asked Christie about the GW Bridge closing and his inadequate response to Hurricane Sandy, including the Tony Soprano-like treatment of the mayor of Hoboken. In an inquisition, Ted Cruz would have been pressed on his orchestration of the expensive 2013 government shutdown. John Kacish's statements implying that he was more or less responsible for the booming economy in the 1990s would not have gone unchallenged. They would have asked Jeb Bush why he is relying on advisors who helped shape a foreign policy he now disavows.
Instead, they went after easy targets and pretty much boosted everyone else.
And then there was "the question from God" at the end. That was nice.
If the debate had really been an "inquisition," the moderators would have asked Christie about the GW Bridge closing and his inadequate response to Hurricane Sandy, including the Tony Soprano-like treatment of the mayor of Hoboken. In an inquisition, Ted Cruz would have been pressed on his orchestration of the expensive 2013 government shutdown. John Kacish's statements implying that he was more or less responsible for the booming economy in the 1990s would not have gone unchallenged. They would have asked Jeb Bush why he is relying on advisors who helped shape a foreign policy he now disavows.
Instead, they went after easy targets and pretty much boosted everyone else.
And then there was "the question from God" at the end. That was nice.
4
What debate were you watching? You clearly went into this with an inherent bias
Maybe during the Democratic debate they can Hillary really hard questions about
1) what it's like to a mom and grandma
2) what she ordered at Chipoltle
3) why she ditched the Scooby van for private jets
Instead they should ask her
1) why did you lie about sending confidential emails over her private account
2) Why does her attorney David Kendall have your thumb drive with all your confidential emails when he does not have the proper security clearance
3) Why did you destroy confidential emails and then use staff with improper security clearance to do it
4) How can you take millions of dollars from from governments that have terrible human rights records and practice Sharia law?
5) Explain how she can be champion of the middle class and make $31 million last year
6). Why did she lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia
But that won't happen. The left will shield and protect her so she will appear confident and in control
Maybe during the Democratic debate they can Hillary really hard questions about
1) what it's like to a mom and grandma
2) what she ordered at Chipoltle
3) why she ditched the Scooby van for private jets
Instead they should ask her
1) why did you lie about sending confidential emails over her private account
2) Why does her attorney David Kendall have your thumb drive with all your confidential emails when he does not have the proper security clearance
3) Why did you destroy confidential emails and then use staff with improper security clearance to do it
4) How can you take millions of dollars from from governments that have terrible human rights records and practice Sharia law?
5) Explain how she can be champion of the middle class and make $31 million last year
6). Why did she lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia
But that won't happen. The left will shield and protect her so she will appear confident and in control
Could I add that Rand Paul also made a point in his back and forth with Chris Christie that investigators get warrants? He did have a way of addressing the issue of how to collect information without compromising rights under the Bill of Rights, regardless of whether an opponent would see it as effective or sufficient for protecting national security.
On the two debates more generally, I did not notice a candidate that I would want to vote for. Whoever is nominated will in all likelihood do that pivot in the campaign for the general election, to try to appeal to independent voters. But I am having a hard time imagining what such a pivot will look like. I agree that the Fox moderators held the candidates' feet to the fire. I saw it as a possible attempt to be helpful in getting the candidates to strengthen their campaigns where needed before one of them girds themselves for battle with the Democratic nominee. I just wish I could find a way to access more easily the debates as they occur -- I don't subscribe to cable TV and I don't think I should have to pay for cable in order to be an informed voter.
On the two debates more generally, I did not notice a candidate that I would want to vote for. Whoever is nominated will in all likelihood do that pivot in the campaign for the general election, to try to appeal to independent voters. But I am having a hard time imagining what such a pivot will look like. I agree that the Fox moderators held the candidates' feet to the fire. I saw it as a possible attempt to be helpful in getting the candidates to strengthen their campaigns where needed before one of them girds themselves for battle with the Democratic nominee. I just wish I could find a way to access more easily the debates as they occur -- I don't subscribe to cable TV and I don't think I should have to pay for cable in order to be an informed voter.
3
BTW, I suspect that not one in 100 flipped over to CSPAN and watched the Canadian debate hosted by Macleans. If you did, you would have seen how a debate should be conducted rather than the bombast, bread and circuses on Fox. You would have actually learned something. As to the Cleveland audience, they were just as boorish, coarse and common as Trump.
16
The Canadians, bless their souls, live in a place and time that is vastly easier to fathom and navigate so naturally their debates are much less contentious and bombastic.
I agree that the moderators surprised me (kudos to Fox, Kelly just added more viewers) and they never heard the word kid gloves but what did not surprise me was the gotcha tone of the questions and lack of pressure on candidates when they failed to answer the question.
5
I feel bad for the writers at SNL. How can you satirize something that was totally absurd and ridiculous to begin with?
22
A splinter is funnier than anything the writers at SNL have churned out in the last 10 years.
I don't know why Bruni says that Fiorina has no business running for President. Although I'll be voting Democrat, I was impressed by Fiorina's fire up there. Like Trump, she is a business executive. Just like Romney was. No difference. Reagan was an actor. Wasn't Truman a haberdasher? Everyone has to start somewhere. Who says that we should only elect politicians as Presidents? No wonder so many of the candidates over the years have made me snooze.
I wish Hillary would wake up. She needs candidates and a debate of her own. We need young Democrats on our side.
Now if we were stuck with a Republican, I'd choose John Kasich. He expanded Medicare and didn't flinch at gay marriage. Kasich-Christie. That would be interesting. Of course I'd prefer Obama or Hillary. Or anyone Democratic. But at least I wouldn't cry in despair if Kasich were President.
As for Trump, I argue that he was fine, although he seemed stiff. And making a remark about private jets after we saw video of him exiting his own, complete with his name in large font, was disingenuous. And of course he had to drop Rosie O'Donnell's name.
When's the next debate?
I wish Hillary would wake up. She needs candidates and a debate of her own. We need young Democrats on our side.
Now if we were stuck with a Republican, I'd choose John Kasich. He expanded Medicare and didn't flinch at gay marriage. Kasich-Christie. That would be interesting. Of course I'd prefer Obama or Hillary. Or anyone Democratic. But at least I wouldn't cry in despair if Kasich were President.
As for Trump, I argue that he was fine, although he seemed stiff. And making a remark about private jets after we saw video of him exiting his own, complete with his name in large font, was disingenuous. And of course he had to drop Rosie O'Donnell's name.
When's the next debate?
5
Hewlett Packard drifting off into oblivion after getting the Fiorina treatment.
Fiorina talks a good game, but her actual performance track record is a bit different. The "happy hour" second tier group did not have their feet held to the fire like the higher polling candidates. No one asked Carly about her firing from HP, nor why it took her YEARS for her to pay several of her manager and several of her campaign people from her failed Senate run in California.
I used to watch Fox news every once in a while just to, you know, keep my finger on that particular pulse but it's been a while. Like Mr. Bruni I was a bit surprised that the moderators weren't lobbing softballs. I wasn't terribly surprised by the responses, which mostly avoided the questions.
The warning 'buzzer' sounds a lot like our front doorbell, so every time it went off our 3 dogs would start barking loudly and scramble to the front door where they'd go through their usual rotating scramble and keep up the ruckus for another 20 seconds or so. It somehow seemed to fit right in with the whole show. After an hour or so, they started to get tired and were less enthusiastic about it, though they didn't give up.
I did, and went to bed.
The warning 'buzzer' sounds a lot like our front doorbell, so every time it went off our 3 dogs would start barking loudly and scramble to the front door where they'd go through their usual rotating scramble and keep up the ruckus for another 20 seconds or so. It somehow seemed to fit right in with the whole show. After an hour or so, they started to get tired and were less enthusiastic about it, though they didn't give up.
I did, and went to bed.
42
The dogs-doorbell analogy is one of the finest things I've heard about politics in a long time. Bravo.
Thanks for the laughs, Rich in Atlanta!
I don't think our country is going to get any better with this GOP field. We need leaders with the disposition of the last great Republican leader who wasn't bought and paid for...Ike. My analysis so far....I'm all in for Bernie. Very dissappointed with the NYT coverage of the fiasco.
10
Socialism does not work--it only brings everyone down.
2
Ike is looking worse than ever to me. He was asleep at the switch when the US blew out its brains by going under God.
"I don't think our country is going to get any better with this GOP field." -- And yet any one of them would be far better than the first anti-America non-leader in office now.
NYT celebrates Fox News, someone they usually mock, for hitting Repubs hard, but passes on the fact the Democrats don't even have the courage for a debate.
They should tell you something about NYT's bias....
Go Trump and Cruz '16!!!
They should tell you something about NYT's bias....
Go Trump and Cruz '16!!!
15
You are clueless to think Trump has any respect at all for that creepy smarmy preacher's son.
1
Trump and Cruz? That would be an exceptional comedy team.
The first Democratic debate is in October.
I am ticked at Fox News because the network did not allow streaming unless you logged into your cable provider.
A lot of us cut that cord a long time ago.
Is Fox News unaware, behind the times or just proprietary?
A lot of us cut that cord a long time ago.
Is Fox News unaware, behind the times or just proprietary?
13
I have the same issue. You have to pay to get it. Stream live? You don't need to if you already are getting it as a service.
The GOP does not care about the young vote.
Wouldn't it be nice if the pompous criminal, HRC, were subjected to the same sort of grilling as these men were?
What are the chances of her EVER being asked even ONE question that would leave her standing there naked?
I would love to see Carly take Hillary on.
What are the chances of her EVER being asked even ONE question that would leave her standing there naked?
I would love to see Carly take Hillary on.
20
That woman is a wrecking ball. Poison.
The "pompous criminal?" Really lady? Funny I'm not aware of any criminal convictions the next President of the United States has on her record. Unlike one of your candidates who is currently under indictment.
Hillary Clinton would take the failed HP CEO and failed Senate candidate and wipe the debate floor with her. The pug-faced Firoina who used her closing statement to label the former Secretary of State, former Senator and former First Lady a "liar" has as much business running for President as I have of trying out for quarterback of the New England Patriots, and I'm 64 years old.
Hillary Clinton would take the failed HP CEO and failed Senate candidate and wipe the debate floor with her. The pug-faced Firoina who used her closing statement to label the former Secretary of State, former Senator and former First Lady a "liar" has as much business running for President as I have of trying out for quarterback of the New England Patriots, and I'm 64 years old.
1
Once again, Trump did what I feared most: made Jeb Bush look like a credible candidate. I would have enjoyed hearing Bush answer a direct question about his gruesome and unconstitutional abduction of brain-dead Terri Schiavo from her family, but such a question will never be uttered to Bush on Fox News.
16
Trump was obviously targeted hard by the Fox moderators, which I think he handled pretty well. The one probing question of Bush was about being on the board of a company funding Planned Parenthood, but nothing about his business affiliation with a major drug dealer that went to prison, losing $336 million for Florida pensioners invested with Enron, a windfall deal for a sugar corporation in the Everglades, etc.
The the questions - so many of them based on the far-right premises FOX trades in - prevented scripted answers and sound bits? I must have missed the debate - the one I watched was on FOX, where the candidates might as well have been using digital playback devices for their set-pieces and the network won the evening.
To paraphrase John Oliver, why is the Republican party still a thing? What they had on that stage was not so much an embarrassment as an outrage.
To paraphrase John Oliver, why is the Republican party still a thing? What they had on that stage was not so much an embarrassment as an outrage.
19
Kasich ran the same loop about his genius economic transformation of Ohio several times.
You are correct--you must have missed the debate.
My dream now, probably unattainable, is for Megyn Kelly to interview Hilary Clinton.
15
Hillary Clinton is intelligent and knowledgeable and would have excellent answers for the Fox News faux controversies. There should be no fear of Fox other than its ability to sway the low information voters.
Cheers for Frank Bruni for his unexpected willingness to see some virtue among Republicans and have the honesty and bravery to put it in print in the progressive bible. He and Chuck Schumer have demonstrated that it is possible for at least some progressives and liberals to see beyond their own biases and articles of faith and honor realities.
15
Totally. Now remind me how fox and WND do that for democrats? Because your implication is that this happens all the time.
I found it distressing to hear almost every single candidate throw in "repeal & replace" with regards to the ACA almost as if they had a verbal tic. I found myself shouting "Replace with what!?" The health and wealth of millions of Americans is at stake & we deserve to know what they plan to do.
58
ACA ruined healthcare. My rates for my family have doubled and my deductable has quadrupled. All for what? To transfer wealth from net makers to net takers. Good riddance.
The real winner at the debate last night was Roger Ailes, Chairman of the Fox
Television Station Group. It's all about the ratings and when these numbers
come in, Ailes will prove Fox has become a dominant, political power.
It simply makes no difference whom the commentators or political
pundits declare winners. It was fascinating to see seasoned , hardened
politicians stripping away their political covers to be politically correct.
Television Station Group. It's all about the ratings and when these numbers
come in, Ailes will prove Fox has become a dominant, political power.
It simply makes no difference whom the commentators or political
pundits declare winners. It was fascinating to see seasoned , hardened
politicians stripping away their political covers to be politically correct.
5
They were nice to Kasich.
1
This was not a TV variety show, Mr. Bruni. Try going back a few decades to prior debates, albeit with fewer candidates, and look at the way they weren't even forced to, but willingly talked about the actual vexing issues of the day in great detail. Here's a link to the Ferraro-Bush debate in '84:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42scedX5MT8
Today's young people might be shocked to see what "better politics," such as it was, looked like a short time ago. It was a different kind of "great television."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42scedX5MT8
Today's young people might be shocked to see what "better politics," such as it was, looked like a short time ago. It was a different kind of "great television."
7
"Trump was undressed and unmasked, and he stood there as the unprincipled, naked egomaniac that he is. He never quite recovered. His admission of political infidelity was the prism through which all of his subsequent bluster had to be viewed."
Wrong. He stood tall against the establishment. This will earn him more grassroots support than ever
Wrong. He stood tall against the establishment. This will earn him more grassroots support than ever
10
I agree. I was disgusted by FOX's willingness to play to the liberal mainstream media who were onlookers....instead of giving the platform necessary for the candidates to expose Obama and Hillary they focused on the negatives. Look at the Drudge poll. If anything, FOX burned their viewership in a lunge for shares from CNN and MSNBC.
I thought that San Francisco Sanctuary Central Supervisor Scott Wiener said that Fox News was "not real news" after Ms. Steinle was murdered by a serial illegal alien repeat felon.
Perhaps Ms. Wiener was not correct.
Perhaps Ms. Wiener was not correct.
10
How does this have ANYTHING to do do with last night's debate?
No, he's still correct. Fox News is not a real news channel; it is the media arm of the RNC. This time they just changed their strategy to cull the herd a bit and make room for John Kasich.
Fair article except for the usual dig at Fox to keep up with the narrative. If you or your readers actually watched Fox, you'd see they actually grill Republicans. Kelly was the one pushing Bush so hard before the debate re Iraq war. For all the readers bashing Fox, when was the last time the MSM asked Obama about ObamaCare's broken promises, or Hillary's lies regarding no
Classified emails, her knowing it wasn't a video responsible, etc. Will the democrats have the same hard questions? I think not. Hillary will rather dictate to them the questions...after all, they allow her to literally rope them off, not ask questions and change what is printed on the newspapers. It's stunning.....but yeah, trolls, keep on talking about Fox's bias because a lie told over and over becomes truth and watching for yourself is not an option.
Classified emails, her knowing it wasn't a video responsible, etc. Will the democrats have the same hard questions? I think not. Hillary will rather dictate to them the questions...after all, they allow her to literally rope them off, not ask questions and change what is printed on the newspapers. It's stunning.....but yeah, trolls, keep on talking about Fox's bias because a lie told over and over becomes truth and watching for yourself is not an option.
12
Well, we know the Progressives' outrage and hypocrisy at being held to the same rules or standards as 'others.'
"Fox's bias because a lie told over and over becomes truth and watching for yourself is not an option."
You are so right. The Faux news viewers return again and again to listen to the out and out lies and deliberate misstatements and right wing rhetoric of Faux and in their minds they are being told the truth.
You are so right. The Faux news viewers return again and again to listen to the out and out lies and deliberate misstatements and right wing rhetoric of Faux and in their minds they are being told the truth.
1
Yes, Fox did gave hell to the Republican candidates and tried to stir up controversy. I'm quite sure MSNBC will likewise give hard hitting questions to the Dem candidates and press them on their record, rather than tee up softball questions about those "Evil Republicans"...yeah, right.
14
The powers that be choose the candidates, let them battle it out between them, as a nod to democracy, and then direct the actions of the finally elected president.
1
Wow, how repellent ---is that what they say? “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals...”
You could call the Gop the Gross Old Party. Journalists have to have professional distance and strong stomachs with today’s Gop. These I lack so I don’t avoid myself of Gop nauseating statements except indirectly, a bit, through progressive reports. Even those are getting hard to take.
You could call the Gop the Gross Old Party. Journalists have to have professional distance and strong stomachs with today’s Gop. These I lack so I don’t avoid myself of Gop nauseating statements except indirectly, a bit, through progressive reports. Even those are getting hard to take.
6
"...I don’t avoid myself of GOP nauseating statements except indirectly, a bit, through progressive reports." -- Wow, is right!
I stayed up until 3 am to watch the debate on a cable channel here in Hungary. Perhaps it is because I was so tired, but I was so disappointed to experience NO moments in which I felt reassured that "this man" might be the next President of the United States. There were a lot of lame attacks on Hillary Clinton, and not a single credible statement about issues that will affect generations to come -- climate change, instability in European economics, inequity in wealth distribution -- as well as no comments that revealed an understanding of how globally destructive the invasion of Iraq has turned out to be. I hope people pay attention to newspaper articles in which fact-checking results are shared -- those articles might provide future debate moderators with opportunities to press participants on the facts instead of letting their statements go unchallenged.
38
Will the Democratic Party create a debate among its own candidates as combative? Only if Fox is given the reins. NBC, CBS, and ABC are too entrenched with the Liberal side of America to be useful in that approach.
15
With his aggressive mannerisms of speaking with arms spread, clenched fist with a loose index finger pointed up Trump did a good impression of Robert DiNero as Al Capone in The Untouchables. Was he ever so tiresome?
And yes - Kasich, for whom I was hoping for a strong performance, was amiable but did not shine as a great debater. I've seen him one on one when he showed superb knowledge of the issues facing the country and a moderated conservatism that was engaging. To me, though, the star who shone - and probably to the relief of the GOP establishment - was Jeb Bush.
Jeb was on target with most of his responses; and he, more than any other, provided that essential presidential flavor. If the campaign was ended last evening the ticket would be Jeb for pres and Kasich for VP; garners the electoral votes of Florida, Ohio and the 2016 election for the GOP.
And yes - Kasich, for whom I was hoping for a strong performance, was amiable but did not shine as a great debater. I've seen him one on one when he showed superb knowledge of the issues facing the country and a moderated conservatism that was engaging. To me, though, the star who shone - and probably to the relief of the GOP establishment - was Jeb Bush.
Jeb was on target with most of his responses; and he, more than any other, provided that essential presidential flavor. If the campaign was ended last evening the ticket would be Jeb for pres and Kasich for VP; garners the electoral votes of Florida, Ohio and the 2016 election for the GOP.
15
Jeb! is the tallest. That makes him a shoo-in.
Personally, my wife and I expected more from former Gov. Bush. He seems too meek and mild mannered to lead.
Dream on. Most people don't like Jeb and thought his performance was lackluster.
Mr Trump is making a historic run in the polls and the NY Times is still giving us hair jokes.
4
I chose to read as many left- and right-wing reviews of the debate as possible tonight, and will read more tomorrow: ANYthing but actually watch a single minute of Fox Spews and possibly, thereby, contribute to their ratings and advertising income. I would have made the same decision if the debate had been exclusively broadcast on MSNBC. I do not find the major networks or PBS news to be so disgustingly slanted and skewed in one direction or the other. I don't consider myself to be either a "member of the choir" being catered to by MSNBC, or a member of the "walking dead zombies" being resurrected by Faux News.
It figures that so many NYT readers are apoplectic that nobody was asked about "climate change" (an issue that most of America justifiably doesn't care about) and that Fiorina called Clinton a liar (hey, can't be telling an inconvenient truth here, now can we?).
It's also understandable that so many are horrified that the candidates would mention Planned Parenthood's gleeful disregard for human life in the notorious videos in which they were caught on their salad and banter about how much a dead baby's liver is worth on the "open market".
After all, when you live in a bubble of fantasy and make believe, it's very difficult when confronted with reality, which was clearly and articulately discussed during last night's debate.
With the exception of clowns like Perry, Christie and Graham, the rest came off pretty well. Trump is a special case because he's simply not presidential material, but he was hardly "brought down" by Kelly's question. In fact, if he would have left out the self-absorbed reference to how he is "being treated" (OK, he is a New Yorker and he is Donald Trump, so I guess that's not possible) he would have clearly devastated Kelly with his response to her question.
It's also understandable that so many are horrified that the candidates would mention Planned Parenthood's gleeful disregard for human life in the notorious videos in which they were caught on their salad and banter about how much a dead baby's liver is worth on the "open market".
After all, when you live in a bubble of fantasy and make believe, it's very difficult when confronted with reality, which was clearly and articulately discussed during last night's debate.
With the exception of clowns like Perry, Christie and Graham, the rest came off pretty well. Trump is a special case because he's simply not presidential material, but he was hardly "brought down" by Kelly's question. In fact, if he would have left out the self-absorbed reference to how he is "being treated" (OK, he is a New Yorker and he is Donald Trump, so I guess that's not possible) he would have clearly devastated Kelly with his response to her question.
3
What is most disturbing of all is that a cable network is essentially gate keeper and "king maker" of the next Republican presidential candidate--as if Fox has a vested interest in the process and its outcome. Oh wait, they do.
The common wisdom is that Fox works for the GOP. Considering how many GOP candidates have worked for Fox as "news analysts" and "contributors"---the truth is the opposite: The GOP works for Fox.
Hardly part of an impartial fourth estate. And hardly "fair and balanced". Just GOP TV.
The common wisdom is that Fox works for the GOP. Considering how many GOP candidates have worked for Fox as "news analysts" and "contributors"---the truth is the opposite: The GOP works for Fox.
Hardly part of an impartial fourth estate. And hardly "fair and balanced". Just GOP TV.
9
And this is a serious post? With ABC's morning guy and political commentator a former Clinton employee? Check out how many Obama employees came from the MSM and vice versa.
1
So much for any faith in FOX. Gone.
How embarrassing Megyn. you need to retire soon, and spend time trying to find some grace left in your long lost past.
TRUMP, CRUZ, HUCKABEE, PAUL, CARSON, KASICH, ummm CHRISTIE.
How embarrassing Megyn. you need to retire soon, and spend time trying to find some grace left in your long lost past.
TRUMP, CRUZ, HUCKABEE, PAUL, CARSON, KASICH, ummm CHRISTIE.
2
Dirt. This debate was full of dirt. But despite this "dirt", this debate was quite interesting. BTW I have a feeling that all of them could be much better in a role of president than top Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton... I hope she, demon in human skin will not win. I pray for it
5
It was obvious the moderators were promoting Curz, Huckabee and Rubio by the softball questions to them. The three candidates are always on FOX especially Kelly program.They threw hard balls to Trump, Paul and Chris.
Kelly, Hume and Wallace were terrible as moderators. Fox gets a D- on the debate.
Kelly, Hume and Wallace were terrible as moderators. Fox gets a D- on the debate.
1
I wholeheartedly agree, Frank. FOX moderators really durprised me the the pungency if their questions. No softballs here::every query was a taunt as much as a question.
It was an inquisition, as you say, and it kept me awake. Even the misses and and the taunts and the fights were great. Best if all, we came away with a far greater understanding of where each candidate is most vulnerable.
Isn't that the point of a good debate? To teach us more about how fast a person can think on his feet and convince us of the superiority of his arguments?
It was an inquisition, as you say, and it kept me awake. Even the misses and and the taunts and the fights were great. Best if all, we came away with a far greater understanding of where each candidate is most vulnerable.
Isn't that the point of a good debate? To teach us more about how fast a person can think on his feet and convince us of the superiority of his arguments?
5
Mr Bruni
It's tragic to note that you seem surprised at the probing questions from the Fox panel. Granted there are some on the Fox shows that go soft on the GOP, but the shows those specific 3 have on Fox have a wel deserved reputation for doing what seems to amazed you on a daily basis.
In light of the recent proclamation from the DNC chair that their debates will be pushed further back into the political season; I can't help but reflect on what a disservice to America, and it's voters that the Democrat side of the ledger, appears to plan on failing to apply the same level of inquiry...
It's tragic to note that you seem surprised at the probing questions from the Fox panel. Granted there are some on the Fox shows that go soft on the GOP, but the shows those specific 3 have on Fox have a wel deserved reputation for doing what seems to amazed you on a daily basis.
In light of the recent proclamation from the DNC chair that their debates will be pushed further back into the political season; I can't help but reflect on what a disservice to America, and it's voters that the Democrat side of the ledger, appears to plan on failing to apply the same level of inquiry...
4
Mere theater.
Hillary will roll into the Oval Office while the GOP is still trying to pick a candidate.
Hillary will roll into the Oval Office while the GOP is still trying to pick a candidate.
3
Not one of the people we saw last night will ever be elected President of the United States. EVER. Someone should tell Chris Christie that if what he said is true, that 71% of the Budget is spent on entitlements and debt service, then what about the 61% spent on defense? Doesn't quite add up. The amount of lies by all these people was mind boggling. I lost track of all of therm but I can tell you right now President to be Hillary Clinton must be giggling in her sleep.
3
You aren't even close with your military assessment but I'm sure it's what your professors or biased articles you read tell you. Military expenditures were less than FOUR % of GNP.
1
Did you catch Carly Fiorina at the earlier debate? Watch out!
It was not GNP Christie stated it was " budget". I do know the difference. I dont think Christie does though.
A pig just flew by my window. Pinch me. The Times says something nice about Fox News? Watch out for those West Side cancellations!
4
Perhaps a lot of us underestimated Trump... He not only got his ego stroked by massive media coverage but he's put himself in a brilliant bargaining position when/if he loses the primaries by threathening to go independent (Ralph Nader...).
1
You are right, and will admit it, the Fox "moderators", did point out the clear blemishes for the "dirty dozen" (Republic Party core curriculum based upon the founding father's adherence to the decimal system).
As a result I predict:
Chachi Rubio & Carli 2016
As a result I predict:
Chachi Rubio & Carli 2016
1
Its pretty hard to imagine fox doing anything that doesn't advance its own interests or the interests of the rightwing. When you have a party that has become increasingly dominated by an ever extremer rightwing and candidates that are all willing to pander to their craziness then the only thing Fox can do to give them a chance in the general election is to try and make the mildly crazy look relatively normal by standing them next to the totally crazy.
6
I think it was pretty crazy to back the second Iraq War and to put your sensitive government emails in a server in your basement.
5
Unlike most republicans, Hillary admits it was a mistake for her to be duped by anything the rightwing says or does. At least she learns from her past whereas the rightwing keeps saying the same idiotic things over and over again.
Regarding, the made up rightwing scandal over emails, she pretty much followed the same practices as almost every Secretary before her - including rightwing - but unlike others her basement happens to be guarded by the Secret Service. Given the hacks of government websites it also appears her server is safer then the governments not to mention there has yet to be shown that any email was classified at the time.
But don't let facts get in the way of your talking points.
Regarding, the made up rightwing scandal over emails, she pretty much followed the same practices as almost every Secretary before her - including rightwing - but unlike others her basement happens to be guarded by the Secret Service. Given the hacks of government websites it also appears her server is safer then the governments not to mention there has yet to be shown that any email was classified at the time.
But don't let facts get in the way of your talking points.
1
Tim all of those "oversights" by any Democrat esp. Hillary are always overlooked by those who adhere to the DNC mantra. It's always brushed aside and made to like like a minor problem, but if the roles were reversed and it happened to a repub well then it's a national crisis, only in the minds of the delusional.
There seem to be commenters here who continue to believe that this farce was some kind of "debate." It was not. It was a standard, carefully-scripted reality show, with the so-called "moderators" composed of Fox "news" employees dutifully reciting the party script in order to keep their bank accounts full. There were no "hard questions" asked and there were unscripted answers, except possibly by Trump who the GOP old guard desperately wants destroyed; the "moderators" gave it their best shot though to no avail and giving serious heartburn to kingmaker Roger Alies. Not one person among this dim collection of mostly bought-and-paid-for mediocrities and wealthy opportunists is qualified to run a lemonade stand let alone the country, and Fox should be called out for the sham propaganda shop masquerading as a "news" network that it is.
297
No one will argue that the 10 on the stage are a crop of brilliant statesmen, but Fox did the best they could with what they had to work with. They actually made a few candidates uncomfortable, and we got a sense of their disposition and the way respond to stress.
I'm sure the network you run would have hosted a far superior debate, but given what Fox is and what the candidate is, they did a pretty compelling job.
I'm sure the network you run would have hosted a far superior debate, but given what Fox is and what the candidate is, they did a pretty compelling job.
Speaking of farce, what about Hillary Hollywood-made "campaign"?
1
John you must be kidding me. They were very hard questions and much tougher than I thought, No Candy Crowley helping Democrats with answers either
1
Conversely, I think we will see a bump for Trump in the polls, or at least no fall. Why? Because the way he was treated by the moderators simply reinforces his message that his supporters already believe: the media hates me because I tell the truth. He's already ripping into Megan Kelly on Twitter.
When was the last time a Presidential candidate point-blank admitted to paying the other candidates for influence in previous elections? And called them all on taking his money? Trump may be a madman, but that moment of startling honesty stuck out to me.
When was the last time a Presidential candidate point-blank admitted to paying the other candidates for influence in previous elections? And called them all on taking his money? Trump may be a madman, but that moment of startling honesty stuck out to me.
128
Admitting to paying bribes, and to working the system to his advantage (those "4 deals" he kept repeating), may be a "moment of startling honesty." But does that mean that he won't continue giving bribes? Does that mean he wouldn't accept them, if he's in public office? Does that mean he won't continue to work the system for his personal gain?
Of course not. He seems proud of what he's done. A crook who brags about robbing banks might be an "honest" crook. But I sure wouldn't give him the keys to the vault.
Of course not. He seems proud of what he's done. A crook who brags about robbing banks might be an "honest" crook. But I sure wouldn't give him the keys to the vault.
4
On the bankruptcy question. He says a lot without the details. He has 500 business's, now, he's had 4 bankruptcy's, Not bad at all. In Atlantic City, he was one of the first ones to bail. It was a smart move. The economy was tanking, he saw it early and bailed. Lost a lot less money than if he waited.
Most of all of the rest failed too. Sometimes there is nothing you can do. That's why there are those laws. That's why bankers charge the interest rates they do. There is risk. Look at your credit card rate, why do you think it is that high?
Most of all of the rest failed too. Sometimes there is nothing you can do. That's why there are those laws. That's why bankers charge the interest rates they do. There is risk. Look at your credit card rate, why do you think it is that high?
1
Kelly needs to be ripped. After the debate, she had Little Debbie on her show. What the hell cares what that dizzy airhead thinks. Kelly is an idiot.
And you've had time to write your column on this already. I'm glad I didn't watch. I'm tired of the so-called Republican platform: build a great wall, starve the poor, call themselves Conservatives as if Canadian.
9
For what may be a first...I agree with your column about the debate. All 3 Fox moderators did an excellent job. I think I learned more about the candidates than I ever have in any previous debate.
This debate has set the standard for all future debates. Our country has become so polarized these last 6+ years the media must step out of its advocacy mode to help bring out the truth.
We will see if the other debate sponsors can reach this level of professionalism.
This debate has set the standard for all future debates. Our country has become so polarized these last 6+ years the media must step out of its advocacy mode to help bring out the truth.
We will see if the other debate sponsors can reach this level of professionalism.
5
I could not agree more with this article! I am a liberal, and Fox news generally fills me with revulsion. Initially, I couldn't even find the channel on the TV and I was a little worried that I might have blocked it out in a previous fit of disgust. However, shockingly, this was the most credibly moderated debate I have certainly ever seen. The hosts could not have done a better job.
I do disagree slightly with winners and losers. I thought Ben Carson looked and sounded more like the patient of a Neurological surgeon rather than the Dr., cute closing not withstanding. Rubio sounded squeaky and too well rehearsed kind of like a kid at a spelling Bee. Jeb Bush seemed nervous and weak, Scott Walker seemed slimy. Both Cruz and Huckabee were in their element and I would say unapologetic in a fake smile Sunday morning televangelist sort of way. I fully agree that Kaisch seemed like a humane and decent person who probably is too kind to be a Republican. If he doesn't see a big bump after his performance than Republican voters are the caricatures many on the left consider them to be.
And the Donald, oh the Donald, was utterly disgraceful, even though his treatment by the moderators was far harsher than what might be considered fair, the interactions made it clear that he has no business ever entertaining the thought of being president. Not a great night for either Paul or Christie, though I too appreciated their one meaningful exchange.
I do disagree slightly with winners and losers. I thought Ben Carson looked and sounded more like the patient of a Neurological surgeon rather than the Dr., cute closing not withstanding. Rubio sounded squeaky and too well rehearsed kind of like a kid at a spelling Bee. Jeb Bush seemed nervous and weak, Scott Walker seemed slimy. Both Cruz and Huckabee were in their element and I would say unapologetic in a fake smile Sunday morning televangelist sort of way. I fully agree that Kaisch seemed like a humane and decent person who probably is too kind to be a Republican. If he doesn't see a big bump after his performance than Republican voters are the caricatures many on the left consider them to be.
And the Donald, oh the Donald, was utterly disgraceful, even though his treatment by the moderators was far harsher than what might be considered fair, the interactions made it clear that he has no business ever entertaining the thought of being president. Not a great night for either Paul or Christie, though I too appreciated their one meaningful exchange.
10
How funny!" I had to scroll thru the Verizon guide too! There are so many FOX stations and neiling the right one was tough.
2
Mr. Bruni: You should have waited until a poll was in before you ptedicted winners and losers. you made a few bad calls. The first poll on Drudge report shows half the people are for Trump. Bush and Christy didn't hardly make a showing. You evidently have you own agenda to push.
1
In the first debate Carly Fiorina was the clear winner. She was poised, articulate, and perhaps because she has no political record, she didn't try to rush through a list of her political accomplishments; instead she attempted to articulate a partial vision for the future. In the prime time debate I completely disagree with Mr. Bruni's statement that Trump lost. While it's true that his responses were, for the most part, pure "trumpery." he was successful in using the same combative and controversial style that propelled him to the leading position in the polls. It should be very interesting to see if he maintains this position now that the first debate is over. I also thought that Cruz and Rubio provided articulate and well reasoned responses to the sometimes abrasive questions. I was hoping that Jeb Bush would give me something to cheer about, but some of his answers were clearly evasive and not well stated (e.g., his attempt to smooth over his previous support for the common core curriculum). At times, he had the forlorn look of the proverbial deer in the headlights. I thought the losers were Rand Paul and Ben Carson both of whom are not ready for prime time. Kasich, Huckabee, Christie, and Walker all did well enough to advance, so the next debate should tell us even more about their presidential potential.
32
But why was Ms Fiorina banished from her job at Hewlett Packard? Didn't she also have a reputation as a huge job cutter?Sharp words and $59,000,000 in personal wealth do not a president make.
RE: "Carly Fiorina was the clear winner. Problem is (to paraphrase Obama)" she just **isn't** likable enough.
What debate? There was neither any debate in the Kid's Room nor in the Adult Clown Car; orchestrated entertainment by Murdoch and Ailes.
I enjoyed the debate for what it was: an opportunity to shake up the race and maybe knock the field down at least a little bit before Iowa. We obviously know that the real field of candidates is only about 12.
For all those complaining about Trump's questions being unfair, I'd say this: Trump is first and foremost a source of entertainment. If he really wanted to be taken seriously, then he needs to be the change he wishes to see and take the process seriously. Just because something is status quo does not automatically mean it should be mocked and ignored. There is a time-honored tradition that the position of President is to be held in high regard, and that those seeking such an office hold themselves to a higher standard. Trump consistently acts in a childish, ignorant manner, so why on earth should anyone take him seriously?
For all those complaining about Trump's questions being unfair, I'd say this: Trump is first and foremost a source of entertainment. If he really wanted to be taken seriously, then he needs to be the change he wishes to see and take the process seriously. Just because something is status quo does not automatically mean it should be mocked and ignored. There is a time-honored tradition that the position of President is to be held in high regard, and that those seeking such an office hold themselves to a higher standard. Trump consistently acts in a childish, ignorant manner, so why on earth should anyone take him seriously?
86
The office of the presidency has not been held in high regard for a long, long time.
God. I am old enough to remember when an actor portraying the POTUS in a movie didn't have his face shown on camera! Like he was some sort of a god.
God. I am old enough to remember when an actor portraying the POTUS in a movie didn't have his face shown on camera! Like he was some sort of a god.
You would be surprised. Many though Ronald Reagan was a joke.
Why on earth should anyone take the other 16 seriously when they are controlled by mega-donors and work against our own interest.....especially in regards to Iran
1
Unasked question for all:
"What will you do differently in 2020 to defeat incumbent President Clinton?"
"What will you do differently in 2020 to defeat incumbent President Clinton?"
2
What you seem to forget, Mr. Bruni, is that you, me and the vast majority of NYT readers were not the target audience for this debate. The list of winners and losers that you've deftly identified is most certainly not the list for the audience this group was after. Trump won this spectacle hands down, and the reasons for that should worry us all.
4
Why is Bruni surprised Fox would make sure to get to a nice simmer, either their favored candidates or future on air personalities?
Hooray? Hooray for what? For demonstrating competence in ginning up one's control and monetization of a political party?
Err, ok.
Hooray? Hooray for what? For demonstrating competence in ginning up one's control and monetization of a political party?
Err, ok.
1
Refreshing to see a liberal HAVE to admit what the American people have known for a decade: That Fox News is 100 times more scrutinizing of Republicans then MSNBC or CNN WILL EVER BE of Democrats. That is why they DOMINATE cable news.
7
I didn't hear the moderators take Jeb Bush to task for anything. Including stealing the 2000 election. I personally can't hear enough about that. But somebody is going to have to ask him. He'll deny it but it needs to be out there. Anyone running for office who puts personal gain, family loyalty or vanity ahead of the most cherished tenets of our democracy -one person one vote - is unfit for office.
10
Hillary vowed to prove the 2000 election was fraudulent. I know the NYT; Miami Herald and other organizations came up with every scenario to prove Gore won. You didn't hear about it? That's because, every time, Bush won.
2
No Republican will ever bring up Jeb Bush's interference in the election recount, nor will any Republican bring up the name Terri Schiavo. Those questions wouldn't be asked until the post-nomination debates with the Democrats, long after Jeb Bush has dropped out of the race.
It was amazing that Gore's camp only wanted certain counties re-counted but not all. Now why do you think that is? You want a re-count then do it statewide not by cherry picking. Get over it Gore lost.
Trump "never recovered"? No, your opinion is a minority. I have just checked a number of online polls after the debate. All had Trump winning the debate with as low as 30% of the respondents, and as many as 48% of the respondents. Clearly, as a Villager and Very Serious Person, your pronouncements have once again been confounded by the wishes of the mass public. To be clear: I hate Trump and would never vote for him. But then, I'm not a Republican. I do feel that Trump most accurately represents the unhinged Id of many Republican voters. It would be fun to see him nominated, but honestly I really don't care. Whoever gets nominated on either side, the Democrat will defeat the Republican thanks to demographics.
138
You are right about the demographics. Obama has successfully albeit illegally changed the demographics for this country forever.
2
No the unhinged are the Dems that will vote for a corrupt, evil woman because she has a 'D" by her name
Unless the Republicans succeed in their war against demographics.
I must have missed the part where they asked Christie about Bridgegate.
3
The only thing more fun than watching the debate is reading the wonderfully predictable comments from the loyal opposition, otherwise known as the readership of the NY Times. I just want to say in advance that Bernie Sanders did an absolutely fantastic job in his upcoming debate.
3
Carly was fantastic, I agree. I think she did the best between both debates. But the FOX moderators were the biggest losers. They were getting universally panned and trounced on Twitter for being rude, hostile, and ambushing candidates. That's not their job. We, the voters, want to hear their positions on the issues, not to see who can be most embarrassed by a stupid question. This isn't TMZ! The first "happy hour" debate was MUCH better, b/c those moderators were even-handed and asked RELEVANT questions instead of Gotcha questions to some and softballs to others! Imagine that.
3
Paul said that he didn’t want less federal surveillance of terrorists, just of innocent Americans. Christie said that that was a “ridiculous answer,” because it’s impossible to know who’s who at the start.
To the GOP candidates: Until someone uses a gun to commit a crime, is it not "impossible to know who's who at the start"? Law-abiding citizens, until they aren't. If a Pres. Christie (among other candidates) feels he can authorize his government to collect data on law-abiding citizens vis a vis terrorism, why would he not be able to use the same logic to tap phones, hack emails and the like of law-abiding citizens to prevent murders? You know, just to see if a Dylann Roof was likely to kill some people? I'm not in favor of such surveillance, though Gov. Christie would have to be to be consistent in his logic. I'm for gun laws as strict as the laws against bearing other weapons that I presume Americans are not allowed to carry: bazookas, grenades and biological agents come to mind. Anyone complain they aren't allowed to take a grenade to school, church or a bar? Why not? What's the obsession with handguns and rifles in this day and age, when nearly all of us have happily given up the butter churns and conestoga wagons that made sense in an earlier age? We have hired professional law enforcement to protect us and then we make it more difficult for them to do so by making it easy for tens of millions of people to be potential murderers. That makes no sense.
To the GOP candidates: Until someone uses a gun to commit a crime, is it not "impossible to know who's who at the start"? Law-abiding citizens, until they aren't. If a Pres. Christie (among other candidates) feels he can authorize his government to collect data on law-abiding citizens vis a vis terrorism, why would he not be able to use the same logic to tap phones, hack emails and the like of law-abiding citizens to prevent murders? You know, just to see if a Dylann Roof was likely to kill some people? I'm not in favor of such surveillance, though Gov. Christie would have to be to be consistent in his logic. I'm for gun laws as strict as the laws against bearing other weapons that I presume Americans are not allowed to carry: bazookas, grenades and biological agents come to mind. Anyone complain they aren't allowed to take a grenade to school, church or a bar? Why not? What's the obsession with handguns and rifles in this day and age, when nearly all of us have happily given up the butter churns and conestoga wagons that made sense in an earlier age? We have hired professional law enforcement to protect us and then we make it more difficult for them to do so by making it easy for tens of millions of people to be potential murderers. That makes no sense.
3
Fiorina, in your opinion, has no business running for Pres?
I am sure you thought Obama was eminently qualified...
I am sure you thought Obama was eminently qualified...
5
The agenda clearly was to take out Trump. He took the bait, immediately reverted to his nasty form, bad on him. Wallace was especially aggressive. going out of his way to ask others what they thought of Trump's responses. As expected Cruz was great. Paul was nasty and butted in annoyingly. Christie looked like he was wearing a prune pancake on his head. Why isn't Fiorina at the big boy table???
3
Cruz was great? were we watching the same debate?
1
A pox on all their houses! Are we to enthuse over which one of these legends-in-their-own-minds will get to dismantle the social safety net that allowed the greatest middle class in world history to emerge? And with it, the greatest and best political system in the world--the beacon that has given hope to millions all over the world?
They are all bought and paid for servants of the oligarchy that has taken over the Country in the past 30 years--and is bent on ruining it. I take delight only in their complete mediocrity. The Republican party has gone off the rails, and they are shortly to follow.
They are all bought and paid for servants of the oligarchy that has taken over the Country in the past 30 years--and is bent on ruining it. I take delight only in their complete mediocrity. The Republican party has gone off the rails, and they are shortly to follow.
7
God, if only Fox News would be allowed to do the same, top-notch, probing job with the Democratic candidates. Something tells me they'll never get the chance.
10
Well, you give a pretty good round-up BUT I think you go too far by praising Fox "News". The entire spectacle that is the GOP candidate pool is really nothing more than a cacophony of unworthy men (and one token woman) who think they deserve to be president NOTWITHSTANDING that NONE OF THEM have laudable records. Trump? Bankruptcy twice. Walker? Job CONTRACTION. Christie? Jersey credit DOWNGRADES and BRIDGEGATE. Bush? Well, he's a "Bush". So what this might have been was good "theater" but regarding serious political discourse I find the entire thing a confirmation of the sad and sorry state of politics in this country where THAT GROUP is supposed to represent the best that one of the 2 major parties in this country can put forward. It would be a lot more entertaining if it weren't so SAD.
6
“Held to account” Did we watch the same debate? All I saw was a sermon of fear.
It was difficult to watch Fox 'moderators' embrace a mockery of our Democracy. As but one ex., when the crowd booed Donald Trump Megyn Kelly smiled with what could be accurately characterized as 'child-like glee'. At one point Kelly asked questions about 'the Planned Parenthood videos' without any mention that we now know those videos were edited and faked. Couldn't get any worse? Au contraire, it did. The final question asked ‘Does God speak to candidates instructing them what to do?' and the crowd erupted in cheers. The danger of this merging of Church and State is palpable.
I watched the 'after show' and it was endless commentary about whom beat-up whom and who got the best punches in. It was surreal. I do not think a single policy concern was asked or answered. I have not watched Fox for a number of years & it surprised me the blatant willingness, by all involved, to sell lies as truths. On several occasions, candidates made factual assertions that were lies and they did so with impunity. And, if the crowd is a reflection of the typical Republican then we are in serious trouble as a society.
Being a Republican now, inherently, requires a suspension of facts in favor of belief. It’s not merely an ideology – it’s a religion comprised of willful ignorance and zealots who have somehow been brainwashed to join a group intent on harming them and our country.
Nobody won. Who lost? Democracy.
It was difficult to watch Fox 'moderators' embrace a mockery of our Democracy. As but one ex., when the crowd booed Donald Trump Megyn Kelly smiled with what could be accurately characterized as 'child-like glee'. At one point Kelly asked questions about 'the Planned Parenthood videos' without any mention that we now know those videos were edited and faked. Couldn't get any worse? Au contraire, it did. The final question asked ‘Does God speak to candidates instructing them what to do?' and the crowd erupted in cheers. The danger of this merging of Church and State is palpable.
I watched the 'after show' and it was endless commentary about whom beat-up whom and who got the best punches in. It was surreal. I do not think a single policy concern was asked or answered. I have not watched Fox for a number of years & it surprised me the blatant willingness, by all involved, to sell lies as truths. On several occasions, candidates made factual assertions that were lies and they did so with impunity. And, if the crowd is a reflection of the typical Republican then we are in serious trouble as a society.
Being a Republican now, inherently, requires a suspension of facts in favor of belief. It’s not merely an ideology – it’s a religion comprised of willful ignorance and zealots who have somehow been brainwashed to join a group intent on harming them and our country.
Nobody won. Who lost? Democracy.
16
The PP videos, unfortunately, were not faked.
Watch them....
Watch them....
The Planned Parenthood videos were edited and faked? Please enlighten us with the proof...
Chris please provide proof the videos were "faked", can't handle the truth about them? Too bad.
Fox was shilling for the Establishment Candidate = Jebidiah Bush! Do not harm to poor Jeb and shred everyone else
After the weary endless debates of the previous election we come to the stunning contrast of what a plethora of talented Republican contestants sans tedious state provencial squables can morph into the best political opener ever.
While the Democratic event amazingly offers no viable single alternative!
While the Democratic event amazingly offers no viable single alternative!
3
The first Democratic debate isn't until October 13.
I find it somewhere between sad and appalling that the Times has devoted extraordinary coverage to this "debate", who's in and who's out, who's up and who's down, while writing almost nothing about the substance of any of the candidates' positions on issues. Nor has the Times even bothered to consider the question of whether this should even be considered a debate, let alone a "major" one.
One could reasonably argue that the entire subject of the pseudo-debate would be more appropriately covered in the entertainment sections of the paper, inasmuch as 99% of the few people watching watched, I would bet, to be entertained, not to be informed.
At the moment there are five stories about this on the Times Home Page, and not a single one is about the issues. America deserves and needs better.
And why the Times seems to be pimping for Fox is beyond me. I am starting to think the problems at the paper go deeper than the fact that much of the Times' first string is likely to be off on summer vacation.
If they weren't already six feet under, Lincoln and Douglas would die laughing at this charade being called a debate.
One could reasonably argue that the entire subject of the pseudo-debate would be more appropriately covered in the entertainment sections of the paper, inasmuch as 99% of the few people watching watched, I would bet, to be entertained, not to be informed.
At the moment there are five stories about this on the Times Home Page, and not a single one is about the issues. America deserves and needs better.
And why the Times seems to be pimping for Fox is beyond me. I am starting to think the problems at the paper go deeper than the fact that much of the Times' first string is likely to be off on summer vacation.
If they weren't already six feet under, Lincoln and Douglas would die laughing at this charade being called a debate.
482
You have it right sir. I watched a bad reality show last night not a serious debate. I also think I watched the Republicans, with the help of Roger Ailes, do their best to get rid of their "Donald" problem.
2
Agreed, yet few of us would consider what Lincoln and Douglas did as a debate!
Nor, would most people watch it. Most people do NOT know what Lindoln and Douglas did in their so-called "debate"...
They gave back-to-back, very long speeches--an hour, followed by an *hour and a half*--then the first spoke for a half hour of rebuttal. They took their show on the road, so the speeches were well rehearsed.
No questions asked; no direct exchanges; and the public attend largely as a family outing, eating, song, etc. Think one of those modern Iowan farm political festivals. The debates were almost incidental.
"Lincoln and Douglas agreed to debate in seven of the nine Illinois Congressional Districts; the seven where Douglas had not already spoken. In each debate either Douglas or Lincoln would open with an hour address. The other would then speak for an hour and a half. The first then had 30 minutes of rebuttal. In the seven debates, Douglas, as the incumbent, was allowed to go first four times."
http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm
Nor, would most people watch it. Most people do NOT know what Lindoln and Douglas did in their so-called "debate"...
They gave back-to-back, very long speeches--an hour, followed by an *hour and a half*--then the first spoke for a half hour of rebuttal. They took their show on the road, so the speeches were well rehearsed.
No questions asked; no direct exchanges; and the public attend largely as a family outing, eating, song, etc. Think one of those modern Iowan farm political festivals. The debates were almost incidental.
"Lincoln and Douglas agreed to debate in seven of the nine Illinois Congressional Districts; the seven where Douglas had not already spoken. In each debate either Douglas or Lincoln would open with an hour address. The other would then speak for an hour and a half. The first then had 30 minutes of rebuttal. In the seven debates, Douglas, as the incumbent, was allowed to go first four times."
http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm
1
Steve - you are confused.
The media (newspapers, TV, etc) are not in the business of reporting the issues, nor facts. They are in the business of selling newspapers and advertising.
To do that, the news must be emotionally charged. Facts are dull.
The media (newspapers, TV, etc) are not in the business of reporting the issues, nor facts. They are in the business of selling newspapers and advertising.
To do that, the news must be emotionally charged. Facts are dull.
I'm sure most NYT's readers won't recognize it, but this debate is what's called transparency. You might tell Obama and Hillary to look it up in the dictionary.
4
There's another reason for asking the tough questions, which is that it helps the candidates. The talking points of the election, and the weaknesses of each candidate, will be coming up again and again over the campaign. Asking the candidates about them gives the candidates the opportunity to refute them, and to discredit those tough questions in front of their target audience. That way, if the audience members later hear the candidates criticized or questioned, they've heard the candidates' response, and (the candidates hope) will dismiss any attack.
It's a way of presenting upfront the candidates' defense for the tough questions, and of putting the candidates in charge of them.
It's a way of presenting upfront the candidates' defense for the tough questions, and of putting the candidates in charge of them.
43
Yes, it will be interesting to see Hillary's tough questions about her private server, the missing funds from the State Department and how she can find so many different pant suits.
Fully agree...was surprised at first by Fox ....but then realized, those questions will be eventually asked by other networks.....great way for Republicans to be learn how to answer the REAL journalists...
2
Wrong again, NYT. True conservatives, the people that are most angry, the people with whom Trump resonates, don't want him to make that promise not to run 3rd party. If Jeb Bush or Chris Christie get nominated, we expect him to run 3rd party because we won't vote for those guys. If he doesn't run under such a circumstance, we still won't vote for those clowns. But you guys would claim Trump lost no matter what because you don't like him... because you're afraid of him.
1
What the political class doesn't seem to get is that Mr Trump's "political infidelity", eschewed here, oddly enough, by Mr Bruni, is exactly what appeals to those of us who constitute the great unwashed masses.
90
If it wasn't for Trump, the election would be a snoozer, and we would be listening to worn out meaningless cliches, while the candidates play up to the ruling elites and the witless voters who follow them.
1
"There is something rotten in the state of ...." (the US). I suspect it may be the "great unwashed masses".
Conceding your "unwashedness" but reserving judgement on any "greatness".
Next time around, the moderators might want to try to make their biases and intentions a little less obvious. You know ... that professional touch that means so much.
Re: Megyn Kelly, the "one female debate moderator" of three-- just curious, should there have been one and a half female moderators to be PC? Not sure why this had to be mentioned...
3
The truth is Fox News has always been fair and balanced and has always asked tough questions of all politicians from all parties. You just normally like to bash them because you don't like seeing them it to Democrats. This is the typical kind of questioning you get from most Fox News shows. There are some exceptions like the Hannity show, which is openly editorializing for conservatives. But the majority of their hosts are truly fair and balanced. I'm sure if they had hosted the Democrat debate and asked the same kind of tough questions, you would have written an editorial claiming they were extremely biased and unfair.
4
Trump has my vote and the votes of more people than anyone who writes for the New York Times can admit he has. If he stays in the race he will win it.
The surprise of the night was discovering a Republican I actually like. And that's Mt. Kasich who, if allowed, might give us Democrats a run for our money. Other than that, had it been magically possible to read Mr. Bruni's insightful account of the whole thing prior to watching it, I no doubt would have enjoyed it more. .
3
Both Paul and Cruz referred more than once to bills they had "introduced." It would have been interesting, especially since Cruz was taken to the woodshed about his lack of Senate collegiality, if either or both of them had been asked what bills they have introduced which have passed the Senate and House and been aigned into law. We need the next President to be someone who can do more than introduce bills; we need someone who can get a bill passed.
1
True, but that's why Cruz called out the leadership because they block the bills from even getting a vote. The Washington cartel hates him, which are dems and republican establishment. Trying to change the good ole boy system is not easy.
1
It is a chicken or egg question. Have Cruz and Paul been ineffective because both have antagonized the colleagues with whom they as senators and as President must work to accomplish anything, or, have they been disrespectful of their colleagues because of their colleagues actions.
Calling the elected representatives of fifty states a "cartel" as both Senator Cruz and you have done is a clear example of an attitude that suggests the name calling and counter-productive hostility began on the Cruz side.
Calling the elected representatives of fifty states a "cartel" as both Senator Cruz and you have done is a clear example of an attitude that suggests the name calling and counter-productive hostility began on the Cruz side.
Frank, good, honest column. Do you think Hillary Clinton will ever be subjected to the kind of grilling the Republicans received last night? I seriously doubt it. And if I am right, what does that tell you about journalism at Fox versus journalism at other media outlets?
5
Now that Fox has taken the gloves off moderators of other debates will too. Hillary is gonnas get tough questions. But she'll handle them just fine.
I thought George Pataki looked and sounded presidential and well informed.
Lindsey Graham spoke the truth on foreign policy in general and Iraq, Syria and Iran specifically.
But Carly Florina, who seems to be running for vp or a cabinet spot, impressed the Washington media folks with her political skills, precision and aggressiveness. So she was the star of the night.
Marco Rubio was the star of the second forum. Interestingly, a Frank Luntz focus group loved Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz They both performed well.
While Jeb Bush and Scott Walker won because they didn't lose and Ben Carson charmed, Donald Trump and Rand Paul hurt themselves by being themselves.
Trump's a jerk.
Paul's is so politically ambitious that he is willing to sacrifice American security.
Chris Christie has an impressive grasp of facts, and he's a strong debater. But he's Christie of NJ and an Obama Republican in so many ways, just like Paul.
I once backed Jeb, but he's disappointed me on the Middle East and illegal immigration.
The event was great TV and very helpful but hardly conclusive.
Lindsey Graham spoke the truth on foreign policy in general and Iraq, Syria and Iran specifically.
But Carly Florina, who seems to be running for vp or a cabinet spot, impressed the Washington media folks with her political skills, precision and aggressiveness. So she was the star of the night.
Marco Rubio was the star of the second forum. Interestingly, a Frank Luntz focus group loved Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz They both performed well.
While Jeb Bush and Scott Walker won because they didn't lose and Ben Carson charmed, Donald Trump and Rand Paul hurt themselves by being themselves.
Trump's a jerk.
Paul's is so politically ambitious that he is willing to sacrifice American security.
Chris Christie has an impressive grasp of facts, and he's a strong debater. But he's Christie of NJ and an Obama Republican in so many ways, just like Paul.
I once backed Jeb, but he's disappointed me on the Middle East and illegal immigration.
The event was great TV and very helpful but hardly conclusive.
2
Maybe I watched a different debate, I was extremely disappointed in the questions and the answers. There was no followup to blatant non-answers. There was only one question on race relations; none on voting rights. I was somewhat put off by the whole thing.
2
Graham would make a better president than half the candidates on that stage. The GOP debates should be on MSNBC and moderated by their hosts, and the Democratic ones should be on Fox, moderated by the three who moderated tonight's "debate." Or something like that. What's clear is that conservatives asking conservatives questions, or vice versa, is ridiculous -- almost as ridiculous as our cable news media more generally. Tonight, out of the profusion of ridiculousness, Rubio sounded least ridiculous, though this was not exactly an Olympian feat.
Don't overpraise the moderators. Not one climate-, campaign finance-, or inequality-related question did I detect.
When Walker was asked about blacks and the police, he only talked about the cops. I don't think anyone ever even mentioned or alluded to African Americans, other than Bush suggesting that their grievances are part of the Left's "grievance industry."
Huckabee was still ranting about embryos being "unborn children." Trump was still talking about everything without talking about anything. Carson was still displaying his ignorance about everything other than neurosurgery. And the entire group was as unspecific on policy particulars as it's possible to be. I learned nothing from this debate, and may God have mercy on my soul for having watched it.
Don't overpraise the moderators. Not one climate-, campaign finance-, or inequality-related question did I detect.
When Walker was asked about blacks and the police, he only talked about the cops. I don't think anyone ever even mentioned or alluded to African Americans, other than Bush suggesting that their grievances are part of the Left's "grievance industry."
Huckabee was still ranting about embryos being "unborn children." Trump was still talking about everything without talking about anything. Carson was still displaying his ignorance about everything other than neurosurgery. And the entire group was as unspecific on policy particulars as it's possible to be. I learned nothing from this debate, and may God have mercy on my soul for having watched it.
511
Sorry I disagree Don't put Fox in the same bracket as MSNBC
"and may God have mercy on my soul for having watched it." They needed you for drama.
Why won't the Democrats attend a debate moderated by Fox? That would be the same as what you want with the GOP asked questions by MSNBC. Could it be they don't have any answers? And what questions did you want ask that Fox overlooked? What questions would MSNBC ask that Fox didn't?
I'm going to love seeing the polls after this one when Trump runs away with the numbers. It's already beginning.
Sean Hannity gave Donald Trump a fair shake after the alleged debates so that his positions could get aired and Trump told everyone the way it is. You don't throw away your cards to appease opposition and anyone seeing this tonight knows full well that Trump was spot on. So much so that even before the alleged debates got a quarter of the way through the lefties hatchet swingers were looking for blood in write-ups that looked like they had been written the day before.
While leftists look for blood to stir they're going to have to face the reality that even if no leftist alleged news media outlet pulls this on their candidates it's simply not going to matter. Having to move the venue of the Democratic debates in order to accommodate what few candidates they have into a cell room at Leavenworth will speak for itself.
Sean Hannity gave Donald Trump a fair shake after the alleged debates so that his positions could get aired and Trump told everyone the way it is. You don't throw away your cards to appease opposition and anyone seeing this tonight knows full well that Trump was spot on. So much so that even before the alleged debates got a quarter of the way through the lefties hatchet swingers were looking for blood in write-ups that looked like they had been written the day before.
While leftists look for blood to stir they're going to have to face the reality that even if no leftist alleged news media outlet pulls this on their candidates it's simply not going to matter. Having to move the venue of the Democratic debates in order to accommodate what few candidates they have into a cell room at Leavenworth will speak for itself.
1
Maybe somebody can point out some hard questions? I heard hard questions of Trump, Republicans do not want him to win, those questions were expected from FOXNews. Lots of claims about Obamacare, "repeal and replace." Did anybody ask them replace with what? That would've been a hard question.
There were no guns allowed in the arena, why no questions about that?
What lesson are they learn from the disastrous consequences of the Iraq war and how does it impact your view of the Iran deal?
Many of them had attended a recent gathering by the Koch brothers, no questions about that?
Does the government spent too much on the women's health?
There were no hardball questions at the favorites for FOXNews.
There were no guns allowed in the arena, why no questions about that?
What lesson are they learn from the disastrous consequences of the Iraq war and how does it impact your view of the Iran deal?
Many of them had attended a recent gathering by the Koch brothers, no questions about that?
Does the government spent too much on the women's health?
There were no hardball questions at the favorites for FOXNews.
6
So rather news on the candidates we get news on the network. Journalists' job is to report the news, not to make it.
I can hardly wait to see what rubbish CNN comes up with.
I can hardly wait to see what rubbish CNN comes up with.
Was that MSNBC or Fox? Clearly an attempt by the RNC and the press to reel in a runaway Donald Trump candidacy. He got asked three "questions" or more like "accusations". First, was he going to swear not to run as an Independent? Clearly they know he's going all the way R or I. His supporters really don't care which. Next was the Megyn diatribe on what he said to Rosie O'Donnell, nothing to do with him being President, but he hit it out of the park as the PC gone amok statement that is was. Last was the "proof" question about Mexico. Now anyone with an IQ over 2 that reads the news knows that there have been a dozen murders, rapes and other violent crimes that have been top of the news since Trump informed the sleeping news media that ILLEGALS are committing these crimes all the time. The fact that Mexico allows the flood of invaders from South America and Mexico to our southern border is something it is silly to question.
Despite the RNC and Fox making an attempt to knock Trump down a notch, he STILL won the debate. Worse for the other candidates, none of them were noticeable... Trump got all the air in the room.
Despite the RNC and Fox making an attempt to knock Trump down a notch, he STILL won the debate. Worse for the other candidates, none of them were noticeable... Trump got all the air in the room.
1
"She may not have any business running for president, but she’s zooming for all she’s worth."
For a moment Mr. Bruni, I thought you could just as easily been referring to Hillary Clinton.
For a moment Mr. Bruni, I thought you could just as easily been referring to Hillary Clinton.
2
I find it hypocritical that Megyn Kelly went after Trump with a question suggesting sexual objectification of women on his part, when Megyn herself did a very nearly soft porn photo shoot for GQ Magazine back in 2010. Indeed, Ms. Kelly's daily appearance on Fox suggests that both Fox and she deliberately make sexual eye candy a draw in their programming. Does anyone doubt this is so?
4
Kelly promotes herself not the news. Yes, she is the eye candy that FOX wants her to be. This was not a debate. It was an inquisition on Trump, Chris and Paul.
Kelly, Hume and Wallace promoted the campaign of Cruz, Huckabee and Rubio as these three are always on Kelly show. She is attractive, intelligent but being used by FOX for her sexuality.
Kelly, Hume and Wallace promoted the campaign of Cruz, Huckabee and Rubio as these three are always on Kelly show. She is attractive, intelligent but being used by FOX for her sexuality.
1
Mr. Bruni's article is nearly as absurd as the "debate" itself. I'm not a Trump supporter and believe he would be a terrible President---but tonight's debate was transparently programmed to bring about his downfall--and the Fox "News" anchors were the GOP establishment's designated assassins. They failed miserably, Ms. Kelley's sexy snarkiness not withstanding. Available audience polls have "The Donald" winning handily. The strong showing by Rand Paul must also be producing indigestion among top enchelon RNC operatives. Personally, I see this as a good outcome.
1
What a surly juvenile Rand Paul is.
1
I've read so many positive comments about Carly but never heard anything about her time at HP as CEO. She was *despised*, hated & people rejoiced when she was fired....I wish the media would do some sleuthing (maybe Maureen O'Dowd bc she is good at hitting below the belt ).
4
Good article Mr Bruni. Carly Fiorina was perfect. She triumphed in the debate then went on Chris Matthew's show and literally destroyed him. Rubio did a very good job. I think the Republicans are in a good place. It was amusing watching Wasserman-Schultz trying to criticize Fox for not asking the Democrat's laundry list of issues that they think are important: identity politics, identity politics, identity politics. She didn't mention that their candidate was actively being investigated by the FBI for some reason. An entertaining and informative night. Fox did an exceptional job.
18
Police brutality, health care, gun violence and climate change are identity politics? What?
1
If Trump had even a small chance to win the election, he lost it tonight. His comments on women were disgusting. Also, why didn't any of the other candidates take him on? Let him run as an independent. The repubs deserve him.
10
What was disgusting about them? He made fun of Rosie. And then he dismissed the topic as fake. The two things he should have added is that he has a successful daughter and that the war on women is fake. Conservatives don't hate women, liberals do.
Every...single.. Online poll begs to differ. Drudge Report with 300,000 votes put's Trump at 50%, and second place was Cruz at 15%.. It is what it is. and This goes for all the polls being conducted.
Thats why the first poll out had 49plus% having him winning it.
AK noted that the candidates were allowed to "give their own speeches," which is exactly right. I'm surprised Bruni saw this as a success. The audience was encouraged to treat this "debate"as something like a Super Bowl, complete with boos and cheers. I was really disappointed and especially irked by the lack of follow-up - candidates took off from the questions and recited their prepared speeches with impunity. The commentators were caught between substance and circus.
5
No question about it, the candidates were better than the moderators. FOX blew it tonight.
1
Lindsey Graham made news tonight too, in the spin room when Japanese reporters asked him, on the anniversary of the nuclear bomb being dropped on Japan, if he would have authorized those bombs too. Without hesitation he said that he would have. I think that revealed all we need to know about him. We need a human being as president. That question is one way to tell if you qualify.
27
My Dad , after 4 years in the European theater was getting ready to go island hopping in the Pacific. We would have suffered massive battle field deaths doing this task. Harry Truman was correct. He was the human being. The goal of war is to end it. We didn't start it. They have accepted that consequence.
2
I spoke this afternoon with a 95 year old veteran who when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan was waiting in the Philippines to be part of the invasion of that country. When I noted that he could have been killed, he noted that a lot of Japanese could have been killed too.
2
If the bombs hadn't been dropped, an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have killed TEN TIMES more people (a lot of them innocent Americans). Dead is dead. You need to engage your brain...
2
Fox News is misunderstood. It is NOT right wing conservative but elitist. Karl Rove, Britt Hume, and Krauthammer are not conservatives but Rockefeller republicans masquerading as right-wingers. Goldwater was a true right-winger. Reagan was not a John Bircher but a New Deal Democrat and an Eisenhower Democrat who rebranded populism as conservatism. Fox was in the tank for the Massachusetts elitist Romney who was neither a conservative nor a populist. Roger Ailes is not all that political, he loves entertainment therefore he loves the likes of Donald Trump and Geraldo Rivera even when they fall flat as Geraldo did with Al Capone's safe. Trump is a real nowhere man living in his nowhere land but he serves as depository for the anger aimed at the Republican establishment of Bushes, Doles, McCains, McConnells, Romneys, Rubios, Hasterts, and Boehners. The political system is like Crabby Appelton rotten to the core. Its rotteness will be revealed if come 2016 the election is a between another Clinton, another Bush, and the Donald. If so, I doubt that I make it to the polls. If I do I am voting for the Donald, then I head home to drink myself into an alcoholic stupor knowing whoever wins the country will lose big time.
7
Why is it that the goal posts of "real conservatives" is always moving further and further to the right. Now even Fox News isn't sufficiently conservative. It's clear the right has truly gone off the rails.
2
Carly Fiorina would have cleaned Trump's clock.
Next debate she will.
Ben Carson was clear postive in this exchange.
My top 5 fm tonights exchange (it was not a debate)
1.Carson
2.Fiorina
3.Walker
4.Rubio
5.Cruz.
Next debate she will.
Ben Carson was clear postive in this exchange.
My top 5 fm tonights exchange (it was not a debate)
1.Carson
2.Fiorina
3.Walker
4.Rubio
5.Cruz.
4
Carly could out debate any of them, except Cruz. He's terrific, though didn't have a chance to display his talents tonight. Carly would absolutely humiliate the queen of the Clinton Crime Family in a one on one. Now that would be a real joy to watch.
2
Carson laughs at his own jokes. Fiorina contrasts well among jokers. College dropout Walker is a joke. Rubio says nothing in so many words, he would be better if he just told jokes. Cruz is not a jester but he sure looks like Uncle Fester.
1
Joel: I agree on everyone except Cruz...we don't need another "toxic polarizer" in the White House. One (Obama) was quite enough...Thank You...
Now can we expect the same treatment of the Democrats? Since their debates are on friendly venues, not a chance.
8
I watched both debates. This well written article is much more enjoyable. Thanks!
8
I believe there was a segment where they asked the "candidates" for two words to describe Hillary Clinton.
I don't like Hillary Clinton but I wouldn't resort to slurs or hyperbole to describe her.
I think this was the most embarrassing segment I saw…with each candidate bellying up to offer his slurs.
Weak.
Shameful.
I don't like Hillary Clinton but I wouldn't resort to slurs or hyperbole to describe her.
I think this was the most embarrassing segment I saw…with each candidate bellying up to offer his slurs.
Weak.
Shameful.
53
it was asked because it was the SAME question asked of Obama when he ran against her. the moderators even said so...
1
That did NOT happen. What debate did you watch. No such question was asked. Not even close.
Contemptuous. Denigrative. Both forms of violence in communication.
Such GOP contempt and denigration do not go unnoticed by The Common Man.
Such GOP contempt and denigration do not go unnoticed by The Common Man.
I think Trump blew up his candidacy the moment he endorsed single payer health care. He is right, of course, that it works, but conservatives live in an alternative reality. Even Hillary isn't going to run on single payer.
The question is, who will pick up Trump's supporters? I think that Rubio was very charismatic, while Ted Cruz did a good job of throwing red meat to the base. Bush and Walker were solid. Christie was good, but he is too moderate to win.
There are too many candidates in the field, and the aggressive questioning was an appropriate way to find out who didn't belong on the stage. Anybody who thinks that Hillary isn't going to run a tough campaign hasn't been paying attention. The candidates have to be ready for that.
The question is, who will pick up Trump's supporters? I think that Rubio was very charismatic, while Ted Cruz did a good job of throwing red meat to the base. Bush and Walker were solid. Christie was good, but he is too moderate to win.
There are too many candidates in the field, and the aggressive questioning was an appropriate way to find out who didn't belong on the stage. Anybody who thinks that Hillary isn't going to run a tough campaign hasn't been paying attention. The candidates have to be ready for that.
4
They don't have to worry about the Hillary campaign being tough, they should worry about the mainstream media's campaign to elect Hillary.
3
I see trump as gaining supporters, not losing them.
1
That was a great debate, in part because Fox moderators played hardball with the candidates. Maybe the CNN moderators will do the same at the first Democrat debate, but I doubt it. Which is why no one will be watching.
21
I have to disagree with Mr. Bruni. I didn't think that the Fox News moderators pressed them nearly hard enough. Yes, some of the questions were difficult but they came as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about these guys.
So many very very important issues weren't mentioned, just one being climate change. I was particularly nauseated by all the dead baby talk when they tried to explain their anti-choice views. Evidently if a baby dies because it doesn't have access to good medical care, that's OK. My stomach churned again when Chris Christie alluded to 911 hugs while trying to un-hug himself from Barack Obama. When all else fails, resort to mentioning something about 911 victims for instant sympathy.
It worries me that Carly Fiorina is being given rave reviews simply because she kept repeating over and over that Hillary Clinton was a liar. Of course nothing of any substance came out of Fiorina's mouth.
And all the saber rattling and calls for more war in the Middle East....of course, none of their family members would be "joining up." Why didn't any of the moderators ask them about that......the GOP being full of chicken-hawks.
This was no debate. This was just another forum for the Republican base to be entertained by these clowns and for the rest of us to be terrified that one could conceivably, actually become president if their gerry-mandering schemes work as intended.
So many very very important issues weren't mentioned, just one being climate change. I was particularly nauseated by all the dead baby talk when they tried to explain their anti-choice views. Evidently if a baby dies because it doesn't have access to good medical care, that's OK. My stomach churned again when Chris Christie alluded to 911 hugs while trying to un-hug himself from Barack Obama. When all else fails, resort to mentioning something about 911 victims for instant sympathy.
It worries me that Carly Fiorina is being given rave reviews simply because she kept repeating over and over that Hillary Clinton was a liar. Of course nothing of any substance came out of Fiorina's mouth.
And all the saber rattling and calls for more war in the Middle East....of course, none of their family members would be "joining up." Why didn't any of the moderators ask them about that......the GOP being full of chicken-hawks.
This was no debate. This was just another forum for the Republican base to be entertained by these clowns and for the rest of us to be terrified that one could conceivably, actually become president if their gerry-mandering schemes work as intended.
314
What control does a presidential candidate have over whether their family member joins the military or not? I don't know offhand if any of these candidates' family members are in the military, but I'd like to know if you praised Sarah Palin for having children in the military. Also, isn't it even worse to have a child join the military but be kicked out for illegal drug use, as Joe Biden's son was? Are you ashamed that you elected him?
1
translations issues YOU deem important, what is important to you isnt necessarily as important to others.
Human caused climate change is a fraud. Why mess around with the issue? That's a liberal obsession, so I'm sure CNN will be all over it when Hillary debates Hillary.
1
This is a surprisingly cogent article from the Times on a Republican event, though I disagree that Fox pampers Republicans more than the other networks pamper Democrats. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself in agreement, however, with much of what Bruni has written here, though I'm not sure why he "lost track" of Carson, which seems overly vague, and therefore a non-statement. I agree that it was wise of Fox to expose all of the warts and weaknesses of such a large field of candidates, though I would like to have seen Fiorina compete with the prime time group. She is a bright woman with much to add to the debate.
8
Jeb Bush performed terribly. He looked totally unsure of himself.
14
As per usual.
1
One key thing to remember about Trump, who I would never vote for on a bet, is that an independent run is winnable because of the volatility of the electorate, especially if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's nominee.
Trump will get some Republican votes and some Democratic votes, and he will find his major strength among independent voters. If he gets 15% of GOP voters, 15% of Democrat voters, and 30% of Independent voters, he wins the Presidency.
Hillary is strongest among Democrats and will get few GOP votes. Bush, Walker, or Rubio (one of them is the probable Republican nominee) will get few Democrat votes. That leaves Trump running up the middle. Do not count this man out.
Already, some members of the media are missing the boat with the reality of what's happening. NBC News, especially Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, is trying to create a feud between Clinton and Sanders, is trying to downgrade Clinton, and is ignoring Trump. They are wrong on all counts. This is going to be a fun election cycle, believe me.
Trump will get some Republican votes and some Democratic votes, and he will find his major strength among independent voters. If he gets 15% of GOP voters, 15% of Democrat voters, and 30% of Independent voters, he wins the Presidency.
Hillary is strongest among Democrats and will get few GOP votes. Bush, Walker, or Rubio (one of them is the probable Republican nominee) will get few Democrat votes. That leaves Trump running up the middle. Do not count this man out.
Already, some members of the media are missing the boat with the reality of what's happening. NBC News, especially Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, is trying to create a feud between Clinton and Sanders, is trying to downgrade Clinton, and is ignoring Trump. They are wrong on all counts. This is going to be a fun election cycle, believe me.
1
The only independent ever to have won the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt and he was enormously popular. Trump is only popular with a small percentage of fringe voters. He's out front now the way Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain were frontrunners for a time in the last presidential election cycle. I predict he'll sink in the polls and drop out of the race relatively quickly.
1
You need to work on your math. If those percentages are all Trump got, he would end up with about 20% of the overall vote, meaning he would be a sure loser. A Trump 3rd party candidacy could never succeed.
1
"If he gets 15% of GOP voters, 15% of Democrat voters, and 30% of Independent voters, he wins the Presidency. "
I think you got your math a little confused. In a three-way race, to win each state a candidate would need at least 33.3% of the vote. (Probably more, of course, but that would be the minimum possible.) And you're saying that the best level of support Trump would get is 30% from one group, and only 15% from the other two groups, so his overall percentage is going to be below 30%. How is that going to give him more than the other two when they have >70% of the vote to split between them?
I think you got your math a little confused. In a three-way race, to win each state a candidate would need at least 33.3% of the vote. (Probably more, of course, but that would be the minimum possible.) And you're saying that the best level of support Trump would get is 30% from one group, and only 15% from the other two groups, so his overall percentage is going to be below 30%. How is that going to give him more than the other two when they have >70% of the vote to split between them?
MEGYN KELLY . . .
I now understand why with new FOX anchor was featured as the cover story of a recent edition of the NYT SUNDAY MAGAZINE.
She has after two decades beaten O'Reilly in the ratings during this past month.
I now understand why with new FOX anchor was featured as the cover story of a recent edition of the NYT SUNDAY MAGAZINE.
She has after two decades beaten O'Reilly in the ratings during this past month.
5
Not in overall viewers but in the demo.
1
"Robert." Yes, the "demo" is what advertisers most covet. Bye, bye Big Bill!
1
Yes the questions were surprisingly tough but I only noted a couple of times that the moderators pushed back against the typical candidate non-answer answer.
188
Do you think if the mods would have "pushed back" a second or third or fourth time while the candidate keeps reiterating his non-answer, that it would have made for better television, or fulfilled the civic purpose of the debate? It just would have wasted valuable time. You may not like Fox News, but as broadcasting professionals, they know what they're doing.
Presisly, while Mr. Bruni is correct, CNN or NBC (who doesn't get a debate), ask those questions, the right wing media would be apoplectic and the non fox press would be bowing and scaping and acted as if tough question were unfair. It doesn't matter that they ask some pointed questions when the answers are unrelated to those questions. Viewers just hear words and if they sound confident, they buy it. The so called MSM has been presenting the G.O.P. as the flip side of the Democratic Party for years and continues. They are not that. This party policies are based on proven false ideology of supply side economics, militarism over reason and dated conservative social beliefs plus xenophobia and racism. The Republican establishment is an example of the "Emperor has no clothes". The fact based world needs to stop pretending they are rational and worthy of consideration. History, unless it too is distorted, will not be kind to what passed as journalism in the years of the Obama Presidency, nor the farce that Republicans are a viable governing party.
1
I'm not suggesting an extended back and forth on each question. But they could have simply stated that the candidate gave a non responsive answer.
Watched it all. Of the first one, I’d only say that Carly Fiorina needs to find the same consultants who advised Hillary in 1992-1993 to soften her look.
At the main event, there were a few surprises. The Jebster, with one minor fumble (predictably, the whole brother-as-president-and-Iraq-thing) did as well as I expected, much gravitas, good ideas, excellent presentation and with passion on the things he’s most engaged on, including education and immigration. Chris Christie was quite good, as he often is, clearly well-prepared. John Kasich and Marco Rubio, as I expected, were impressive, with Rubio, as usual, particularly so but perhaps a mite too kid-enthusiastic in his solutions. Ted Cruz was quite impressive, underscoring how dangerous a man he really is. Huckabee gave the impression of a lumbering dinosaur who could only be ideologically attractive to people born before 1950. Rand Paul and the Swiss made cheese.
The surprises for me were in Trump, Carson and Walker. I expected The Donald to be far more impressive: quite the opposite, he wasn’t even prepared and was bombastic. Expect his numbers to dip. Carson impressed the heck out of me – this is one very thoughtful guy with good instincts, but far too ready, for me, to let his religion guide governance. Walker was FAR more impressive than I expected him to be.
Frank’s contempt notwithstanding, these things always ARE inquisitions and not debates. But they served their purpose. We’re off and running on the right.
At the main event, there were a few surprises. The Jebster, with one minor fumble (predictably, the whole brother-as-president-and-Iraq-thing) did as well as I expected, much gravitas, good ideas, excellent presentation and with passion on the things he’s most engaged on, including education and immigration. Chris Christie was quite good, as he often is, clearly well-prepared. John Kasich and Marco Rubio, as I expected, were impressive, with Rubio, as usual, particularly so but perhaps a mite too kid-enthusiastic in his solutions. Ted Cruz was quite impressive, underscoring how dangerous a man he really is. Huckabee gave the impression of a lumbering dinosaur who could only be ideologically attractive to people born before 1950. Rand Paul and the Swiss made cheese.
The surprises for me were in Trump, Carson and Walker. I expected The Donald to be far more impressive: quite the opposite, he wasn’t even prepared and was bombastic. Expect his numbers to dip. Carson impressed the heck out of me – this is one very thoughtful guy with good instincts, but far too ready, for me, to let his religion guide governance. Walker was FAR more impressive than I expected him to be.
Frank’s contempt notwithstanding, these things always ARE inquisitions and not debates. But they served their purpose. We’re off and running on the right.
Jeb was awful. Don't know what you were watching.
3
@Richard Luettgen: Yeah, "the whole brother-as-president-and-Iraq-thing" is a real bummer for the Republicans, especially Jeb. And it isn't going away.
You opened this comment on a particularly clueless note: "Watched it all. Of the first one, I’d only say that Carly Fiorina needs to find the same consultants who advised Hillary in 1992-1993 to soften her look."
Gag.
When are conservative old men going to learn that attacking women on their looks is a really, really dumb thing to do? Have you looked in a mirror lately? Is what you see there flawless? No? Then shut up.
You opened this comment on a particularly clueless note: "Watched it all. Of the first one, I’d only say that Carly Fiorina needs to find the same consultants who advised Hillary in 1992-1993 to soften her look."
Gag.
When are conservative old men going to learn that attacking women on their looks is a really, really dumb thing to do? Have you looked in a mirror lately? Is what you see there flawless? No? Then shut up.
Robert:
I was watching the same thing you were, but probably through eyes that were judging who would give Hillary the toughest fight; and that was Jeb!, not any of the others.
P.K. Todd:
Gag away. It was a ruthlessly realistic observation that might offend your childish notions of political correctness, but accurately noted what an enormous number probably took away from the first debate.
Oh, and sixty isn't old ... quite yet. As a matter of fact, all the front-runners on BOTH sides in this election are quite substantially older than I, except Jeb!, who is only a couple of years older. So, do something about that acne of yours, and wise up.
I was watching the same thing you were, but probably through eyes that were judging who would give Hillary the toughest fight; and that was Jeb!, not any of the others.
P.K. Todd:
Gag away. It was a ruthlessly realistic observation that might offend your childish notions of political correctness, but accurately noted what an enormous number probably took away from the first debate.
Oh, and sixty isn't old ... quite yet. As a matter of fact, all the front-runners on BOTH sides in this election are quite substantially older than I, except Jeb!, who is only a couple of years older. So, do something about that acne of yours, and wise up.
I can't say I was all that impressed with Fox's handling of the debate. The moderator's questions were all filtered through their own delusional news cycle, especially the question about abortion. Megan Kelly's question came after a statement treating the recent fake abortion videos against Planned Parenthood as though they were real.
But I did find Governor Kasich to be refreshing and thoughtful, right in the face of a lion's den of Fox News viewers. For liberals, that made him the candidate we'd be least bothered to see get the nomination, and for moderates, it made him the most human and relatable.
I know we don't have many high hopes for Fox News and the other candidates, but let's not applaud too heavily the elephant flew since it only flew for a few fleeting moments. It's an eagle our country wants to elect.
But I did find Governor Kasich to be refreshing and thoughtful, right in the face of a lion's den of Fox News viewers. For liberals, that made him the candidate we'd be least bothered to see get the nomination, and for moderates, it made him the most human and relatable.
I know we don't have many high hopes for Fox News and the other candidates, but let's not applaud too heavily the elephant flew since it only flew for a few fleeting moments. It's an eagle our country wants to elect.
12
What is fake about the vidios that you can proove to not be true?
2
So, the filmmakers planted those words on PPs' mouths? Not one OP executive says they are fake; only that they were edited. Well, at the same time the edited videos (for brevity's sake) were released, so were the unedited full versions. I bet you haven't watched one. Watch it and get back to us.
1
For those who didn't realize that Fox News was trying to take out Trump, well tonight is your wake-up call. Compare his questions to Walkers. Wow, that was ridiculous.
32
You have been sold a bill of goods. FOX had one mission only, to clear the way for Jeb Bush. Mission accomplished.
14
wayland: For once don't let you ideology prejudge your comment. You know it was a great debate...be honest...admit it!!!
1
I'm not going to comment on the candidates since I'm a Dem and can't vote in the Rep primary. I didn't have a dog in this fight, so I just had fun watching it.
But here's the surprise for me: Bravo, Fox News! I never watch them (had to look up the channel number) but the fact is they put on the best candidate debate I've ever seen and I'm a retired political newspaper -- remember them? -- reporter so I've seen many).
The moderators and their questions were brilliant. Very pointed, personalized questions. Making them eat their own past words (Kelly really nailed The Donald!).
If the movie "Network" was correct (and it was) and TV news is run by the entertainment folks, face it, this was greatly entertaining.
Bravo, Fox News (I can't believe I'm saying that, but there it is). Best candidate debate. Ever.
But here's the surprise for me: Bravo, Fox News! I never watch them (had to look up the channel number) but the fact is they put on the best candidate debate I've ever seen and I'm a retired political newspaper -- remember them? -- reporter so I've seen many).
The moderators and their questions were brilliant. Very pointed, personalized questions. Making them eat their own past words (Kelly really nailed The Donald!).
If the movie "Network" was correct (and it was) and TV news is run by the entertainment folks, face it, this was greatly entertaining.
Bravo, Fox News (I can't believe I'm saying that, but there it is). Best candidate debate. Ever.
21
Wow. If "Panchito" had covered George W. Bush with half of the journalistic ability he lauds the Fox News apparatchiks for demonstrating, we might not have had two wars and an economic collapse.
4
Mr. Bruni must have watched a different debate than the one I saw. No one was held accountable because no one responded to those "tough" questions. Trump didn't listen obediently to my eye, he listened impatiently. Most of the candidates just recited the canned responses that came closest to the question topics. Many lied outright, many demonstrated their apparent detachment from reality. Shysters and dimwits and cowards, oh my.
94
moderators cant make them answer but it doesnt mean the questions shouldnt be asked if only so we SEE them evade it. Remember the reporter questioning Hillary a few weeks ago and she gave that fake robotic laugh and kept walking? Not answering is sometimes more telling then answering.
1
Frank, it doesn't matter what you or any other liberal thinks. The Fox viewership appears a bit peeved at Ailes' puppets for the way they deliberately targeted Trump. Like with his attack on McCain, the pundits will be shocked to see Trump's poll numbers unshaken among the Republican electorate.
3
This was a hit job on Trump. They didn't ask Christie about bridgegate. They didn't ask Walker about the indictments of his close friends. They asked Trump about every bad thing he has said and his four bankruptcy cases. This was the promotion of the establishment plain and simple.
692
Does everything have to a conspiracy? Trump made himself a target. They took some shots at him. They took shots at everyone. Rubio was #1 at our house, followed by Bush, Christie, and Walker. Everyone had Trump at 9 or 10. Everyone really likes Carson but doesn't think he has the experience to be President. Everyone had Fiorina at the top of their lists in the first debate and all the others trailing far behind. A good debate. Well done.
Problem is there's a lot to hit Trump on. Both his past actions and past statements are in contradiction to many things he says now. That can't be responsibly ignored. Indictments of friends are rather tangential and not a serious issue for a major debate. That's irrelevant compared to something a candidate themselves actually said or did. Walker did get the abortion question which was a hardball question.
And it coincided with their "political analyst" Karl Rove, publishing a Trump hit piece in the WSJ just before the debate. They tried their best to prop up Bush, but he was just not even in the game...
3
The reason Fox complains about the other network moderators is because of the softball questions they ask Democrats
16
If you can put aside Fox's general outrageousness, it's hard to deny that Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly are highly talented professional journalists. Ailes knows talent.
13
Fox News does what they normally do. Yes, it slants right in its commentary, but they always have differing view points from both sides on their shows. So what -- CNN, NBC, NYT etc all slant left. What, it isn't allowed to happen in the other direction?! I never understood why people are OK when things slant left, but call Fox News "fake" when it slants right. That's hypocritical. Im not surprised Fox News hit the Republican nominees hard...more people should realize this than be silly and call it "fake" news.
10
I don't have a problem with bias, bias is normal for anybody. Every show on Fox claiming Obama took the work requirement out of welfare for six weeks leading up to the last election, is not bias is lying.
Fox news has talking points. They created the Tea Party themselves. In their news division, not in commentaries. The station has an agenda and a purpose, and that purpose is not to report the news, it is to advance a political agenda. They consistently misreport. It is not slanting the news. It is reporting things that aren't true, or leave out key facts. There is a reason that Fox viewers have been found to be the most misinformed viewers in the country.
2
Right after forcing myself to sit through the Fox news thing, I read that Chuck Schumer sides with Netanyahu and each of the Republican candidates, instead of Barack Obama and the USA. Not a good night
155
A beautiful night. But don't worry about Schumer. His decision not to support the silly Iranian agreement is just politics because there are enough votes to give the president his victory. Which makes people like you happy to see America lose more standing in the world.
4
You're sad that a Jewish man isn't going to sign on to releasing billions of dollars to a country that wants to fund the next Holocaust?
2
The reality is that when congress approves the Iran deal, America will GAIN more standing in the world. The world outside the United States, most Americans would be shocked to discover, is for peace and weary of perpetual armed conflict. The Iran nuclear deal is good for America, good for Israel, and good for the world. Let peace through diplomacy prevail.
7
I'd bet that Trump's performance won't cause him much in the way of a polling drop since his supporters must be by definition buffoonaphiles. The performance art will continue with undiminshed outlandish outrageousness, the just terminus of a demented Repub party.
18
The Demoncrats have who?
Yes, wounded dinosaurs can lash out and be very dangerous.
The Democrats have a candidate under investigation by the FBI.
2
It could've been a great debate, but Megyn turned it into a circus with her constant personal attacks against Trump... I don't think FoxNews had any intention of finding out what Trump's political views were. They were more interested in knocking Trump out of first place so their man, Jeb Bush, could move up in the ratings... But it didn't work! Trump ended up winning the debate and Megyn and Bush ended up looking like fools.
20
I could not disagree more!
1
Bruni has it wrong. This is the same Fox News. Nothing new here. Why? Bush was treated delicately. It's obvious the powers that be want him to rise. Look a bit deeper at the tone of the questions for Jeb vs. the tone directed at virtually every other candidate. Upon close inspection, Bush was served softballs compared to the vitriol aimed at most others.
110