To paraphrase Ted Cruz (and I am not at all a Cruz fan but this was a true statement) - "And nobody reading at home believes that any of the NYT OP Ed columnists have any intention of voting in a Republican primary."
8
It's only a gotcha question if you are getable. As you point out Carson was getable. Now in addition to that, this highly religious individual (he would like us to believe), is also a liar. What a hipacrit
23
When did the GOP become the party of whiners?
31
I almost never watch debates. I usually have a pretty good idea of the policies & character of the candidates long before & outside the debates. It seems to me that most of the time, the debate is merely an opportunity for the less competent & less ethical candidates to get a chance to make the better ones look bad by clever verbal machinations. The big focus is on who "won" the debate, i.e., who gave the best momentary performance & came off looking better on things that don't matter, or who was less nervous (sociopaths are often calm & fearless) and very clever at portraying whatever image needs to be portrayed at the time. Often the one who "won" was simply the best & most sophisticated liar. It's rare that a debate can be used by a good candidate to sincerely convey his/her true feelings & reasoned policies.
As I recall, George W. Bush was considered by many to have “won” his debates with Al Gore. He won, but the country & the world lost very badly.
As I recall, George W. Bush was considered by many to have “won” his debates with Al Gore. He won, but the country & the world lost very badly.
31
Carson not a paid Mannatech employee? Not paid for his endorsements of the product?
For goodness sakes, when a company pays you tens of thousands of dollars just to come to dinner and make a speech, that IS paying you for everything you do for them! Or what they hope you may do once elected...
Which is why we need to closely scrutinize the huge sums Secretary Clinton has received from Wall St. firms. I hope she won't blindly do their bidding, but, well, they've been "bidding" quite high for her attention.
For goodness sakes, when a company pays you tens of thousands of dollars just to come to dinner and make a speech, that IS paying you for everything you do for them! Or what they hope you may do once elected...
Which is why we need to closely scrutinize the huge sums Secretary Clinton has received from Wall St. firms. I hope she won't blindly do their bidding, but, well, they've been "bidding" quite high for her attention.
18
Mr. Blow, your statement: "Carson simply wasn’t prepared for the Mannatech question..." says something about how the media judge candidates.
Carson didn't need to be "prepared" for that question. It wasn't complicated foreign policy nor minutia about credit default swaps. He only needed to state his involvement, which, presumably he knows all about.
Are you suggesting that if a candidate is prepared with a "politically correct" response, then that's all that counts? I think Americans want the truth.
Carson didn't need to be "prepared" for that question. It wasn't complicated foreign policy nor minutia about credit default swaps. He only needed to state his involvement, which, presumably he knows all about.
Are you suggesting that if a candidate is prepared with a "politically correct" response, then that's all that counts? I think Americans want the truth.
36
LOL, if the candidates can't handle the reasonably tame "gotcha" questions they've been asked thus far, how could they possibly expect to do well in the general election?
48
Totally pathetic!, 10 GOP candidates can't handle 2 hours of questioning divided amongst them. Nothing on cybersecurity, foreign policy, federal and student debt, infrastructure...Nothing!
The leadership in China and Russia must be rolling on the floor laughing.
#ClownCar #Fraud
The leadership in China and Russia must be rolling on the floor laughing.
#ClownCar #Fraud
35
Yes, yes, they're all idiots.
But the comments about the media were spot on. Mr. Blow's tortured defense of fake journalism is not unexpected. Fake Journalist Defends Fake Journalism.
But the comments about the media were spot on. Mr. Blow's tortured defense of fake journalism is not unexpected. Fake Journalist Defends Fake Journalism.
12
A candidate for this office who does not accept facts cannot be President.
Evolution is no longer a theory---it is a fact. A Medicine Man not accepting-----worse, not understanding the fact of evolution can't be President.
Evolution is no longer a theory---it is a fact. A Medicine Man not accepting-----worse, not understanding the fact of evolution can't be President.
34
The “Republicans’ problem” is not the “fatally flawed candidates” or their “relatively weak rhetorical skills” but the fact that they’re all shackled to Reagan’s long debunked voodoo economics. Being mathematically challenged they’re unable to defend their economic proposals so they counter by attacking the media for asking hard questions.
The media’s problem is its subservience to the carnival aspect of the campaigns, infotainment at its best, which relegates important (if boring) issues to the sidelines. Related to this, but even worse, is the virtual exclusion of the most revolutionary and exciting candidate of all, Lawrence Lessig, from the campaign altogether. Despite raising more money faster and polling better than 3 of the other (original) 5 Democratic candidates, the Democratic establishment in collusion with the media refuses to recognize his candidacy and excludes him from the Democratic debates. His key issue is the need to reclaim our democracy by “ending the corrupting influence of money in politics” (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawrence-democrats..., an issue that a large majority of both Democrats and Republicans support. Unfortunately, since the profit motive is the driving force in the corporate media, including their news organizations nowadays, it appears that Lessig’s voice for reform will not be heard after all. Money is apparently just as entrenched in our media as it is in our politics.
The media’s problem is its subservience to the carnival aspect of the campaigns, infotainment at its best, which relegates important (if boring) issues to the sidelines. Related to this, but even worse, is the virtual exclusion of the most revolutionary and exciting candidate of all, Lawrence Lessig, from the campaign altogether. Despite raising more money faster and polling better than 3 of the other (original) 5 Democratic candidates, the Democratic establishment in collusion with the media refuses to recognize his candidacy and excludes him from the Democratic debates. His key issue is the need to reclaim our democracy by “ending the corrupting influence of money in politics” (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawrence-democrats..., an issue that a large majority of both Democrats and Republicans support. Unfortunately, since the profit motive is the driving force in the corporate media, including their news organizations nowadays, it appears that Lessig’s voice for reform will not be heard after all. Money is apparently just as entrenched in our media as it is in our politics.
10
Hey... turn about is fair play. How about we let three conservative journalists moderate the next few Democrat Presidential debates?
13
Ben Carson reminds me of the character Chance, a.k.a Chauncey Gardiner, from the Peter Sellers movie "Being There". But in an exceedingly negative way.
21
Keep up the gotcha questions.
16
Charles M. blow, you and the rest of your ultra-liberal minions really do Blow. Your elitist comments are simply intended to discredit any, and all Conservatives. Very anti-American.
5
Their would be no need for concern about gotcha questions. If news outlets like the NYT were not so completely Liberal biased.
6
Since the entire 2016 political race is a dystopic carnival slash enigma machine distorting entirely by both secretive million dollar Super Pacs & the corrupt symbiotic relationship between Corporate media & Corporate politicians, why not just take the debates to the ultimate hyperbolic extreme. Just have each candidate do stand up at a Comedy Club venue & "moderators" (aka extremists entertainers) could ask ridiculous questions like "if you were a pizza, would type would you be?", "if ISIS tried to recruit you, what type of on-line avator would you chose to fend them off?", "What type of board game most resembles your philosophy of life?, "Regarding Benghazi, which type of video game [in your opinion] would be most likely to "set-off" an angry Islamic uprising against the US Embassy?", "What's more important, not having to pay taxes at all or having to wear a gas mask due to air pollution alerts?", "Would you support free college tuition, even if the University replaced dogmatic religion with liberal propaganda material designed to believe that religion is anathema to the American way?" "What is more disturbing to your sense of well-being, a pizza rat in the subway or a black cat prowling nakedly on fluffy white snow?" Then, when the comedy hour was over, the audience could hold up signs indicating who one the "debate", thus influencing the people who chose to tune in to the World Series as a better form of entertainment in lieu of another night vegging on the sofa.
7
How can you be so mean-spirited to these poor, media-abused, wonderful candidates? My heart goes out to them after reading your column. But God will protect them from the evils of journalism and give shelter from reality.
10
And so, we see another mindlessly partisan opinion from Mr. Blow. Editors, do you not understand how embarrassing being a mouth-piece of the progressive left is getting to be for you?
6
I don't recall Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders being asked by a moderator if they were running "a comic book version of a campaign."
The questions posed to Republican candidates by CNBC moderators were as biased as, I dunno, a column written by a liberal pundit in the nation's foremost liberal newspaper claiming there is no liberal bias in the media...
The questions posed to Republican candidates by CNBC moderators were as biased as, I dunno, a column written by a liberal pundit in the nation's foremost liberal newspaper claiming there is no liberal bias in the media...
7
I have an idea. Let's have debates for the Democrats conducted the same way the CNBC debates were. Maybe the Benghazi Committee would make good debate moderators.
7
Did Dr. Ben Carson say "you can keep your doctor?" If he didn't, let's cool down the hatred toward Dr. Carson.
7
Since when has the NY Times been a journalistic purveyor of news rather than a political advocate? Even as far back as Walter Duranty, the Moscow correspondent and Stalin apologist, said of Stalin's organized murder, "Well, you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette." Nothing has changed. The entire paper is wrapped in political opinion spanning a small gap between Progressivism and Communism.
6
So, the DNC refuses to have a debate on Fox. I assume you will be writing an article about their inabilities and fear of tough questions? right?
6
Nice column. Good to see you can write one with playing the race card.
3
To be sure the CNBC was dismal, but when you allow clowns onstage, no wonder it becomes a circus. (Not all fo them. Rubio, Bush, Kasich are fine and your future, ya dips!)
3
What do you expect when a moderator ask a stupid questions that is also disrespectful. Did the CNBC moderators not get the emails that the debate was to be about the economy. I'm sorry but the RNC sent the email to their work addresses instead of their personal ones. Again dumb republicans. Of course there is not any liberal media bias, only a conservative bias. Now let's do some math on cable news channels : 1 Conservative leaning (Fox); 3 - Liberal leaning (CNN, CNBC and MSNBC). By the way I watch CNN. Check out the Harvard IOP article on Media Bias, Alive and Well. I did some research on the items specified in the article. It was very eye opening. After reading the article and doing research, I now listen to both CNN and Fox New. I am certainly getting a better perspective. Also CNBC set the tone and contention for the debate by opening with the stupid bias questions. These moderators are not prepared for prime time.
3
None of the candoidates know the law. FCC, as a reguatory agency is a total failure. As the Supreme Coats have ruled on three separate occasions: “It is the right of the viewers and listeners that is paramount, not the broadcasters.”
http://michaelslevinson.com
http://michaelslevinson.com
1
WHat makes it playing gotcha is not just asking candidates about their pasts, it's when the particular topic has nothing to do with the announced topic of the debate or the campaign in general. Did anyone in America care about that health supplement company as a vital issue in this election? Did the moderator have any reason to believe it mattered at all? No, they just wanted to try to catch Carson at something they thought they could make sound embarrassing. Also HE SAID he did paid speeches for them. So where do you get off saying he lied about not having any relationship with them when the only relationship you can point out is the exact one he admitted to at the debate?
4
Ok Charles would you feel the same way if the Partisan questions were asked of Hillary? I doubt it. I'll bet that you are a Partisan Democratic. Your bias comes out in your Op-Ed columns .
4
Who knew that whining like a scared child was a "Traditional 'Merican Value"?
8
I can only imagine the outrage & calls of sabotage on these pages had a team of Fox News moderators conducted a Democrat "debate" in a fashion similar to CNBC's GOP version.
4
This push to "have more control over the debates" is backfiring badly against the Republican Krazy Klown Kar.
What's going to happen when the going gets tough? Are they going to just wilt like the gutless, witless pansies they are? Do they think Putin or ISIL will "play fair" and not try for the "gotcha"?
Hillary sat for 11 straight hours and took it like a champ. Perhaps they should be taking a page from her -- and stop being such whining wimps!
What's going to happen when the going gets tough? Are they going to just wilt like the gutless, witless pansies they are? Do they think Putin or ISIL will "play fair" and not try for the "gotcha"?
Hillary sat for 11 straight hours and took it like a champ. Perhaps they should be taking a page from her -- and stop being such whining wimps!
13
Excuse me, POTUS applicants, but didn't a previous employee, a Mr. Harry Truman have to decide whether to Drop The Bomb or not?
In one word or less do you think you could handle the stress?
In one word or less do you think you could handle the stress?
8
Never have so many , said so little, about so much, that they should have known in the first place.They continue to mistakenly feel that the message is being poorly transmitted, not that it is a poor message to begin with.Their policies have been ruinous, whether because of hastily con sieved wars, slip shod appointees(ok Brownie) , sever corruption ala K street, unbalanced budgets and looting of the treasury by party favorites. Time to wake up America, VOTE BERNIE!
9
This GOP candidate conniption toward would-be cable "news" antagonizers is beyond the hilarity we've already witnessed from the 2016 clown car.
Will such posturing help next fall? If you truly can't deal with questions from some CNBC blow-dried blowhard, oh precious snowflakes, how will you be able to sit across the table from Putin, Xi or even Justin Trudeau?
Will such posturing help next fall? If you truly can't deal with questions from some CNBC blow-dried blowhard, oh precious snowflakes, how will you be able to sit across the table from Putin, Xi or even Justin Trudeau?
11
I don't understand the Republican attacks on the "mainstream media." If Fox News is the #1 cable news network and ratings for Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck and Sean Hannity, et. al. establish them as top rated radio shows...aren't they the mainstream media?
13
It's blindingly obvious that the GOP cannot stand to hear something, anything that shines a light on their evasions, obfuscations and outright lies. Don't know the answer? Change the subject. Question too personal? Impugn the integrity of the questioner. No facts to back you up? Label the media "liberal" and biased.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
11
Here's another "gotcha" question:
"What newspapers and magazines do you read?"
I know, it's the "lamestream" media just trying to make the candidate look bad.
"What newspapers and magazines do you read?"
I know, it's the "lamestream" media just trying to make the candidate look bad.
16
The fix is obvious and simple. Let the DNC moderate the Republican debates and let the RNC moderate the Democrat debates. LOL
3
Basically, the complaints of the candidates and their slack-jawed followers amount to an appeal:
"Vote G.O.P.: It's a no-brainer."
"Vote G.O.P.: It's a no-brainer."
6
The G.O.P candidates didn't like the snippy questions posed by CNBC's glorified bean counters. If they can't stand up to CNBC, why would we expect them to stand up to ISIL or Putin or Al Quada? A bunch of weenies.
8
First, these are not debates, which call for a QUESTION to be addressed by opposing sides in a structured way. The sides prepare arguments and rebuttals, etc. Instead, what we have here are loosely-themed interviews, with largely "soft" questions, heavily stacked in the favor of poll-driven front runners. Lazy, lazy journalism is what this is, designed to titillate viewers by fascination with verbal gobbledeegook. Garbage in, garbage out.
Suggestion: Give all the candidates three big questions regarding the subject matter (e.g. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: cyber security; US role in post Arab spring nation building; US responsibility within NATO) to the candidates in advance. Allow them to make policy statements. Have the moderators question elements of the answers that are vague. Give them time for concluding statements.
And turn off the mike when ANY candidate's time is over. Period.
Suggestion: Give all the candidates three big questions regarding the subject matter (e.g. FOREIGN AFFAIRS: cyber security; US role in post Arab spring nation building; US responsibility within NATO) to the candidates in advance. Allow them to make policy statements. Have the moderators question elements of the answers that are vague. Give them time for concluding statements.
And turn off the mike when ANY candidate's time is over. Period.
15
I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: the baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? [Gotcha.]
4
..The tea / gop talks about the "mainstream media"...now folks, are their candidates looking for MAINSTREAM VOTERS?
2
For all the bologna being sliced by both political parties I can only say the following – politicians must say what the majority of voters want to hear be that moral or immoral, decent of indecent, right or wrong in order to win. If you write books or articles you must write what the majority of readers want to read. If you create music, Broadway shows, TV shows, or movies you must create what the majority of the audience wants......not what you the creator wishes. Clearly you must ask what about the other percentage of people who are swept under the rug? Separation of church and state never meant both would have equal rights and representation. Clearly only one would live while the other must die. State and church are like water and oil, two different entities which will never exist in harmony. Take the great words in the constitution “all men are created equal”.....not really when African Blacks were not considered sanctioned beings......rather they were considered property as slaves. Humans judge themselves and others with their eyes, yet remain blind to truth and reality.
3
The following measurements do not include the unfinished administration of BHO.
UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS:
•PDI has grown 6x more
•GDP has grown 7x more
•Corporate profits have grown > 16% more (they declined under R's)
•AACR on the stock market has been 18x greater (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
•Republican presidents added 2.5x more to the national debt
•The two times our economy tanked (Great Depression + Great Recession) were during R administrations
UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS:
•PDI has grown 6x more
•GDP has grown 7x more
•Corporate profits have grown > 16% more (they declined under R's)
•AACR on the stock market has been 18x greater (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
•Republican presidents added 2.5x more to the national debt
•The two times our economy tanked (Great Depression + Great Recession) were during R administrations
17
It's bad journalism to use the quote "he got paid to deliver speeches to Mannatech and appeared in promotional videos, and he consistently delivered glowing reviews of the nutritional supplements" and claim it was a lie, when in the very first response to the question, he affirmatively volunteered to admit to EACH ONE of those elements. It’s flat out falsehoods presented as facts. You’re doing a bad job.
You call him “not completely honest.” THAT'S dishonest! Did you even watch the debate? After saying "This is not to say that the debate wasn’t a bit of a mess." It surely seems like you didn't watch it. It was a complete cluster-bang. As a member of the electorate, I would say both we and the candidates got nothing from that charade, and the media and network got a bunch of follow-on exposure and press, and a huge victory laced with ad dollars.
I've been a longtime subscriber to this rag, and I love it. But this kind of journalism is what I've come to expect from everywhere else, which is why I've canceled all other subscriptions but the Financial Times. Shame on you.
You call him “not completely honest.” THAT'S dishonest! Did you even watch the debate? After saying "This is not to say that the debate wasn’t a bit of a mess." It surely seems like you didn't watch it. It was a complete cluster-bang. As a member of the electorate, I would say both we and the candidates got nothing from that charade, and the media and network got a bunch of follow-on exposure and press, and a huge victory laced with ad dollars.
I've been a longtime subscriber to this rag, and I love it. But this kind of journalism is what I've come to expect from everywhere else, which is why I've canceled all other subscriptions but the Financial Times. Shame on you.
4
Compared to the Fox debate, this was nearly civilized. The Fox questions bordered on spitting in fighting cocks' faces before tossing them in the ring together. But we don't hear any whining about the GOP house organ...which at this point can be considered the mainstream medium.
7
I couldn't help but notice that a certain rotund, loud-mouthed, classless bully who masquerades as the governor of New Jersey didn't even register among the top nine in the New York Times/CBS poll.
Maybe when this election is FINALLY over said "governor" could get a job as a supervisor of the Quiet Car for Amtrak.
Just sayin'.
Maybe when this election is FINALLY over said "governor" could get a job as a supervisor of the Quiet Car for Amtrak.
Just sayin'.
4
If they can't handle American Journalist....how, exactly are they going to stand up to Russia, China, Iran, Syria....et al??
7
2016 RNC debate approved moderators:
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
Glenn Beck
William Franklin Graham III
David Barton
Phyllis Schlafly
RNC approved topics:
Climate change fraud
Obama's Muslim self-identification
Obama's war on Christians, capitalism, guns, freedoms(?), "Real Americans"
Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Tax cuts
Increasing military spending
Supreme Court Justices they would appoint that are similar to Scalia
Repeal of Roe v. Wade
Reverse the New Deal
Repeal Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, FDA, IRS, HHR, Ex-Im Bank
When to Bomb Iran
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
Glenn Beck
William Franklin Graham III
David Barton
Phyllis Schlafly
RNC approved topics:
Climate change fraud
Obama's Muslim self-identification
Obama's war on Christians, capitalism, guns, freedoms(?), "Real Americans"
Benghazi
Fast and Furious
Tax cuts
Increasing military spending
Supreme Court Justices they would appoint that are similar to Scalia
Repeal of Roe v. Wade
Reverse the New Deal
Repeal Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, FDA, IRS, HHR, Ex-Im Bank
When to Bomb Iran
18
I guarantee you that if the candidates asked each other the questions, the number of "gotcha questions" would rocket through the roof at warp speed. In fact Jeb! asked/chided Rubio on Rubio's poor attendance as a Senator. If that's not "gotcha", I don't know what is. Jeb! was waiting, just waiting to use that zinger on Rubio. And Rubio, of course, had anticipated it and answered in equally rehearsed fashion. Oh yeah, "gotcha questions" will big time if the candidates ask each other questions. Thus the debates (sic) devolve again.
4
Since Mr. Blow is a great representative of the progressive biased media it is no surprise that he writes this sort of thing.
3
Blow blows the "Gotcha" blowhards back to where they belong with his calmly articulated observation about what is fast becoming a GOP elephant herd of tumpeting rogues hell bent on charging backwards to a time that never was to attract the votes of a base that the majority of the country finds baseless.
2
The candidates misgivings should have been made prior to the debate. They are correct in that it always appears that the Nets send at least one highly partisan questioner to these events. No dem would tolerate Hannity, O'Reilly , Drudge...They aren't there to toss softballs, but meither are they supposed to follow Trey Gowdy's lead. That's a different job.
1
It's not so much what was really asked by the question after disregarding the sarcasm, but the unprofessional mockingly way it was done. You probably got that much Mr. Blow, I would never expect you to admit that though.. alan
3
For the very first time, Republicans, sometimes self-characterized as The Stupid Party, have objected to a Presidential debate process that has hitherto only used moderators that quite openly support the Democratic Party and its candidates. Not surprisingly, Mr. Blow seems to consider these objections to be unwarranted. They are, after all, precisely the sort of questions that HE would ask of Republican candidates. But Mr. Blow does not seem to realize that Marco Rubio is virtually certain to become the Republican Presidential candidate, and that Dr. Carson and Mannatech are about as relevant as Bob Dole.
1
So.....the persons who desire to be selected by the Republican party as it's presidential nominee are dictating to that Republican Party how that party will select it's nominee. Incredible.
The GOP is no longer a credible political party.
The GOP is no longer a credible political party.
4
"Of the nontraditional lot, there is a former neurosurgeon whose strategy seems to be to appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur"
"appears barely awake" is the wishful thinking of a liberal. 5 out of 5 polls (see Real Clear Politics) show Ben Carson will defeat Ms. Clinton.
"appears barely awake" is the wishful thinking of a liberal. 5 out of 5 polls (see Real Clear Politics) show Ben Carson will defeat Ms. Clinton.
2
Val in Brooklyn, NY
NYT: Will you print this or censor it?
I'm not voting for any Republicans, but I must ask you, Mr. Blow, have you witnessed anyone speaking word salad(s)? I ask because you say "word salads of outlandishness." That's redundant. Also, word salad is specifically a psychiatric term with reference to schizophrenia. Check the OED for the definition and your redundancy.
My dear late sister (Jan, 2015), a schizophrenic, was on a strong anti-psychotic medicine for years before she died. (Since she was born first, I'll experience my first birthday w/out her, in 14 days). I know--first hand-- what word salad sounds like. Are you suggesting that Carson needs to be evaluated by a doctor? (Another NYT reader said as much, meant it literally and I agreed). Or are you making a distasteful attempt to use a psychiatric term as slang?
I gather you mean the latter. I followed a reader's complaint regarding the casual use of medical terms in an editorial done by the Edit. Bd., with one of my own. We both found it insensitive and offensive. I also sent my complaint to the Public Editor, apparently to no avail.
You've compromised yourself today, Mr. Blow. You've also compromised my experience of your column today.
Thanks for nothing, except adding to the pain of my bereavement.
Submitted 11-1-15@1:36 p.m.
NYT: Will you print this or censor it?
I'm not voting for any Republicans, but I must ask you, Mr. Blow, have you witnessed anyone speaking word salad(s)? I ask because you say "word salads of outlandishness." That's redundant. Also, word salad is specifically a psychiatric term with reference to schizophrenia. Check the OED for the definition and your redundancy.
My dear late sister (Jan, 2015), a schizophrenic, was on a strong anti-psychotic medicine for years before she died. (Since she was born first, I'll experience my first birthday w/out her, in 14 days). I know--first hand-- what word salad sounds like. Are you suggesting that Carson needs to be evaluated by a doctor? (Another NYT reader said as much, meant it literally and I agreed). Or are you making a distasteful attempt to use a psychiatric term as slang?
I gather you mean the latter. I followed a reader's complaint regarding the casual use of medical terms in an editorial done by the Edit. Bd., with one of my own. We both found it insensitive and offensive. I also sent my complaint to the Public Editor, apparently to no avail.
You've compromised yourself today, Mr. Blow. You've also compromised my experience of your column today.
Thanks for nothing, except adding to the pain of my bereavement.
Submitted 11-1-15@1:36 p.m.
What all this may be boiling down to is that little would be lost if all subsequent Republican primary "debates" were cancelled.
3
grow up
politicians only goal is to get elected...truth is not a factor, motivator or part of their nature
change the system, get new people, or hope for the best
politicians only goal is to get elected...truth is not a factor, motivator or part of their nature
change the system, get new people, or hope for the best
even on the most serious and straightforward policy questions, the R candidate's proposals are outrageous impossible, obvious lies. At least several - bush, rubio, trump, carson - have made economic proposals that promise the moon and could only deliver disaster, if actually implemented. Everyone knows it, yet they propose them and argue in support of them, lying their heads off. If they believe what they are saying then they are credulous fools. You simply can't make a pack of dangerous clowns like that look good if you are a serious, ethical journalist.
4
Can you imagine one of these rightist whiners handling 11 hours of biased, baseless Congressional questions with grace poise and ease?
Me neither.
Carson would have fallen asleep.
Trump would have filed for bankruptcy protection.
Fiorna would have tried to fire everyone.
Rubbio would have died of thirst.
Man these rightists are weak.
Man up GOTP or the Democrats are going to continue to own the White House.
Me neither.
Carson would have fallen asleep.
Trump would have filed for bankruptcy protection.
Fiorna would have tried to fire everyone.
Rubbio would have died of thirst.
Man these rightists are weak.
Man up GOTP or the Democrats are going to continue to own the White House.
11
What I would like to see is real time fact checking by the moderators/hosts of the debates and the moderators to call out lies and falsehoods immediately. No way Carly Fiorina should have been able to get away with that false Planned Parenthood story. Hers is only one example.
1
My biggest concern with the so-called debate was the time wasted asking candidates about their campaigns. Who cares? As others have said, ask questions about the real issues.
So Dr. Ben received a few thousand dollars for giving some speeches and making some videos. I guess that is legitimate topic for questions, but maybe not at a debate. I didn't watch the entire Democratic debate, but remind me about how many questions Hillary got on the hundreds of millions of dollars she pulled in giving speeches and thru the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
3
These GOP presidential candidates so distraught at the prospect of standing for questions by media that deign to ask them to explain and defend their policies which affect everyone or to bring light to their personal past are the very same people, the very same tough guy chickenhawk war mongers, ever ready to send other people off to fight wars for their plutocrats' concerns or, even worse, like W, to act upon their own personal family grudges.
Republicans are a scourge, a modern American sickness who are right about nothing and who have answers for nothing save destroying the 20th political century. But they are never in doubt.
Republicans are a scourge, a modern American sickness who are right about nothing and who have answers for nothing save destroying the 20th political century. But they are never in doubt.
6
As a current Independent and a thoughtful voter, I am seeking a candidate of either party who can unite the country. Divisiveness and polarization has been hijacked by professional political clampaigners who seek political gain from this shameless and self-serving narrative.
Neither party can claim the moral high ground on the manipulation of the media.....nor of the media's shameless willingness to participate as water carriers for their particular party.
I don't want to become a reactionary voter who pulls a lever simply to flummox the pundits but that seems tempting these days. Straighten up journalists, please!
Neither party can claim the moral high ground on the manipulation of the media.....nor of the media's shameless willingness to participate as water carriers for their particular party.
I don't want to become a reactionary voter who pulls a lever simply to flummox the pundits but that seems tempting these days. Straighten up journalists, please!
2
Anyone who pays attention and took any public speaking class in high school or college, that thee shows are really not 'debates;'they are unpaid for free advertisement. President Carter and Ronald Reagan had as close to a real debate as we have had over the past 35 years.
I'm waiting for the Repubs to announce that all they want is a chance to slam President Obama for 90 minutes to two hours
I'm waiting for the Repubs to announce that all they want is a chance to slam President Obama for 90 minutes to two hours
4
Gotcha questions are the product of 'reality' TV and our politics are a kin to 'Survivors'. The Jerry Springer show where people slashed into each other like mad dogs is reality TV's progenitor and the public loves it something very much like the coliseum where the roman public enjoyed lions ripping apart slaves or Christians. Nothing is new despite our vaunted technology or supposed 2000 years of growth. Politicians did not answer the questions of peons then and don't now even with the Visigoths at the gate. The public forgets the questions that need answers with their short attention span in lieu of the spectacle.
Media understands when you stop watching and revenues drop off. When will the public not just Times subscribers get the point and demand that politicians give straight answers and take action on what they say?
Media understands when you stop watching and revenues drop off. When will the public not just Times subscribers get the point and demand that politicians give straight answers and take action on what they say?
The poor, poor little men and their hurt feelings make their bluster ring hollow. I believe Ted Cruz's idea of having Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity be moderators is exactly what they deserve. Let them have what they ask for.
After a two hour public enunciation of prejudices and shibboleths there will be the biggest Democratic landslide since 1964. There will be no need of a candidate's coattails as fear will sweep the nation. There only difference is this time the fear generated by the GOP will not be intentional.
After a two hour public enunciation of prejudices and shibboleths there will be the biggest Democratic landslide since 1964. There will be no need of a candidate's coattails as fear will sweep the nation. There only difference is this time the fear generated by the GOP will not be intentional.
5
The best question for the next debate: What's the difference between the GOP and the Taliban? Both are focused on controlling the free press, class warfare that picks and chooses who has rights and that pits wealthy against the poor, a theocratic government structure that promotes just one particular and very controlling religion, and a denial of science.
8
A debate in which the debaters would have a say in who the moderators r, and what the nature of the questions would be, would not be credible. Even if the moderators were biased, even if their questions were character assassinations, don't strip away their autonomy. Future debates would not attract viewers, and would be boring to listen to if we the viewers knew that the game were fixed. Harwood is partisan, out to destroy, but that is how he makes a buck. We need more not fewer moderators like those at the last GOP debate.To have only moderators whom the debaters approved of would be like Al Gore IN 2000 agreeing to appear on the Jay Leno show, but only if he and his staff could see the questions in advance..
1
I actually agree with the Republican desire to create a debate that looks more like a Miss America Pageant. Give them each a couple of soft ball questions and see how well they can mouth the ideology. (But please do not include the swimsuit competition.)
The problem is that the candidates do not have substantially different positions, and therefore there is nothing to debate. If you are not wearing your glasses, they all pretty much look the same.
The problem is that the candidates do not have substantially different positions, and therefore there is nothing to debate. If you are not wearing your glasses, they all pretty much look the same.
4
This isn't China where the media is controlled by the state; this is America where we thoroughly vet our prospective leaders with tough questions, tricky questions, and, yes, gotcha questions. I want a president who can think on his/her feet, sweep away any gotcha question with wit and aplomb. That is part of the process.
Protesting or boycotting the next debate is sheer cowardice, a sign of top down privilege in the face of the electorate--not a characteristic of a healthy democracy. These nominees are acting like babies, whining little babies. Show up for the job interview and answer the questions. Protest the interview and you won't get hired.
Protesting or boycotting the next debate is sheer cowardice, a sign of top down privilege in the face of the electorate--not a characteristic of a healthy democracy. These nominees are acting like babies, whining little babies. Show up for the job interview and answer the questions. Protest the interview and you won't get hired.
8
The Republican candidates are so thin-skinned and ill-equipped to answer probing but legitimate questions, they deem any such question as equivalent to "Have you finally stopped beating your wife?" And, it's an absolute joke when they blame the "liberal mainstream media." Turn on the radio and every talk station is hosted by such "flaming liberals" as Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, etc. During the last debate there was not one candidate on that stage who has the integrity or intelligence to win a presidential election. They have no one to blame but themselves.
3
The world reknowned surgeon savant needs to be asked directly how he accounts for the need to find responses to constantly evolving viruses in surgical theaters, since he rules out evolution. Spontaneous natural whimsy--like his answers to questions?
4
The soft spoken one, almost inaudible in a discussion of provocative issues, is usually a manipulator. We must tone down and strain so as to hear him, pause to make sure that we understood him. Meanwhile, he "smothers" others with his manner which is actually a covert sign of hostility. Carson is a perfect example.
3
Maybe a way to avoid the charge of "gotcha" questions is this: go ahead and tell the candidates ahead of time what topics will be covered - immigration reform, tax reform, dealing with Syria and ISIS, income inequality just to name a few important issues. Tell these people that they will be expected to provide a detailed policy position on these topics. The moderators will be able to ask 1-2 questions of the candidate after they provide their policy statement. However, other candidates will ALSO be allowed to ask a question. Unfortunately, with so many folks on the stage, this would be difficult to achieve in a reasonable time frame, but this is the type of format that is needed. Forcing these people to make a cogent policy proposal and show they can defend it. Otherwise, all the future "debates" will end up with the same result - no real information, candidates blatantly lying, and the moderators looking bad.
2
Debate: noun. "A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
I don't see that the moderators should have a big role here. Lincoln-Douglass debates went hours mano-a-mano without a moderator in sight. Moderators should put out a substantive policy question, direct it to candidates, monitor the candidates reply times and otherwise shut their mouths - it's not about them.
I don't see that the moderators should have a big role here. Lincoln-Douglass debates went hours mano-a-mano without a moderator in sight. Moderators should put out a substantive policy question, direct it to candidates, monitor the candidates reply times and otherwise shut their mouths - it's not about them.
2
One does wonder how one of these pretenders will deal with the real questions and issues that arise in that place they seem so divorced from: the real world.
Is Putin going to lob softballs? Will the Iranians make nice? What do these folks think awaits them should one of them actually make it to the White House?
But the real irony here is that their inability to deal with tough issues and sharp questioning comes precisely from their affinity for the Fox folks as interviewers. They're not used to, what's that place again? -- The Real World.
Is Putin going to lob softballs? Will the Iranians make nice? What do these folks think awaits them should one of them actually make it to the White House?
But the real irony here is that their inability to deal with tough issues and sharp questioning comes precisely from their affinity for the Fox folks as interviewers. They're not used to, what's that place again? -- The Real World.
5
These events are not debates at all, they are parallel press conferences by persons who have memorized all they are going to say. There is no intellectual and logical and ethical questioning in the American events, no cut and thrust, no engagment of minds. Quite the contrary. If you want to know what debating is, check the Oxford Union or any vigorous parliamentary democracy.
8
These ridiculous shows put on by all 3 networks so far are great entertainment, but they are not debates. Every time a moderator questions the accuracy or veracity of a statement made by one of these "mental giants" they get shouted down (Trump) or outright lied to (Carson et al). Why these "journalists" don't do their jobs and demand the truth by having the proof at their fingertips and fact checking in real time is beyond me.
7
Mr. Carson has no political experience, no executive experience, and no international experience. His answers to policy questions reveal not even a rudimentary knowledge of international and military affairs, of how legislation gets passed, and of fiscal and tax policy. In short, he has no knowledge or experience with anything he would need to know and to do if he were president.
Any question that begins, as in my opinion all these "debate" questions should, with the phrase, "If elected President, what would you do about. . . ,"
is automatically a "gotcha" question for Dr. Carson, since he has no clue what he would do about anything.
Any question that begins, as in my opinion all these "debate" questions should, with the phrase, "If elected President, what would you do about. . . ,"
is automatically a "gotcha" question for Dr. Carson, since he has no clue what he would do about anything.
4
Should any of these candidates win (those seen at the debate), they will be stunned to learn that they cannot filter, edit or evade questions put to them by world leaders. Might as well grow up now, in the debates, and display an ability (present in all great leaders) to field a question and answer it with deep knowledge and foresight. That's how leaders find supporters. Not by editing what they do not understand out of the world around them
2
The republicans would only be happy if the moderators were Sarah palin, Michelle Bachmann and Ann Coulter.
I would like to ask why their collective behavior like a bunch of kindergartners was tolerated. Not One single candidate answered one single question posed to them. They all went off on pre-prepared stump speeches, then occasionally became indignant (Cruz) that they didn't have the chance/time to answer- well answer the question when asked and don't go over your time limit- they should have learned that in high school debate training. Crybabies who have nothing to say but lies. Having any one of them as president would be worse than sharia law it would truly confirm the idiocracy movie prophecy. Remember that great SNL fake Dukakis debate line- "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy?" I can't believe one of those morons will actually be chosen to run to be president.
I would like to ask why their collective behavior like a bunch of kindergartners was tolerated. Not One single candidate answered one single question posed to them. They all went off on pre-prepared stump speeches, then occasionally became indignant (Cruz) that they didn't have the chance/time to answer- well answer the question when asked and don't go over your time limit- they should have learned that in high school debate training. Crybabies who have nothing to say but lies. Having any one of them as president would be worse than sharia law it would truly confirm the idiocracy movie prophecy. Remember that great SNL fake Dukakis debate line- "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy?" I can't believe one of those morons will actually be chosen to run to be president.
2
It would be no great loss if there were no more TV debates, which don't accomplish anything anyway. Nothing the candidates say is to be believed. They all stretch or deny the truth, none of them has any coherent policies to advance, none of them can even string an understandable sentence together. They are so dependent on their handlers telling them what to say, that they are unable to function on their own for even a few hours. Why waste time even tuning in to such a farce? Besides, they are not "debates". They are just a question and answer format. There's nothing like a true debate going on there. Just take them off the air and let's be rid of them.
The republicans act like they had to answer any of the questions that were presented to them. I took debate in high school and we had to debate an issue with another person showing both sides of an issue, but answering the original question. To me that is a debate. What we have been seeing in the 'debates' this year is a question asked of one person, but never answered as the candidate goes off into some speech they had memorized even though it has nothing to do with the question.
5
The ultimate 'Gotcha question':
When did you stop beating your wife?
It was so sad to see the CNBC moderators so ill prepared for the debate. They were busy reading conspiracy theory websites instead of asking reasoned questions without vilifying the candidates.
Sanders has never been challenged into how he could actually pay for free college tuition and the many extra years students will stay in college when it is free. (This is a well known phenomenon that is playing out in the EU).
When did you stop beating your wife?
It was so sad to see the CNBC moderators so ill prepared for the debate. They were busy reading conspiracy theory websites instead of asking reasoned questions without vilifying the candidates.
Sanders has never been challenged into how he could actually pay for free college tuition and the many extra years students will stay in college when it is free. (This is a well known phenomenon that is playing out in the EU).
1
When did you stop kicking your dog? Gotcha if you answer. Any question based on some false assumption is not helpful in these "debates."
That is not what is happening. Asking candidates about business connections, or previous statements they've made, or details about their tax proposals- that's all fair game. And apparently the candidates feel threatened by answering anything not aligned with their talking points. And of course expressing hatred of the media at any random time is always a winner.
From this Sunday meeting, it will be interesting to hear what changes they want in format. Only softballs lobbed up by Hannity or Rush? The option to pass if they feel threatened? Getting copies of the questions beforehand?
They had 25 million, then 14 million viewers for previous "debates." If they become just a long string of campaign ads, I think they'll lose a lot of viewers.
That is not what is happening. Asking candidates about business connections, or previous statements they've made, or details about their tax proposals- that's all fair game. And apparently the candidates feel threatened by answering anything not aligned with their talking points. And of course expressing hatred of the media at any random time is always a winner.
From this Sunday meeting, it will be interesting to hear what changes they want in format. Only softballs lobbed up by Hannity or Rush? The option to pass if they feel threatened? Getting copies of the questions beforehand?
They had 25 million, then 14 million viewers for previous "debates." If they become just a long string of campaign ads, I think they'll lose a lot of viewers.
5
Mr. Blow, may I suggest this modest proposal?
Why not let all Republican presidential hopefuls orchestrate the entire debate, from start to finish. Each candidate can write their own questions to be asked of them, with nothing left to do but memorize (no teleprompters here) knowledgeable and witty responses written by a team of expert writers. The panel will be picked by a consensus of the candidates, with the right of any candidate to have veto power should for any reason they have a problem with the "journalists"/reciters.
Is there anything I've missed? If so, I'm sure the GOP/RNC will catch it and ensure that no "gotcha" questions are ever asked of any Republican again. Perhaps they could even line up a cameo appearance, though all candidates would be forewarned, by Vladimir Putin. The Evil Dictator will open with spouting some heated rhetoric. Then the candidates will be asked how they would handle this tyrant in a crisis. This will allow each candidate to mount a vicious attack on Mr. Putin showing him their toughness and letting him know who's the boss.
I'm sure Vlad The Impaler would enjoy this mockery, this faux debate, and rebuke to the democratic process. He would approve wholeheartedly of this staged Theatrics Politics since he is well accustomed of conducting the business of governing similarly in Russia.
America, what a country! Republicans: They Rehearse, You Decide.
DD
Manhattan
Why not let all Republican presidential hopefuls orchestrate the entire debate, from start to finish. Each candidate can write their own questions to be asked of them, with nothing left to do but memorize (no teleprompters here) knowledgeable and witty responses written by a team of expert writers. The panel will be picked by a consensus of the candidates, with the right of any candidate to have veto power should for any reason they have a problem with the "journalists"/reciters.
Is there anything I've missed? If so, I'm sure the GOP/RNC will catch it and ensure that no "gotcha" questions are ever asked of any Republican again. Perhaps they could even line up a cameo appearance, though all candidates would be forewarned, by Vladimir Putin. The Evil Dictator will open with spouting some heated rhetoric. Then the candidates will be asked how they would handle this tyrant in a crisis. This will allow each candidate to mount a vicious attack on Mr. Putin showing him their toughness and letting him know who's the boss.
I'm sure Vlad The Impaler would enjoy this mockery, this faux debate, and rebuke to the democratic process. He would approve wholeheartedly of this staged Theatrics Politics since he is well accustomed of conducting the business of governing similarly in Russia.
America, what a country! Republicans: They Rehearse, You Decide.
DD
Manhattan
3
Let's be honest: it is hardly pssible to have a real debate about serious issues with a group of 10 individuals, within a timespan of two hours, who only want to get our attention. It becomes really impossible when you have moderators who also think they need to score points, and be overly agressive.
A real debate will only occur when you have the nominees of the two parties battling it out.
In the highly improbable event that Carson would be the nominee of the GOP, it will be really entertaining to have a two hour debate about, for instance, foreign policy between him and a former Secretary of State.
A real debate will only occur when you have the nominees of the two parties battling it out.
In the highly improbable event that Carson would be the nominee of the GOP, it will be really entertaining to have a two hour debate about, for instance, foreign policy between him and a former Secretary of State.
2
It is pretty scary that people who want to be the President of the United States haven't the honesty or fortitude to deal with gotcha questions. What is terrifying is that there are prospective voters who are eager to vote for people who haven't the honesty, courage or strength to answer gotcha questions.
1
It doesn't matter what questions you ask a Republican candidate. To a Republican, every question is a gotcha question. Ben Carson wants to base his tax plan on the bible and gets away with it. And, undoubtedly, any attempt to question him on this in the future will be met with cries (literally) of "that's a gotcha question, you d**n liberal media."
Further, Republicans will not answer the question asked. They will give a short speech on something they want to talk about. Or insult the questioner, or a fellow candidate. It's like watching children at recess.
If they do deign to answer a question, it will be a lie.
Further, Republicans will not answer the question asked. They will give a short speech on something they want to talk about. Or insult the questioner, or a fellow candidate. It's like watching children at recess.
If they do deign to answer a question, it will be a lie.
5
The Republicans are great whiners.
They whine if expected to answer questions that any serious candidate should anticipate and be able to answer fully and honestly.
They whine that media people are "liberal" and biased against them
In fact, I find most of the media people biased in favor of the Republicans.
The Sunday morning talk shows are a perfect example of media bias in favor of the Republicans. No matter which political party is in power, the people invited to be on those shows are two-to-one or even three-to-one right-leaning.
Republicans have all of talk radio to themselves.
But that sort of rightwing bias is NOT enough for the whining Republicans; they have to have ALL the media people aggressively in their corner.
The constant whining of the Republicans with their accusations of "liberal" media bias has worked for the Republicans -- and they KNOW it. That's why they keep at it.
It's called "playing the refs."
Unless the media people actually hit any Democrats over the head with a baseball bat, the Republicans will claim the media people are biased against Republicans or -- as they like to say -- "against conservatives."
Right now, the Republican candidates are undoubtedly trying to intimidate managers of the TV channels sponsoring their debates into allowing them to just repeat well-memorized talking points from their stump speeches with no chance for the "moderators" to debunk or even question what they say.
They whine if expected to answer questions that any serious candidate should anticipate and be able to answer fully and honestly.
They whine that media people are "liberal" and biased against them
In fact, I find most of the media people biased in favor of the Republicans.
The Sunday morning talk shows are a perfect example of media bias in favor of the Republicans. No matter which political party is in power, the people invited to be on those shows are two-to-one or even three-to-one right-leaning.
Republicans have all of talk radio to themselves.
But that sort of rightwing bias is NOT enough for the whining Republicans; they have to have ALL the media people aggressively in their corner.
The constant whining of the Republicans with their accusations of "liberal" media bias has worked for the Republicans -- and they KNOW it. That's why they keep at it.
It's called "playing the refs."
Unless the media people actually hit any Democrats over the head with a baseball bat, the Republicans will claim the media people are biased against Republicans or -- as they like to say -- "against conservatives."
Right now, the Republican candidates are undoubtedly trying to intimidate managers of the TV channels sponsoring their debates into allowing them to just repeat well-memorized talking points from their stump speeches with no chance for the "moderators" to debunk or even question what they say.
7
A "gotcha" question, in general, is not, as the candidates would like to believe, one that questions things you've done or said in the past or for which you haven't figured out a good answer. However, in the context of a candidates' "debate" (these are not debates, of course) I think it's fair to say a "gotcha" question is any "off-topic" question. In a debate supposedly about the economy, a question about being a huckster for a snake oil question is off-topic.
Not saying that the question should be asked in some venue, but if the "debate" is going to illuminate what economic policies a future president supports, then the questions have to draw out that information and not address the ethics or economics of someone's personal activities.
Not saying that the question should be asked in some venue, but if the "debate" is going to illuminate what economic policies a future president supports, then the questions have to draw out that information and not address the ethics or economics of someone's personal activities.
One could take this argument more seriously if the application was applied evenly. Did you see the DNC debate? It was a hug fest. Then bring on the GOP and hit them with what you have. It is the perception, or in this case, the reality, of dual standard which raises the question. How can one have a debate with Hillary and give her a pass when she blows off the questions on email and Benghazi. Yes the media has decided those are non issues for them and the rest of her supporters so they ask and allow the glib remarks to linger unchallenged. Beyond that I have no issue with the questions and given the size of the field it would be in the best interest of the GOP to see the field withered down. Will the outsiders last? Hard to say. At some point they need to provide solid answers to some basic questions, which I would rather the moderators ask, like exactly what would you do to turn around the failed foreign policies of this administration? How would you bring strength back to America's position in the world. How can we overcome the slow growth policies now in place in the US? These are areas the candidates are challenging the democrats so ask about them. We don't really care about the answers to idiotic gotchas.
2
The "debates" are beyond saving. They are nothing more than disjoint snippets of focus group tested nonsense that will look good on a headline or bumper sticker. It amazes me that candidates can talk on stage for hours and manage to say absolutely nothing as the process moves from topic to topic.
My proposal is to scrap the debate format and take a cue from academia: allow candidates to present their policies in front of a panel of subject-matter experts (not journalists) and then defend against a line of critical questioning from the panel, much like a dissertation. It wouldn't be perfect but you'd have a much better chance of breaking the surface and informing the electorate than the current debate structure.
My proposal is to scrap the debate format and take a cue from academia: allow candidates to present their policies in front of a panel of subject-matter experts (not journalists) and then defend against a line of critical questioning from the panel, much like a dissertation. It wouldn't be perfect but you'd have a much better chance of breaking the surface and informing the electorate than the current debate structure.
3
We certainly do not need a President with absolutely no experience and we certainly do Not need a President who represents Big Pharmaceuticals. Nor do we need anybody who wants to Privatize for profit our Social Security and Medicare social programs. I learned plenty in the last debate.
6
"...whose strategy seems to be to appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur, a real-estate mogul full of bluster and bawdiness, and a fired C.E.O. engaged in a breathtaking example of pink-slip revisionism."
Well said, Mr. Blow.
I believe that the debates should focus more on policy related questions, but there should also be room for several, difficult questions that attempt to uncover who each of these candidate really are. CVs only tell half the story. After all, these folks are jockeying to become the next leader of the free world.
Well said, Mr. Blow.
I believe that the debates should focus more on policy related questions, but there should also be room for several, difficult questions that attempt to uncover who each of these candidate really are. CVs only tell half the story. After all, these folks are jockeying to become the next leader of the free world.
2
Excuse me, but doesn't "Mainstream Media" refer to the news sources that the majority of Americans continue to look to and trust for the balance of their information about local and national news? And in a democracy, isn't access to information not thought critical (if not essential) for the citizens to be able to make an informed choice about the election of their leaders? The attempt by the current crop of GOP spokesmen to muddle (read: Control) the ability of the "Main Stream Media" to hold them accountable is not only confusing to the voter ,but ought to be extremely disturbing to anyone interested in upholding our countries tradition of open government. Shame on the Republican leadership, and shame on all of us if we let these efforts at intimidation go unchallenged.
7
Charles, you missed a big one, which was one of Chris Christie's (very loud and heated) statements. It wasn't in response to one of the moderator's questions, but one that he initiated on his own: That "the government" is/was/has been "stealing" your social security money. Totally false, but cleverly and knowingly aimed at those who may fear for their social security. Yes, the social security surpluses have not been kept in a "lock box" and the Social Security Trust Fund holds "IOUs" from the U.S. government for surpluses that all previous administrations, Republican and Democrat, have applied to current expenditures for decades. Or, there is another possibility, that Mr. Christie did not knowingly and therefore disingenuously make the claim that the government was "stealing" this money, and instead that he actually believes this to be the case! Either way, this one should get all 5 Pinocchios and maybe 6 for its blatancy.
6
This seems like another step toward a political system that's completely polarized, with no middle ground whatsoever among the electorate or between the parties. It looks like republicans and democrats will soon have their own media wings, with the GOP answering only to Fox and democrats to, well, everyone else. It's really difficult to look at this situation and not put much of the blame on Rupert Murdock. It's so ironic that the GOP gets so much attention for accusations of media bias when it's that side of the political spectrum that introduced partisan journalism, a "news" organization run by political operatives that now, after several administrations have demonstrated that they will cover the same issue two different ways, depending on who is in the White House. Fox News' existence is the only reason that the GOP can make claims that it's being treated unfairly. Fox provides the safe haven for GOP candidates, who wouldn't be able to shut out the mainstream press if it didn't have a sympathetic media wing that shared its agenda.
2
It doesn't matter what the questions are. The responses are the same regardless. Repeal Obamacare. Send all the illegal immigrants packing. Putin will run when he sees me coming. I am The One True Conservative. In short - I am this country's only hope so just put me in charge and get out of the way and watch the magic happen. And simply because this drivel carries the GOP brand the media is required to bestow it respect and credulity? If the media is biased against the inbred misery, hatred, and ignorance that unites and drives the Big Red Machine, and if that is reflected in the debate questions, then that is on the GOP. Not the media.
3
The last GOP debate was a disaster, not because of "gotcha" questions, but because the moderators were arrogant, condescending and insulting. Most of the questions weren't meant to solicit information but to demean and deride the candidates. That is not the purpose of a debate. Explain why the tone of the Democrat debate was totally different? The moderators were obviously supporters of Democrats whereas the moderators of the GOP debate treated the candidates as "hostile witnesses".
A gotcha question is simply a reporter's version of the child remarking that the emperor was wearing no clothes. Nearly all the Republican candidates are nakedly under equipped to be president but each arrives wearing the enormous fig leaf of his, or her, vanity. If it takes reporters to lift the fig leaf and expose this raw fact to the candidates, and to the credulous Republican base, they are to be commended for both doing their job and performing a public service!
3
In the end it makes little difference who the GOP candidate is because they all adhere to the same ideology: 1) tax breaks for the wealthy, 2) increase military spending, 3) pay for #1 and #2 with some combination of increasing the national debt, ignoring deteriorating infrastructure, decreasing social spending for seniors and those in need
1
Hmm, oligarchs wanting to have rigid control over the media. Why does that smell funny?
These debates are a bit of a joke - some of the questions being inane, the candidates failing to answer the questions, or answering with soundbites instead of solid responses. Lies, jingoisms, these aren't the way to get to know a candidate. But, if these people think that being the President comes with a free pass on tough questions, on issues that fly at you from left field, then they all ought to slip quietly back into their roles as paid commentators for FOX, or back onto the reality TV schedule.
This is a serious job, meant for serious people with minds that work on more than just figuring out a balance sheet or making bellicose pronouncements without any thought of the incredible depth and subtlety needed for domestic or international leadership.
Stick to running companies (sometimes into the ground), stick to surgery, stick to the sidelines of history. Only when someone is ready to lead the entire country, to take up the post on the razor's edge in the world, should they apply for the Presidency.
These debates are a bit of a joke - some of the questions being inane, the candidates failing to answer the questions, or answering with soundbites instead of solid responses. Lies, jingoisms, these aren't the way to get to know a candidate. But, if these people think that being the President comes with a free pass on tough questions, on issues that fly at you from left field, then they all ought to slip quietly back into their roles as paid commentators for FOX, or back onto the reality TV schedule.
This is a serious job, meant for serious people with minds that work on more than just figuring out a balance sheet or making bellicose pronouncements without any thought of the incredible depth and subtlety needed for domestic or international leadership.
Stick to running companies (sometimes into the ground), stick to surgery, stick to the sidelines of history. Only when someone is ready to lead the entire country, to take up the post on the razor's edge in the world, should they apply for the Presidency.
Basically, Ben Carson doesn't want to answer any questions. He would prefer to give a prepared speech about his path to success as a neurosurgeon. And then he would go out on the campaign trail and make totally outrageous comments to fortify his position with the base. Donald Trump would like to be able to fire the moderators on spot if he doesn't like the line of questioning. Why care about a couple of bankruptcies when the greatness of America is at stake! Carly Fiorina doesn't want to be caught in any more lies when her whole campaign is built on deception and lies. The bottom-feeding establishment candidates would like to swim up toward the Sun but they do not want their past misdeeds to be brought to light. Ted Cruz wants you to feel completely safe while riding in the car with him, after he has set fire to your house. He does not want uncomfortable questions that will expose the real Cruz- one who would think nothing of destroying the country to propagate his ideology.
What a posse of charlatans and demagogues! I hope that the Networks do not get intimidated by these clowns.
What a posse of charlatans and demagogues! I hope that the Networks do not get intimidated by these clowns.
2
I believe that the purpose of the debates should be focused on hearing the opinions and plans of those seeking the presidency. They should not be a series of sound bites and 'gotchas'. The last debate and the ones before that had 'gotcha' questions.
I would like each potential candidate give a 10 minute presentation on 1) their immigration policy, 2) they position and what they would do about the tax morass, 3) how would you cut government spending, not in generalities, but in careful plans, 3) how would you partner with Congress and Senate, etc. No questions on why you said this 20 years ago, are you a feminist, were you a disaster at HP, etc.
Without a true discussion of real, concrete proposals, future debates will use 'gotchas' and more Trump promises to heal the world, all for ratings. I want to see a lot more of a thoughtful, intelligent responses like Rubio. So, make the debates substantive, or else advertisement them as a reality type of show.
I would like each potential candidate give a 10 minute presentation on 1) their immigration policy, 2) they position and what they would do about the tax morass, 3) how would you cut government spending, not in generalities, but in careful plans, 3) how would you partner with Congress and Senate, etc. No questions on why you said this 20 years ago, are you a feminist, were you a disaster at HP, etc.
Without a true discussion of real, concrete proposals, future debates will use 'gotchas' and more Trump promises to heal the world, all for ratings. I want to see a lot more of a thoughtful, intelligent responses like Rubio. So, make the debates substantive, or else advertisement them as a reality type of show.
If Republican Presidential candidates are not asked the difficult questions now, they will be unprepared for those same difficult questions when they go up against the Democratic nominee. It is in the Republican Party's interest to have the difficult questions asked now, not later. The Party's objection to difficult questions is seriously short-sighted.
2
The mainstream media must not be cowered into being silent. Candidates from both parties must be made to answer question on their character, their business dealings, their proposed policies, etc. This is not a beauty contest. The winner gets a shot at becoming the President of the United States and if they cannot stand being asked the hard questions, it immediately raises a red flag. If they prefer not to have such questions, they should withdraw their candidacy.
3
It seems to me that in past debates the moderators asked the questions and the candidates then answered and debated with each other. it wasn't up to the moderators to debate the candidates themselves "aka Candy Crowley" in 2012 and the moderators in last week's debate. Sure Ben Carson should have been prepared and yes they shouldn't complain. However, when the democratic candidates in their debate a few weeks ago offered free tuition among other goodies where where the moderator questions on those answers? The formats should be the same for both parties and the show should be about the candidates and not the moderators. The best moderators are those that simply ask the questions, not become part of the debate.
1
Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward." ~Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
Or more deviously ask questions in an insulting manner or to slander someone that they are even associated with the question. For example I could ask you in public "when did you get out of prison" knowing full well you were never in prison. Or I could say "isn't your campaign really a clown circus?" or something to that effect.
Our press is weak across the board. They are more interested in their own careers, lack knowledge of the questions they ask, are not prepared, their goal is not to inform the public with solid information and they are highly un-objective. Both the Rep and Dem debates could be much better.
Personally I would like to see much more in-depth discussions on topics and not sound bites.
Or more deviously ask questions in an insulting manner or to slander someone that they are even associated with the question. For example I could ask you in public "when did you get out of prison" knowing full well you were never in prison. Or I could say "isn't your campaign really a clown circus?" or something to that effect.
Our press is weak across the board. They are more interested in their own careers, lack knowledge of the questions they ask, are not prepared, their goal is not to inform the public with solid information and they are highly un-objective. Both the Rep and Dem debates could be much better.
Personally I would like to see much more in-depth discussions on topics and not sound bites.
2
The Republican field of candidates and the "gotcha " journalism they complain about are both merely symptoms of a much bigger problem: an American electorate that is either satisfied with or too complacent to demand better than the 'news as entertainment' format that now serves as the standard MO for virtually all mainstream media outlets, regardless of perceived or real political stripes. Until the American public demands that our news and opinion programs contain actual content and objective policy discussions, as opposed to mindless reporting on the the seemingly endless horse race that has become our presidential elections, as described by constant useless polling, how can we expect to have moderators who ask appropriately fair and difficult questions or candidates who are prepared and willing to answer them?
3
It is truly unfortunate that the GOP debates have been derailed by unscrupulous moderators trying to push their agendas in order to make a name for themselves. The losers are the voters who really do not get the opportunity to examine the candidates differences, plans and political philosophies. There is no doubt if one is truly objective that many of the questions were in fact "gotcha" and irrelevant in nature. Now if that is the way theses debates are going to be structured then in order to be fair, lets see the democratic debate set up the same way on Fox. Betcha that will never happen. It's obvious why.
2
In my opinion, the problem for the GOP candidates is not "gotcha" questions, which are hits at their candidacy apart from their actual policies. Looking back on the Democratic debate, the first question asked of Hillary Clinton was "Would you say anything to become President?" Hard questions such as these were asked of her and the other candidates, and these candidates did not whine that the media was out to get them. In reality, the GOP candidates cannot answer these hard questions because their answers for them are lacking. These “gotcha” questions are meant to be uncomfortable, but a candidate who has what it takes to become President of the United States should be prepared for these questions and respond with grace and good sense. After all, this stress is what being President is about. Further, it seems the candidates who often complain about the tone of these questions do not have experience in Washington. Ben Carson mumbles airy responses to his involvement with a questionable supplement company. Donald Trump cannot give a straight answer to is handling of past bankruptcies. If these candidates cannot handle difficult questions regarding their experiences before becoming a presidential candidate, they do not deserve to move on to being asked serious policy questions.
2
While I agree that the question put to Ben Carson is legitimate, it had no place in a debate that was supposed to be about economic issues. The real problem to me is that these forums are not debates at all. They are a hybrid of press conferences, preening and character assassination. The Democrats looked liked adults in their "debate." But I suppose people want to be entertained rather than informed.
2
This is very funny. Fox News owes its success entirely to it's "gotcha" questions. Shows like Hannity and O'Reilly and increasingly Kelly entirely structure their interview techniques on gotcha questions and either edit or do not allow a complete answer that reflects a broader viewpoint. The resulting content is aimed to satisfy the smug pre-conceptions of its audience.
CNBC's questions were hardly gotcha. If anything some were a little immature (cartoon candidate?) and others just showed how shallow and unprepared many of the front runners were about their own background and the issues at large.
Cruz holding the country to hostage with his unwillingness to work with other members of his own party less the other one, or Trump refusing to quantify how he will make his outlandish proposals work are the real gotchas.
CNBC's questions were hardly gotcha. If anything some were a little immature (cartoon candidate?) and others just showed how shallow and unprepared many of the front runners were about their own background and the issues at large.
Cruz holding the country to hostage with his unwillingness to work with other members of his own party less the other one, or Trump refusing to quantify how he will make his outlandish proposals work are the real gotchas.
51
Ben Carson and the rest of these people who are afraid to straightforwardly answer questions need to learn the difference between a debate and a political commercial.
What would they do if they were actually elected and assumed the responsibilities of the office? They would be constantly dodging questions and blaming the so-called main stream media so they could continue to avoid any scrutiny.
What would they do if they were actually elected and assumed the responsibilities of the office? They would be constantly dodging questions and blaming the so-called main stream media so they could continue to avoid any scrutiny.
39
Mr. Blow,
The Democrats should change the name of their party to the American Socialist Party. They no longer represent democratic values. And Hillary Clinton is their champion-this election period and unless the tenor of the American public prove otherwise. These debates should be on meaningful issues, not food fights. This country is a step away from going broke. We borrow money to give a foreign aid. We're tied up in meaningless wars while policing the world and yet can't police our own country. The media never reports these situations accurately. Instead they promote their own and often liberal agendas. People are sick and tired of the professional politicians who do nothing except look to get reelected. The media is less trustworthy. Your article is disingenuous.
The Democrats should change the name of their party to the American Socialist Party. They no longer represent democratic values. And Hillary Clinton is their champion-this election period and unless the tenor of the American public prove otherwise. These debates should be on meaningful issues, not food fights. This country is a step away from going broke. We borrow money to give a foreign aid. We're tied up in meaningless wars while policing the world and yet can't police our own country. The media never reports these situations accurately. Instead they promote their own and often liberal agendas. People are sick and tired of the professional politicians who do nothing except look to get reelected. The media is less trustworthy. Your article is disingenuous.
I watched the first Republican debate but not the second. I have decided that none of their candidates is worth my vote. I was interested in John Kasich until he told one man that he would have "to deal with it" if his social security check was lowered because the federal budget needed to be lowered. But not one word about raising taxes on the 1%. As for confronting Carson about his lies but not the "real liar, Hilary," I think that she has been confronted plenty, by Maureen Dowd and numerous stories in the Times and by the Bengazi committee in the gerrymandered House. Republicans think that their candidates are all truthful men and women of the people. Guess what? They aren't.
1
Why he or for that matter any candidate of either party gets the space they do in this newspaper may be good for circulation, but is a disservice to the readers as well as the larger society who would benefit with coverage, analysis and exposure of strategies such as the Congressional deadlock and the flawed use of arbitration both of which have a far greater bearing on our society than uncovering Dr. Carson's average joe failings or Mr. Trump's pate.
Ted Cruz's response that going forward, only certified conservatives should be allowed to moderate their debates codifies the essential problem with today's conservative movement. They have created and alternate reality, a Fox News, Rush Limbaugh bubble. Any facts that contradict the ideological imperative must be stricken from the dialogue. Truth is malleable, hence trillion dollar tax cuts do not impact the national debit or deficit, the ACA is slavery, and W. kept us safe. As a nation, we can only hope that this downward spiral will split the Republican Party, allowing a reality based, centrist governing coalition to emerge.
1
Oh poor Ben. Were Carson to become the nominee he would have to go one-on-one with Secretary Clinton. It won't matter who is asking the questions. Clinton will have to defend her email server and Benghazi (regardless of whether or not they are contrived controversies). Carson will have much to answer for. Clinton wants the tough questions. They give her the best opportunity to address problems. Carson has doctor syndrome.
2
Why does everyone persist in calling these events "debates?" They in no way resemble the standard dictionary definition of "debate" as a "discussion on a particular topic . . . in which opposing arguments are put forward." What they more resemble are TV talk shows in which scripted sound bites and potshots by the media predominate. Not once have I heard a moderator ask the candidates what, in view of their intense dislike of President Obama, would they have done to rescue the economy, discipline Wall Street for their transgressions, expand healthcare, and restore order in the Middle East. We are still left wondering whether any of them could answer those questions with substance and detail.
2
That the Republicans recently spent 9 hours interrogating Hillary Clinton in order to find the "gotcha" moment does not make me very sympathetic. However, I agree in principle that the media has played a large role in perverting America politics by promoting adversity over truth-finding. The fringe-right would never have gained power if the media had repeately gone after the factual inaccuracy of their claims.
4
The premiere example of overreaching in 'gotcha' questions is the latest of the Benghazi hearings -- which were a failure. It was a failure, though the assumed result that Republicans -- including Rubio -- parade around is "Hillary lied!" Fantasy 'gotcha,' in which the 'gotcha' is assumed in the question itself, has been their primary mode of operation throughout the Obama presidency, from "You lie!!" onward.
Republicans, the maestros of 'gotcha' politics fed by untruths, see all questioning of their own actions in the same terms. It would be a symptom of a guilty conscience, if they were to have a conscience.
Republicans, the maestros of 'gotcha' politics fed by untruths, see all questioning of their own actions in the same terms. It would be a symptom of a guilty conscience, if they were to have a conscience.
1
Maybe the "debating" should be removed from the debates. The term implies a reasoned exchange between the candidates, but the reality is shouting matches, interruptions, and random pejoratives about Obama and Clinton, aka just plain rudeness.
Like others have said, we want to know what the candidates would do abut the serious challenges facing the nation So give each candidate sole ownership of the stage for ten or fifteen minutes to speak on selected key issues. And hopefully the moderators would keep the speaker on track (having to herd only one cat at a time). At the end bring them all on stage for a no-nutrients-barred ten minute food fight.
Just a thought.
Like others have said, we want to know what the candidates would do abut the serious challenges facing the nation So give each candidate sole ownership of the stage for ten or fifteen minutes to speak on selected key issues. And hopefully the moderators would keep the speaker on track (having to herd only one cat at a time). At the end bring them all on stage for a no-nutrients-barred ten minute food fight.
Just a thought.
1
"Gotcha" questions certainly have their place in debate rhetoric, but not at the expense of questions that will ultimately determine the success and failure of a future president.
Charles, the debate was far more than "a bit of a mess." You have accurately captured the real essence of the problem with this statement: "But gotcha questions aren’t the Republicans’ problem. A frustration among Republican voters with political professionalism and a hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates is."
Substantive debate questions and answers are what we need: not "gotchas," although the debates may out of necessity, need to be made up of them to have any meaning or success at all.
Charles, the debate was far more than "a bit of a mess." You have accurately captured the real essence of the problem with this statement: "But gotcha questions aren’t the Republicans’ problem. A frustration among Republican voters with political professionalism and a hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates is."
Substantive debate questions and answers are what we need: not "gotchas," although the debates may out of necessity, need to be made up of them to have any meaning or success at all.
1
Sorry, gotcha is not just in the mind of the interviewee. A questioner can very well research and frame a question that the candidate would find embarrassing or impossible to answer. I don't think Katie Couric asking a vice presidential nominee what news outlets she reads is an out of bounds inquiry, but it was definitely a gotcha in the sense that Couric suspected she'd catch Palin with her reading glasses in the other room. It was successful, and it was a gotcha.
1
Sorry to disagree with Mr. Blow, but the media seems to take cheap shots based on easy "research," because the "reporters" neither understand the policy issues well enough, nor are willing or allowed to ask the really important questions, nor to then go on to question the "bumper sticker" answers.
Most journalism focuses on the trivial. Increasingly, it fails to inform. Absorbing journalism, we go from "low information" voters to "trivial information" voters.
The actual political policies of every one of these Republicans are dangerous to America and will seriously harm many people. But what most will remember from the debates is, this guy sold supplements, this one has wild hair and is rude, this one ignores his current job to pursue the new one, this one was once fired, another can't seem to get traction, etc, etc. CNBC did a poor job. And they're not alone.
Most journalism focuses on the trivial. Increasingly, it fails to inform. Absorbing journalism, we go from "low information" voters to "trivial information" voters.
The actual political policies of every one of these Republicans are dangerous to America and will seriously harm many people. But what most will remember from the debates is, this guy sold supplements, this one has wild hair and is rude, this one ignores his current job to pursue the new one, this one was once fired, another can't seem to get traction, etc, etc. CNBC did a poor job. And they're not alone.
I couldn't disagree more with this whole column by Blow today.
Gotcha has been developing for years as the polar opposite to the softball interview. Instead of fawning over a candidate and asking non-confrontational questions, we now have gonzo-journalism running rampant where its about the journalist ability to find a supposed distasteful or embarrassing incident to probe - relentlessly. Not all, but a good number of these incidents are mere distractions and not worthy of cursory review.
Further, a forum such as a debate to discuss Carson's business past is really ridiculous. It sheds little to nothing on the candidate given the abbreviated time to really probe the matter. Further, its distracts from the moderators and the voters being able to compare and contrast policies of the candidates. Carson's business dealing would be better dealt with through many other avenues - such as the Sunday news program.
The Republicans rightly highlight this Gotcha mentality since it is not isolated to the debates but to the overall tenor our "journalist" takes in a lot of their interaction with candidates and elected officials in general. Its about time the MSM was called out on this pernicious abuse of their responsibility.
Gotcha has been developing for years as the polar opposite to the softball interview. Instead of fawning over a candidate and asking non-confrontational questions, we now have gonzo-journalism running rampant where its about the journalist ability to find a supposed distasteful or embarrassing incident to probe - relentlessly. Not all, but a good number of these incidents are mere distractions and not worthy of cursory review.
Further, a forum such as a debate to discuss Carson's business past is really ridiculous. It sheds little to nothing on the candidate given the abbreviated time to really probe the matter. Further, its distracts from the moderators and the voters being able to compare and contrast policies of the candidates. Carson's business dealing would be better dealt with through many other avenues - such as the Sunday news program.
The Republicans rightly highlight this Gotcha mentality since it is not isolated to the debates but to the overall tenor our "journalist" takes in a lot of their interaction with candidates and elected officials in general. Its about time the MSM was called out on this pernicious abuse of their responsibility.
1
Whether Carson's endorsement of Mannatech and its products is tacit or explicit is beside the point. As a well known doctor, he should have avoided associating with companies that would use his name to promote their shady products. Dr. Oz, who endorsed products of questionable value, was grilled by Congress about his endorsements. So, what makes Dr. Carson think he should get a free pass on his endorsements?
As for "gotcha" questions, Time Magazine did a comparision of questions asked of Republican and Democratic candidates and left it to the reader to make the judgement: http://time.com/4094888/republican-debate-cnbc-questions/. One of the questions to Clinton was, "Will you say anything to get elected?" II seems to me that the Republicans do protest a bit much.
As for "gotcha" questions, Time Magazine did a comparision of questions asked of Republican and Democratic candidates and left it to the reader to make the judgement: http://time.com/4094888/republican-debate-cnbc-questions/. One of the questions to Clinton was, "Will you say anything to get elected?" II seems to me that the Republicans do protest a bit much.
2
I think to make all debates fair for either party is to not have a live audience there cheering on any answer the candidate gives. As long as the answer is what the audience wants to hear from that particular candidate no matter how false it is it allows the candidate enough time to change the subject. Marco Rubio benefited because of the live audience more than anyone in the last debate.
1
Not sure why the Republican candidates are in such a dither about the "gotcha" questions. I didn't hear one straight answer from any of them on any question, good or bad. I wish the moderators would simply insist on answers instead of allowing unrelated rambling diatribes. It's like the questions don't matter anyway. The candidates provide an "answer" to a question that wasn't even asked. It's a strange alternate reality.
1
A bit of a mixed metaphor there at the end, but yes it seems the Republicans desperately want to elude any tough questions out of fear they will actually have to explain themselves. Carson has no business being on the stage at all. He is some kind of "everyman" to religious conservatives desperate to see one of their own in the White House, regardless of the fact he knows nothing about what it takes to be President or any government official for that matter. Why not start at the civic level, say Detroit, if he is so concerned with the forces shaping society.
2
any question that is avoided in the primaries (because its not nice) is certainly going to be asked during the general election, I would want to know my candidate can handle those questions before I gave him/her the nomination.
2
charles blow, ever-lowering the bar…. even liberal observers note the debacle that was CNBC's moderation. but not blow. the debate was just a "bit of a mess." what a supplicant. let's go further. this rag you write for polled readers post-debate, to offer the most ridiculous statement made by a republican candidate during the debate. was there such a polling after hillary clinton's defacto coronation at the hands of her puppet adversaries? don't think so, blow.
you, and this formerly great newspaper, are nothing but a disgrace.
you, and this formerly great newspaper, are nothing but a disgrace.
Apparently the definition of a "gotcha" question is anything that involves an objective answer. Republicans simply don't do objective. Objectivity requires knowledge of reality, something that most Republicans resent. It's why Texas tried to outlaw the teaching of critical thinking. Reason is, after all, the enemy of faith, said Martin Luther.
13
If any part of the media is disqualified because they have asked embarrassing questions in these debates, then the RNC is guilty of protecting dishonest candidates who do not wish to be held to account for anything in their past experiences and activities. In the absence of clear policy statements in their speeches, the past is the only basis on which to judge a candidate for any office, but especially the Presidency. The tax cuts that all Republican candidates have favored lack a sound basis, use defective math, displaying that they too have a poor grasp of mathematics, or they not ashamed of spouting pure nonsense, in the hope that their backers won't think it through or notice.
7
I didn't watch this most recent debate (don't have cable, and there's an issue for another column), but I did watch one of the previous debates where I thought that many of the questions were of questionable merit. They were not at all related to policies or a vision, but ones designed to stir up contention among the debaters. Questions along the lines of "What did you think of how Mr. Trump insulted you?" are most definitely not examples of stellar journalism, and in that sense, I believe the Republican candidates have a point. However, Mr. Carson did not phrase his complaint as "they didn't ask me about my tax policy", but as a "gotcha" question, so ultimately his whining and that of his fellow candidates seem to be exactly as Mr. Blow portrays them - an excuse to avoid a difficult question.
I notice they haven't asked Anderson Cooper and his cohorts to moderate the next debate.
I notice they haven't asked Anderson Cooper and his cohorts to moderate the next debate.
5
One hopes that the networks will not cater to whatever emerges from the GOP complaint sessions. Let these candidates speak only to one another and to audiences who already agree with them--that seems to be their comfort zone. Has anyone handed these folks a copy of the debate transcript and asked for specificity on which questions were of the "gotcha" variety?
7
Bernie Sanders would have no trouble answering any of these questions. That's because he's honest, consistent, forthright, eloquent, and - he has serious answers and well-reasoned facts and policies, constructed over the course of a lifetime to respond with. GOP candidates have none of these qualities, and respond with ad hoc attacks, blather, righteous indignation, and more blather.
I mean, really. Who can listen to this crapola with a straight face? Some of the American people are not stupid.
I mean, really. Who can listen to this crapola with a straight face? Some of the American people are not stupid.
20
Both "sides" in the "debate" process are selfishly short-changing the voters by putting their own itinerary first over the dissemination of any truly valuable information.
We err when we expect anything other than entertainment from television.
We err when we expect anything other than entertainment from television.
4
Carson's main selling points as a candidate are that his education as a neurosurgeon and his personal character. His initial support of Mannatech calls his medical knowledge into question, while his continued support of it puts his character in question, as does his attempts to deny his connections to Mannatech during the debate. It is quite understandable that he would try to pretend it is a non-issue.
12
Maybe the Republicans can request to get the questions a month in advance.
They can then have their speech writers create a beautiful response straight from a Hollywood script.
It is amazing how much this Party complains, they even rearranged voting districts to win more elections. They are coming apart at the seams.
They can then have their speech writers create a beautiful response straight from a Hollywood script.
It is amazing how much this Party complains, they even rearranged voting districts to win more elections. They are coming apart at the seams.
16
Just because the candidates didn't like the questions doesn't mean any of them could have turned the question into an opportunity to discuss what they wanted to. They do this all the time in other venues so the attack on the media this debate was nothing more than an opportunity to discuss real issues.
To me, it's diversion strategy at its best and the Republicans won. Rather than reveal the shortcomings of their own skills, they attack the messengers.
To me, it's diversion strategy at its best and the Republicans won. Rather than reveal the shortcomings of their own skills, they attack the messengers.
7
The candidates have a right to a forum where they can put their best foot forward, and their call now for improvements, including more professional moderators, is valid. However, if during the debate they expose their weaknesses, that isn't "gotcha," that's letting The People see what we need to see to make an informed decision.
4
There are problems with the debate format and some of the questions. But the fundamental problem is with the Republican candidates - the elephant in the room the Republicans dare not confront. Hence they must ever be increasingly strident about anything else - demonstrating how bankrupt they are of ideas.
7
The moderators did a terrible job because they spent the entire time trying to validate and, thereby, promote their preconceptions. Their mindset is derived from the predominant media view that the general public isn't capable of drawing "the right" conclusions if left to examine the facts for themselves. This isn't a matter of opinion but fact. Back in the 60s journalism schools abandoned the reporting of fact embracing a concept called interpretative journalism. Sadly, the movement has led to an arrogance and pretentiousness that knows no bounds.
1
A few of the Republican candidates, including Trump and Carson, don't seem to be capable of truthfully or intelligently answering any substantive questions about policy. When they do speak about policy they make ridiculous statements like "no Muslim can be President", or "send 11 million people back to Mexico and build a giant wall and send the bill to Mexico". But then when the media dumbs down the questions to their level of competence by asking about their relationships, background, opinions on unimportant matters, they cry foul. If I were the RNC, I would worry more about the answers and statements coming from the candidates than the silly questions being asked by the media.
7
Did Carson violate any law? He's a private citizen and can sell or donate his services to companies. Mannatech has faced some legal scrutiny about some of its claims but as far as I am aware, no indictments have been handed down nor has Carson been accused of wrong doing.
In contrast, let's look at HRC. We know she's under investigation by the FBI in relationship to her handling of sensitive documents. We also know that the Clinton foundation may have some issues, But, did Anderson Cooper raise any of these issues with HRC during the debate. He did ask about the e-mails, but Bernie quickly deflected that question for her and AC did not follow up. Nor did he ask about foreign policy issues, Benghazi or the foundation. It was basically a love fest for HRC.
Contrast that to all the Republican debates where the questioners, even FOX, attacked the candidates and tried to incite internecine warfare. CNN in particular was amateur hour, asking personal questions and ignoring policy issues. It was clearly biased and the Republicans are right to be upset as CNBC did not adhere to the agreed upon topic (the economy)
Basically, moderators should not be seen and rarely heard. Long preambles to a question are a dead giveaway that the question is loaded. A fair question -- Mr. Trump, how would you fix the economy. Unfair, Mr. Trump given your past bankruptcies...." But apparently activist journalists only believe they are doing their job if they attack the enemy.
In contrast, let's look at HRC. We know she's under investigation by the FBI in relationship to her handling of sensitive documents. We also know that the Clinton foundation may have some issues, But, did Anderson Cooper raise any of these issues with HRC during the debate. He did ask about the e-mails, but Bernie quickly deflected that question for her and AC did not follow up. Nor did he ask about foreign policy issues, Benghazi or the foundation. It was basically a love fest for HRC.
Contrast that to all the Republican debates where the questioners, even FOX, attacked the candidates and tried to incite internecine warfare. CNN in particular was amateur hour, asking personal questions and ignoring policy issues. It was clearly biased and the Republicans are right to be upset as CNBC did not adhere to the agreed upon topic (the economy)
Basically, moderators should not be seen and rarely heard. Long preambles to a question are a dead giveaway that the question is loaded. A fair question -- Mr. Trump, how would you fix the economy. Unfair, Mr. Trump given your past bankruptcies...." But apparently activist journalists only believe they are doing their job if they attack the enemy.
1
Exactly correct about HRC. How about a debate question with respect to the $500k speaking fee from the Russian bank who financed Russian purchases of U.S. Uranium mines? How about we replay the 2008 debates and we hear Obama answering questions about starting his political career in the living room of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Those commenting here that media bias does not exist are clueless, it is blatant and now finally exposed.
HRC was grilled with for 11 hours by a partisan house committee. Many "gotcha" questions and she handled them all. She was a Woman among boys and girls. Carson can't even admit that he endorsed and spoke for this product that had dubious claims.
If the repubs can't take it then that speaks to their mettle.
If the repubs can't take it then that speaks to their mettle.
2
But, did Anderson Cooper raise any of these issues with HRC during the debate. He did ask about the e-mails, but Bernie quickly deflected that question for her and AC did not follow up. Nor did he ask about foreign policy issues, Benghazi or the foundation. It was basically a love fest for HRC.
===============
Of course not. Cooper is a member of the Clinton Global Initiative
===============
Of course not. Cooper is a member of the Clinton Global Initiative
I'm just done with watching the Republican debates. I've watched all of them so far hoping to see someone who could possibly fill the office of the Presidency and have come up empty every time. If they're not outright liars, then they are avoiders. I still have no idea how any of them would handle foreign policy. I haven't seen any credible answers to any of the questions asked. Yes, the questions were lame but they could not even answer them directly most of the time.
4
The republican candidates (or most republicans for that matter) just cannot handle the truth. My 10 minutes of watching the debate was mostly listening to them bash Obama. They lack any ability to directly address a question with an answer that involves taking responsibility, showing insight, or demonstrating integrity. Reasonable republicans should be ashamed and very worried.
12
There's an overriding issue here that goes far beyond the petty, pathetic protestations of the GOP candidates.
It's the First Amendment. Freedom of the press. And the attempt of these candidates to stifle that freedom, to bully and intimidate networks into acceding to the demands that they control the press, and the debate content, or else.
Something has gone radically wrong with the GOP since Reagan's election. Reagan gave conservatives AND right wing crazies sudden power. The John Birchers, Minutemen and Goldwater were no longer a joke.They were the ruling elite.
I think from then on they believe(d) they owned the nation.
Then Bill Clinton beat Bush, and they weren't going to stand for it.
The Clinton presidency was eight years pf persecution of the Clintons at taxpayer expense, culminating in a travesty of an impeachment trial, and a Ken Starr report that found -- nothing.
In 2000 Al Gore beat George W., but with the help of Jeb, Florida and Court conservatives, they gave the win to Bush. After 8 years of disastrous reign, we elected Obama twice -- something else the GOP couldn't tolerate. Instead of endless investigations, they refused to compromise, shut down the government, and acted like spoiled brats.
Money didn't beat Obama. Nor did Voter ID laws What's left? Demonize the media, condemn a free press, and try to control debate content.
Let's hope the networks, won't cave to their demands. If they do, then we're really finished.
Gotcha, First Amendment!
It's the First Amendment. Freedom of the press. And the attempt of these candidates to stifle that freedom, to bully and intimidate networks into acceding to the demands that they control the press, and the debate content, or else.
Something has gone radically wrong with the GOP since Reagan's election. Reagan gave conservatives AND right wing crazies sudden power. The John Birchers, Minutemen and Goldwater were no longer a joke.They were the ruling elite.
I think from then on they believe(d) they owned the nation.
Then Bill Clinton beat Bush, and they weren't going to stand for it.
The Clinton presidency was eight years pf persecution of the Clintons at taxpayer expense, culminating in a travesty of an impeachment trial, and a Ken Starr report that found -- nothing.
In 2000 Al Gore beat George W., but with the help of Jeb, Florida and Court conservatives, they gave the win to Bush. After 8 years of disastrous reign, we elected Obama twice -- something else the GOP couldn't tolerate. Instead of endless investigations, they refused to compromise, shut down the government, and acted like spoiled brats.
Money didn't beat Obama. Nor did Voter ID laws What's left? Demonize the media, condemn a free press, and try to control debate content.
Let's hope the networks, won't cave to their demands. If they do, then we're really finished.
Gotcha, First Amendment!
19
As a moderate Republican, I am embarrassed that Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are appealing to GOP voters. Hard questions that expose their vacuousness are fine with me. I believe Blow and others are missing, or obscuring, the real problem here; and that is that the Democrats are not being treated the same way. GOP candidates get "gotcha" questions, Hillary gets "softball" questions. The real objective here is TV ratings, and a Hillary presidency.
To date, there has been one Democratic candidate debate, as opposed to three, I think, Republican debates. I don't think the Fox moderators hit the Republican candidates with particularly difficult questions, so your comment that it is only Ms. Clinton has been on the receiving end of nothing more than "softball" questions is premature at best. Further, the Republican candidates' inability to prepare for and answer these alleged "gotcha" questions in a satisfactory manner clearly demonstrates their inability to think on their feet.
1
Ms. Clinton stood up to an 11-hour prosecution by her political enemies that set out to destroy her candidacy, and she performed excellently without a single complaint from her.
The Republican candidates are throwing a collective temper tantrum because some reporters asked them a few questions they didn't care for and expected them to talk about more than just the issues they cared about.
The Republican candidates are throwing a collective temper tantrum because some reporters asked them a few questions they didn't care for and expected them to talk about more than just the issues they cared about.
20
After watching Hillary maintain poise and offer complete answers throughout what can only be considered 8 hours of "gotcha" questions, the Republican's refusal to answer valid questions during a debate makes them look really weak by comparison. If they can't handle answering questions about parts of their record that aren't popular, then it's clear these guys don't have the guts to be President and wouldn't be honest while in office. I was ambivalent on Hillary until the Benghazi committee hearing and now have even more respect for herafter seeing these candidates whine about questions they don't want to answer.
22
I expect this kind of attack from Charles - he is a liberal shill - just like Paul Krugman, and most of the NYTimes - what I read this article for are the "reader" comments - can people think for themselves or just take their cues from complete partisans, ala Mr Blow...not surprisingly, there is a preponderance of those who clearly read CB to confirm their own bias lens of things; however, there is a growing list of people who can actually tie their shoes and talk at same time. What I am getting at is that no objective person can honestly watch the treatment the GOP gets in these debates, contrast that with the white gloves Dems get in these same circumstances, and not see the bias in the general media. In the case of CB's vapid article trying to denounce Ben Carson , again, anyone paying any attention to Ben Carson, his life, his history, and most importantly his character, would see an incredible person of immense character and integrity - the kind that we actually need in politics today. Full disclosure, I don't think he'd make a strong President due to his soft spoken character; however, he'd make an amazing cabinet member in our flailing govt today. I truly hope more and more voting Americans are waking out of the sleep walking we have been in for decades and realize that the media is not objective, the media is spinning reality to suit their needs/biases, the media is exemplified by exactly what Charles Blow writes here today - pure ad hominem attack.
2
White glove treatment of democrats?
Did you watch Hillary being grilled for eleven hours by a hostile group of republicans?
Or do you think asking republicans hard questions during a debate for the highest job on the land is unfair? how else are we the voting public to know what they would do as president? The. Candidates don't get to call the shots when it comes to asking questions during a public debate.
Did you watch Hillary being grilled for eleven hours by a hostile group of republicans?
Or do you think asking republicans hard questions during a debate for the highest job on the land is unfair? how else are we the voting public to know what they would do as president? The. Candidates don't get to call the shots when it comes to asking questions during a public debate.
2
So many words from you to say so little.
Whining, as Republicans are wont to do, should not be considered political discourse.
Whining, as Republicans are wont to do, should not be considered political discourse.
2
I have no issues with "gotcha" questions if it prevents us getting a "gotcha" administraton taking us down the trail of more war, more tax breaks for billionaires, changes in social security and medicare and more lies. Candidates worried about these questions do not want to answer the questions. They turn everything back around to themselves. Let's have more "gotcha" questions, not less. Quit the whine machine Republicans.
10
Considering the amount of taxpayer money Republicans have spent on 'gotcha' witch hunts of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, starting with Whitewater, the Arkansas Project, and now Benghazi, to listen to them whine about being subjected to "gotcha" questions in a debate is a bit chafing.
How much, though, is the American public responsible or the vapidity of the vetting process of candidates? Republicans, in this campaign season, have shown, by polls, that the more a candidate whines and engages in personality politics, attacks on liberals and the media, the higher their polls go. Donald Trump's approval only began sinking when he actually discussed a policy matter, that of hedge-fund taxes. In the 1990s, the president was warning us about the threat facing us by a group called al Qaeda. Americans were more interested, and in fact wrapt, by his personal life and the "gotcha!" inquisition directed at him. Maybe if we get more serious, so will the TV "news" media, as they used to be, when they were what conservatives call "the liberal media" and actually did its job.
How much, though, is the American public responsible or the vapidity of the vetting process of candidates? Republicans, in this campaign season, have shown, by polls, that the more a candidate whines and engages in personality politics, attacks on liberals and the media, the higher their polls go. Donald Trump's approval only began sinking when he actually discussed a policy matter, that of hedge-fund taxes. In the 1990s, the president was warning us about the threat facing us by a group called al Qaeda. Americans were more interested, and in fact wrapt, by his personal life and the "gotcha!" inquisition directed at him. Maybe if we get more serious, so will the TV "news" media, as they used to be, when they were what conservatives call "the liberal media" and actually did its job.
11
I'm a staunch Democrat, but on this point I agree with the candidates. Online fantasy? Mannatech? Many of the questions were stupid. Far more revealing was Carson's rambling answer about Medicare. He's a renowed doctor and he doesn't have a concise, clear statement of his Medicare plan?
4
"He's a renowed doctor".....Carson is a doctor. His association with Mannatech borders on quackery. When a doctor flirts with quackery it brings into question the depth of their professional judgment. If their professional judgment is in doubt why would they be considered as presidential material?
14
If the candidates choose their moderators they will simply be giving themselves more rope with which to hang themselves. Imagine what outrageous things they might be asked and what outrageous answers they might feel compelled to give if they are answering only to the True Believers. Sounds like a disaster in the making for the general election. Get the popcorn!
4
The article and comments certainly clear this up. Partisan Democrat writers and readers think the debate was fair and the questions were reasonable. Wonderfully informative.
3
A "gotcha" question is a question that asks someone to explain her or his past conduct or votes. There is not a thing wrong with that.
4
I get the feeling that Carson has never watched a debate or paid attention to politics until very recently.
His statements of what he wants amount to wanting debates to be stump speeches with all the other candidates lined up on a stage and taking turns.
His statements of what he wants amount to wanting debates to be stump speeches with all the other candidates lined up on a stage and taking turns.
3
What we have here, folks, is a mainstream media insider defending the status quo. First, we all know the NYT is in the pocket of whatever democrat (preferably Hillary) candidate runs against the GOP survivor candidate. This particular column is disingenuous because the problem was not the "gotcha" questions; it was the total lack of follow-up or any sort of honest professional effort to produce coherent answers. Like it or not, Chris Christie was right to call out John Harwood for arguing instead of questioning; Marco Rubio, the mainstream media's darling got away with out-and-out lies. No follow-up came from any of the moderators to expose Rubio's deceptions. I am glad the candidates are rebelling against the current debate format and conduct. Some of the individuals may be obnoxious and mere me-to, but on this one, they are right. The NY Times and its ilk are being called out because they failed their professional responsibilities.
2
While the Republicans seem as bad as they seem... which is pretty bad, It seems to me that the moderators were pretty lame. I study very controversial subjects including the 3 Forbidden Questions in Science. I talk to people all the time about things that are not supposed to be talked about... and there is an art to it. The questions may have been appropriate and topics pertinent, but the phraseology was absolutely lame. In these situations, you do never utter something that can be construed as offensive any more than you would state your question ambiguously. You are just giving the person a free out that is the last thing you want to do. Courtesy should be exaggerated in a situation like that. Heck flattery is appropriate. The moderator should think of themselves as a diplomat in a critical, potentially hostile situation with lives on the line. If the person you are questioning can construe insult or twist what you said, you said it wrong. In this case, when asking a question the moderator should have known the correct answer, most likely answers from the candidate, expected answers from others and the responses to those answers. Maybe the candidates are worse than amateurish, but the moderators were amateurish as well.
A lot of times, a person may have trouble putting their thoughts into words. A person with skill can help them hugely. Mis-direction of questions can lead to accurate answers. Phrase the questions the way the candidates did. Not from those moderators...
A lot of times, a person may have trouble putting their thoughts into words. A person with skill can help them hugely. Mis-direction of questions can lead to accurate answers. Phrase the questions the way the candidates did. Not from those moderators...
1
The GOP has cynically used canned memes related to God, guns, and gays to hoodwink low-information voters via the Southern strategy for a generation-plus to vote against their own interests. That triumvirate of emotional manipulation has run its course. During this voting cycle their strategy is to raise a new bogey man to the pinnacle: the Media. That will get the GOP rabble to the polls to vote against their best interest again. 'Stupid is as stupid does...'
3
"Of the nontraditional lot, there is a former neurosurgeon whose strategy seems to be to appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur, a real-estate mogul full of bluster and bawdiness, and a fired C.E.O. engaged in a breathtaking example of pink-slip revisionism."
Wish I'd written that! ;-)
Wish I'd written that! ;-)
4
Mr. Blow said, "A frustration among Republican voters with political professionalism and a hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates is the problem."
I wish that were the case. Dr. Carson passed through here for a book signing and the people are all ga-ga about it.
Time to move to Europe.
I wish that were the case. Dr. Carson passed through here for a book signing and the people are all ga-ga about it.
Time to move to Europe.
2
They should let The Donald re-enact his role on the Apprentice as the boss and let all the candidates explain why he should pick them for president. The winner would then face The Donald in a final round of elimination, judged by the RNC. Wouldn't that be a really cool thing? The media would be absolved of being blamed for gatchya questions and it would be even more of a media event with ratings sky-rocketing! Think of how much money would be pouring in from advertising! Isn't that what this all about anyway?
1
Whining like spoiled brats about the fairness of debate questions might seem like a winning strategy for the beleaguered GOTP but what if one these mewling wimps wins the White House?
Other world leaders, Putin pops to mind, are going to correctly assume this new weak willed rightist President/crybaby will be easily to intimidate and manipulate on the world stage.
If these rightist prima donnas are flustered by CNBC journalists how the hell are they going to deal with real threats?
It's true what they say, blue-bloods tire easily...and the GOTP simply oozes with blue-bloods.
Other world leaders, Putin pops to mind, are going to correctly assume this new weak willed rightist President/crybaby will be easily to intimidate and manipulate on the world stage.
If these rightist prima donnas are flustered by CNBC journalists how the hell are they going to deal with real threats?
It's true what they say, blue-bloods tire easily...and the GOTP simply oozes with blue-bloods.
5
america is th titanic just after collision w th iceberg
those on th upper decks didnt even know there was a problem
and went merrily on their way
but in th end th ship foundered and sank and most drowned
th lifeboats re for th rich
those on th upper decks didnt even know there was a problem
and went merrily on their way
but in th end th ship foundered and sank and most drowned
th lifeboats re for th rich
3
If Republicans can't handle what they consider "gotcha" questions, then they certainly can't handle the presidency of the United States.
6
I for one would like to have questions that clarify policy positions. Is that too much to ask? Moderators in both party debates failed to do this. The media is not doing their job.
2
Why complain about the questions? Their answers make no attempt to answer the question asked. They just pivot to their own talking points.
8
Republicans are lost in an alternative orbit!
Democrats will win the Presidency for the next several decades.
Middle class Americans see no future for a political party that doubles down on their present and future ability to thrive as citizens. Republican candidates blame the media rather than accept reality ... Policies that benefit corporations and exclude the citizenry are not inviting. Uneducated voters might be lured by the hype,but people with common sense will cast a vote for a message that benefits their reality.
Privatizing education, i.e. Charter schools , Insurance owned/ operated-hospitals , budget cuts for higher education , belittling teachers,crazy testing schedules for a nation of students, all in the guise of better educated workforce..When it's about making more dollars selling school systems new texts and test, higher profits for the corporate cronies ,corporations and CEO's with lobbyist that cater to mega rich interest...Republicans aren't operating in the interest of the average American.
Thank goodness for journalist TV and print medium that inform and report both sides of issues.
Democrats will win the Presidency for the next several decades.
Middle class Americans see no future for a political party that doubles down on their present and future ability to thrive as citizens. Republican candidates blame the media rather than accept reality ... Policies that benefit corporations and exclude the citizenry are not inviting. Uneducated voters might be lured by the hype,but people with common sense will cast a vote for a message that benefits their reality.
Privatizing education, i.e. Charter schools , Insurance owned/ operated-hospitals , budget cuts for higher education , belittling teachers,crazy testing schedules for a nation of students, all in the guise of better educated workforce..When it's about making more dollars selling school systems new texts and test, higher profits for the corporate cronies ,corporations and CEO's with lobbyist that cater to mega rich interest...Republicans aren't operating in the interest of the average American.
Thank goodness for journalist TV and print medium that inform and report both sides of issues.
2
Just exactly what kind of debate format (or tone) could possibly suit a bunch of devious ideologue blowhards, and at the same time be of any real benefit to our democracy?
6
Mr. Blow would be slobbering at Carson's feet if he were a Democrat who insisted that minorities were too dumb to function without the government holding their hands. The idea that minorities are just as capable as anyone else just kills his feeling of superiority over his own race. Compare his privileged background with that of Dr. Carson. Compare the stature of his college with that of Dr. Carson. This is just a petty little man who just wishes he was good enough to shine Dr. Carson's shoes.
2
The other night, Fox's Megyn Kelly was clucking with two cheerleaders about CNBC'S anti-Republican bias, bemoaning that any news organization demonstrate bias. This from the nation's number one news source, whose daily sound bites are generated by their ex-Republican chair/news president. These "unbiased" sound bites are repeated throughout Fox's broadcast day/night, their truthfulness unvetted, but substantiated via the sheer volume of duplicitous punditry. The slimy ball is passed from Kelly to Bill O,Reilly, to Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren (to name only a few) willing and able to create a conspiratorial illusion that it is They who must protect us from bias, welfare cheats, Christmas haters, gun control and run-amok immigration. That their clown patrol of candidates can't or won't answer substantive questions now becomes secondary to this ephemeral bias from a responsible news service.
5
It will be a depressingly low point in the history of the USA if one of these Republican candidates makes it into the White House. Terrorists could not be more effective in bringing down this country than the Republican party.
3
There is no such thing as a "gotcha" question. These candidates are being vetted for the presidency. They should be able to answer any question that comes their way.
6
Republican "attacks on the mainstream media" are simply Republicans' whining to defend themselves against questions they don't want or aren't prepared to answer.
Where is courage in the GOP?
It's not there.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has never refused to answer a question. Hillary Clinton amazingly stood up to more than 8 hours of questions from those who actually were trying to "get her". The inquisitioners were desperately hoping to cause her to utter any sound bite that they could use to hurt her during this election.
Courage lies in the Democratic Party.
Where is courage in the GOP?
It's not there.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has never refused to answer a question. Hillary Clinton amazingly stood up to more than 8 hours of questions from those who actually were trying to "get her". The inquisitioners were desperately hoping to cause her to utter any sound bite that they could use to hurt her during this election.
Courage lies in the Democratic Party.
9
The really scary part is that one of these flawed and extremist candidates might become president... One can only hope for the collapse of the party with a new more competent party rising from its ashes. Denying science, ignoring past performance and embracing religious extremism does not help the country
3
A "gotcha" question is one intended not so much to expose a candidates policies, as to elevate the profile of the moderator.
This is one of the concerns I have about media; that journalists are looking for an opportunity to make themselves the news story in an attempt at self-promotion.
This is one of the concerns I have about media; that journalists are looking for an opportunity to make themselves the news story in an attempt at self-promotion.
3
The Republican candidates are bad enough on their own (de)merits. The sneering insults offered as questions by the CNBC moderators only served to give Republican voters one more "undeniable proof" that they needn't pay attention to any information whatsoever from the real world
1
Some commentators are suggesting using moderators with a proven positive attitude toward Republicans. What is really needed is a return to debates run by the League of Women Voters. They work hard at impartiality and are not trying to get good ratings for the networks.
9
It's ironic that the one candidate who is the least able to answer any question on the fly--whether a gotcha question or not--is Ben Carson and it is his campaign that is the ringleader in the current move by the campaigns to discredit and ultimately control the media.
Good grief. If Ben Carson had any sense of world history, he would know that it's a totalitarian gesture to want to control what's reported about you when the media seek to lay your weaknesses bare. In his world what Ben Carson says about his policies and his endorsement history is True Because I Say So.
This is another step downwards from dirty tricks and Swiftboating. The two GOP front runners are both operating a campaign of self endorsement and self vouching.
Let's not let them get away with it. Sarah Palin managed to make the MSM lay off her or soft ball her in the end, and that's a terrible precedent. Whining that the questions are unfair is one way to play it, but it's a chilling strategy that shouldn't be tolerated by our 4th estate.
Good grief. If Ben Carson had any sense of world history, he would know that it's a totalitarian gesture to want to control what's reported about you when the media seek to lay your weaknesses bare. In his world what Ben Carson says about his policies and his endorsement history is True Because I Say So.
This is another step downwards from dirty tricks and Swiftboating. The two GOP front runners are both operating a campaign of self endorsement and self vouching.
Let's not let them get away with it. Sarah Palin managed to make the MSM lay off her or soft ball her in the end, and that's a terrible precedent. Whining that the questions are unfair is one way to play it, but it's a chilling strategy that shouldn't be tolerated by our 4th estate.
5
Look, this is very simple.
The Republican party is by definition the right party and represents the interests of anyone who matters.
Therefore it is the responsibility of all television networks to provide two to three hours of unrestricted, advertising-free prime time television to allow all their candidates to say whatever they want to say, unchallenged by anyone who thinks that there are other valid viewpoints.
Why don't those main-stream media people understand this?
The Republican party is by definition the right party and represents the interests of anyone who matters.
Therefore it is the responsibility of all television networks to provide two to three hours of unrestricted, advertising-free prime time television to allow all their candidates to say whatever they want to say, unchallenged by anyone who thinks that there are other valid viewpoints.
Why don't those main-stream media people understand this?
3
The Republican conflict with the Media is indigenous to its methodology. The Media is all about the pursuit of facts and evidence, the Republican Party is all about Dogma and Demonization. Those inconvenient things called facts challenge dogma. That sets up an inevitable clash between the fact authenticators and the fact deniers.Does Global warming sound familiar? The other Republican methodology is Demonization. Look at their serial attacks on Barack Obama. How many times did Hillary Clinton get mentioned in the CNBC debate? When they attack the Media they can utilize both their political algorithms. The Republicans can quench their obsessive need to Demonize and attack those whose use of facts undermines their unreasoned Dogma.
3
Since the League of Women Voters was taken off of running the debates we have seen a conversion to less and less informative and more and more theater. Relying on the sound bytes and debates to make a decision is unreliable so I guess we voters have to pay attention to actual actions and the candidates policy statements....like that is gonna happen.
2
What about the first debate when the Fox commentator asked all the candidates if they would raise their hand if they might be unwilling to to support the Republican candidate if it wasn't them. To his credit Trump handled that question well and bravely raised his hand. Wasn't that a gotcha question? Yet no one complained. Megan Kelly also had a gotcha moment later with Trump and was attacked by him. Almost everyone came to Kelly's defense. Why is it that the conservative media can conduct a debate without being attacked, but the less conservative media is attracted for asking similar questions? Could it be that the real bias is in the people complaining?
1
So let's have the republican field write up their own questions for the pre selected media to ask them -- rather than putting the next media panel or moderators (which must be GOP-approved anyway) through the wasted effort of composing questions which must then be submitted for the candidates' approval. Or better yet, let the candidates ask and answer their own questions. Or just give stump speeches. That's pretty much what we're getting anyway.
2
The Republicans can complain because they are right. The "gotcha" questions were asked in the Democratic Party debate and Anderson Cooper definitely tried to get the candidates to mix it up.
The thing that is hard to understand is why the media would prefer to mix it up for short term ratings when they have a whole year of election coverage ahead of them. Why not showcase their own talking heads in a way that might draw in some long term viewers in? Instead of encouraging their moderators to be chippy, disrespectful and partial why not allow them to present as someone a person might actually want to listen to on the top news story of the next 12 months? The election is a year away: that's a lot of viewing.
The thing that is hard to understand is why the media would prefer to mix it up for short term ratings when they have a whole year of election coverage ahead of them. Why not showcase their own talking heads in a way that might draw in some long term viewers in? Instead of encouraging their moderators to be chippy, disrespectful and partial why not allow them to present as someone a person might actually want to listen to on the top news story of the next 12 months? The election is a year away: that's a lot of viewing.
"Gotcha" Charles Blow.
Your conspicuous failure to mention that Carson stated, during the debate ,that he had given several paid speeches for Mannatech is puroisely misleading.
The overwhelming partisan need to damage Carson while sacrificing intellectual honesty is ugly.
Without credibility, a journalist has no reason to exist.
Your conspicuous failure to mention that Carson stated, during the debate ,that he had given several paid speeches for Mannatech is puroisely misleading.
The overwhelming partisan need to damage Carson while sacrificing intellectual honesty is ugly.
Without credibility, a journalist has no reason to exist.
1
@jck Speaking of intellectual honesty, by what process of intellect does Dr. Carson admit that he gives paid speeches for a company whose product he uses, and on whose website he allows his image to appear, but then calls "absolutely absurd" and "total propaganda" the suggestion that he has any involvement or relationship with that company? I'm sure there is an intellectual process involved in Dr. Carson's response to the Mannatech question, but it doesn't seem like one that involves much honesty.
1
How about, next time, an 11-hour "gotcha" question, where the tender republicans are on the hot seat before a writhingly tendentious panel? "Tough as Hillary" should become their motto.
5
Down with freedom of the press! Vote Republican.
5
These weren't gotcha questions, nor were they difficult to answer. They were hit questions wholly designed to make people look bad. "How do you defend that criticism?" is different than "Does this mean you can't lead?", or "Is this a comic book sideshow?". Charles Blow is intellectually dishonest or unequipped as shown by all media outlets condemning CNBC.
1
I would like to see Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity moderate the next Democrat debate. Any objections?
2
I vote for bringing back the League of Women voters.
16
To borrow a bon mot currently circulating in the social media, of the Republican party and its candidates we can all say: "I'm, not saying you're stupid but you seem to have awfully bad luck when it comes to thinking."
3
The new GOP theme song: " I did it myyyyyyy wayyyyy"; and lost".
5
The fact that this crowd is the best the publicans can do shows how awful the publicans really are.
5
Looking forward to some "gotcha' questions for Hillary.
1. It's obvious you lied about the videotape having any impact on the Benghazi attack. What else have you lied to the American people about? Follow up question. Why did you lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia?
2. How much pay to former staffers, political friends and your family have been paid out/washed through by the Clinton foundation?
3. Who last drove themselves anywhere, you or Queen Elizabeth?
4. How do you leave the White House "flat broke" and become worth $200 million?
Of course, none of these questions will ever be asked (let alone answered) because of the Leftist sycophants posing as journalists in the main stream media.
1. It's obvious you lied about the videotape having any impact on the Benghazi attack. What else have you lied to the American people about? Follow up question. Why did you lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia?
2. How much pay to former staffers, political friends and your family have been paid out/washed through by the Clinton foundation?
3. Who last drove themselves anywhere, you or Queen Elizabeth?
4. How do you leave the White House "flat broke" and become worth $200 million?
Of course, none of these questions will ever be asked (let alone answered) because of the Leftist sycophants posing as journalists in the main stream media.
2
5. Please walk us through the six (or is it seven now) different versions of why you used a private email server for government business in violation of regulation and federal law?
1
All this concern about the 4 Americans lost at Benghazi is as it should be, but what about the 3000 lost on 9/11, warnings about which GW Bush ignored? What about the 4000+ Americans lost in Iraq, a war based on very dubious justifications? There's a lot of "gotcha questions" that could be directed at BOTH parties, that never get asked.
2
Now, now! With the intellectual light weights and honesty challenged candidates the Republican Party is running, Hillary will soon be your president! Good luck with your nonsensical spin.
1
I think that you bring up some valid points, but if you are being completely honest you'll admit that MSNBC did not hold the Democratic candidates to the same level of scrutiny into their past that they tried to do in the Republican debate. It is most certainly a "gotcha" game if you are asking questions about someone's involvement in the past with a medical manufacturer in one debate, but in the other you can't bring yourself to question the MANY scandals or questionable dealings that Clinton has been involved in. So, if the mainstream media, yourself included, want the Republican candidates to answer questions about their past and that is fair game, then you need to level the playing field and hold candidates for both parties accountable to their past. Nobody wants to play a rigged game, and I think that is the Republican frustration.
1
Wait a minute.
The last time I checked, Republican primaries are for registered Republicans to select their Republican nominee for president.
Why is it a problem if they don't want a bunch of MSM lefties moderating that process?
Should the Democrats face a panel comprised of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh in the Democrat primary debates?
The last time I checked, Republican primaries are for registered Republicans to select their Republican nominee for president.
Why is it a problem if they don't want a bunch of MSM lefties moderating that process?
Should the Democrats face a panel comprised of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh in the Democrat primary debates?
4
Clearly there's no difference between Harwood and his two rightie partners and the trio of Hannity, Levin, and Limbaugh, right?
Conservatives are a joke.
Conservatives are a joke.
2
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow gets to "moderate" the next Democrat debate.
You can't make this stuff up...
You can't make this stuff up...
2
"Here we go again with attacks on the “mainstream media” and the invocation of the dreaded “gotcha question” to excuse poor performance and intellectual flat-footedness."
It's not "poor performance" or "intellectual flat-footedness" they're worried about. What they're worried about is not having a convincing lie to proffer to defend the policies they pretend are about anything other than comforting the comfortable.
The GOP -- all of it -- is built on a mass of manufactured lies that pretend to care about the public. It does not care and analysis of its policies exposes those lies. But the America right must lie about it political objectives. So it lies.
What this business about an unfair media is about is cowering the media into not exposing those lies. And why wouldn't they do that. It's worked for nearly two generations. So what you can expect from the mainstream media is to collectively tuck its tail and run off whimpering and yelping like a beat dog. The MSM will give the GOP the kid glove treatment it is demanding.
It's not "poor performance" or "intellectual flat-footedness" they're worried about. What they're worried about is not having a convincing lie to proffer to defend the policies they pretend are about anything other than comforting the comfortable.
The GOP -- all of it -- is built on a mass of manufactured lies that pretend to care about the public. It does not care and analysis of its policies exposes those lies. But the America right must lie about it political objectives. So it lies.
What this business about an unfair media is about is cowering the media into not exposing those lies. And why wouldn't they do that. It's worked for nearly two generations. So what you can expect from the mainstream media is to collectively tuck its tail and run off whimpering and yelping like a beat dog. The MSM will give the GOP the kid glove treatment it is demanding.
6
These jerks wants to be President and they're whining about questions they don't like or want to answer. What happens when the world serves them up something they don't like? Oh better yet- Ted Cruz thinking Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and some other lying conservative should moderate. Just a preview of him as President- only listens to those who think the same dumb ideas he has- shut the government down when things don't go my way, he may be smart but he doesn't think like most of us do.
5
The questions weren't so much "gotcha" as they were of the type "when did you stop beating your wife", which is the typical kind of question a "progressive" will pose to a conservative candidate. After posing the questions the CNBC folk would then interrupt the answer then supply a straw man type answer of their own. It was so childish and so typical of "progressive" moderators.
1
There was no contractual relationship between Carson and Manatech. He did speak at an engagement of The Platinum Group, which is a Manatech distributor. That's it. Mr. Blow, you are a part of the problem. Does Hillary Clinton get questions on why she charges $200k for a speaking engagement at a college, meanwhile promising "free' tuition to certain people? The answer is no. Did George Stephanopoulos bow out of the debate, when it was pointed out he worked for the Clintons? Yes, but many, especially the NYT would have loved to see that.
CNBC did not conduct a debate, it was a firing squad and a chance to make some money. The moderators, should at the very least get their facts straight. And Mr. Blow should do some research before throwing the man under the bus.
CNBC did not conduct a debate, it was a firing squad and a chance to make some money. The moderators, should at the very least get their facts straight. And Mr. Blow should do some research before throwing the man under the bus.
1
Why not have tough, even insulting, questions? If a candidate gets flustered by "gotcha" questions they will hardly be able to stand up to Putin etc.
7
That's not entirely true. The candidates can't threaten to nuke the panel of moderators. At least with Putin, we could expect to see that kind of rhetoric coming from them.
This election cycle's crop of presidential hopefuls are so shallow that they need their own partisan moderators.
Good one, Charles.
Good one, Charles.
11
My ten year old watched the first republican debate and I asked him if he wanted to watch the democratic debate and he said (and I quote) "No, because it won't be as funny as the republican." True, the republicans are fun to watch-- like cartoon characters-- but without substance.
4
I didn't watch the debate but have seen snippets of it online and they proved exactly why I did not watch. These obviously weak "candidates" have been scripted beyond belief so nothing new to see or hear here. AND, the so called "journalists" appear as weak with little in the way of researching questions in order to challenge the lies being spoken other than a face on camera (Edward R. Morrow is rolling in his grave). Now these same weak candidates want even more controls and scripting to further control the message. I hope Putin gets the memo in the event any of them are required to negotiate with him. Shhhh!!!
4
So Charles Blow is keeping up his pace of one article eviscerating Dr. Ben Carson and one glorifying Hillary Clinton every month. Why Ben? This one about 'gotcha' questions misses the GOP's point that the CNBC debate moderators delivered their questions so condescendingly. Gotcha, Charles.
3
Question, how many pro-Hillary segments gave there been on Fox-Kids and Clear Channel?
Oh...I see.
Okay last time for the cheap seats: Charles Blow is an OP-ED Collumnist not an unbiased journalist which means he writes about his OPINION.
You do know how newspapers work don't y'all?
Oh...I see.
Okay last time for the cheap seats: Charles Blow is an OP-ED Collumnist not an unbiased journalist which means he writes about his OPINION.
You do know how newspapers work don't y'all?
3
This is a bit comical.
A far left operative commenting in a left-wing rag to a generally liberal clientele.
The very definition of "echo chamber".
Media bias? What "media bias"? Right, troops?
Hilarious.
A far left operative commenting in a left-wing rag to a generally liberal clientele.
The very definition of "echo chamber".
Media bias? What "media bias"? Right, troops?
Hilarious.
2
Wait just a minute: Ben Carson has Armstrong (Strong-Arm) Williams as his Business Manager: One snake-oil salesman advising another snake-oil salesman.
4
Let the GOP candidates try 11 hours of "gotcha" & we'll see who has the chops to be President. I cannot muster any sympathy for the arrival of the karma the GOP has earned.
14
To be fair, Carson probably didn't know what company he was giving a speech for, or that he was giving a speech... or anything for that matter.
5
Gotcha is Good
It tests to see how well the candidate can think on his or her feet, can handle the unexpected, can come up with plan B. If a candidate can not handle a reporter asking about their involvement with some company ... what are they going to do if they're elected President and something really from left field happens -- like when Gunther Schabowski (who just died) said they'd open the Berlin Wall effective immediately?
It tests to see how well the candidate can think on his or her feet, can handle the unexpected, can come up with plan B. If a candidate can not handle a reporter asking about their involvement with some company ... what are they going to do if they're elected President and something really from left field happens -- like when Gunther Schabowski (who just died) said they'd open the Berlin Wall effective immediately?
6
The questions were fair. The candidates need to grow up.
9
Attacking the question or questioner as out of line (gotcha!) is just another form of the ad hominem attack. Like, "How dare you question me? About that!"
Republicans in particular seem to feel entitled! Not to be questioned.
It's the role of the press to question.
Here's my question regarding Carson: When did he retire? Why did he retire? Also, does his "sleepiness" have some medical reason? Because it looks to me almost like evidence of narcolepsy. He admitted he fell asleep watching the Dem debate on TV. How often does he doze off like that? Was it happening during surgeries?
Please, Charles or The Times, look further behind the Curtain that is Carson.
Republicans in particular seem to feel entitled! Not to be questioned.
It's the role of the press to question.
Here's my question regarding Carson: When did he retire? Why did he retire? Also, does his "sleepiness" have some medical reason? Because it looks to me almost like evidence of narcolepsy. He admitted he fell asleep watching the Dem debate on TV. How often does he doze off like that? Was it happening during surgeries?
Please, Charles or The Times, look further behind the Curtain that is Carson.
9
"intellectual flat-footedness"
Love it and simply the thruth.
Love it and simply the thruth.
9
Let's stop calling this parade of candidates answering questions a debate. This is not what a debate looks like...any high school student will tell you that the different "teams" must answer the same question and give you their pros and cons. What we hav had is question and answer sessions that barely stick to the topic.
Last week the topic was about economics, but really, how much of that topic did we truly cover? No explanation of how they plan to pay for things this country desperately needs...and all we ever here about is how they are going to cut taxes.
Don't forget, America, "you get what you pay for." And if you don't want to pay for it, don't expect anything to repair and rejuvenate what we need that is outside the realm of the military.
Last week the topic was about economics, but really, how much of that topic did we truly cover? No explanation of how they plan to pay for things this country desperately needs...and all we ever here about is how they are going to cut taxes.
Don't forget, America, "you get what you pay for." And if you don't want to pay for it, don't expect anything to repair and rejuvenate what we need that is outside the realm of the military.
7
What the debate last Wednesday showed us is how blatantly prejudiced to the Left they are. Now we read this article by Charles Blow that uses semantics and extreme analytical thinking to dissect words uttered in a debate in an effort to show how something vague said by a Republican candidate may not be true according to his definition of "true". Using this dissected analysis, he then goes on to claim how this candidate is now worthy of being in the race. Have you read http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/01/facts-dr-ben-carson-m...? (It uses facts instead of implied information warped by Politifact.)
>
I have no problem with this at all. That is I would have no problem with this should Mr. Blow use the same level of analysis and logic to dissect Hillary Clinton's statements and behavior. But he does not. Instead, he bends over backwards in previous posts to show how her lies are not lies. Why not dissect how Hillary said she never used Sid Blumenthal as an intelligence resource contrary to Obama's direct instructions or Hillary's statements about Benghazi being the result of a spontaneous demonstration while her e-mails claim otherwise.
>
Sorry, Mr. Blow. All this article does is to show you to be in the same embarrassed league as the CNBC moderators were last Wednesday. You have my pity.
>
I have no problem with this at all. That is I would have no problem with this should Mr. Blow use the same level of analysis and logic to dissect Hillary Clinton's statements and behavior. But he does not. Instead, he bends over backwards in previous posts to show how her lies are not lies. Why not dissect how Hillary said she never used Sid Blumenthal as an intelligence resource contrary to Obama's direct instructions or Hillary's statements about Benghazi being the result of a spontaneous demonstration while her e-mails claim otherwise.
>
Sorry, Mr. Blow. All this article does is to show you to be in the same embarrassed league as the CNBC moderators were last Wednesday. You have my pity.
3
Yeah, Breitbart isn't using implied information. Have you read that piece? It inserts the word "business" whenever it feels like it. It literally reads Ben Carson's mind at the time of the debate and declares that he must have been thinking about a "business" relationship. Otherwise, what Politifact is saying is correct...and we can't have that.
I don't like Ben Carson, but it isn't really because he shilled for Mannatech. This "scandal" strikes me as something of a creation in order to have a "crisis" in a campaign to report on. It looks bad for the media that report on it because it is basically juvenile, but the fact is that the RNC would react the same way had the moderators asked where all the lost revenue will come from for all the tax cuts that every Republican candidate is proposing. And, then especially after the moderators asked the natural follow-up of what reality the candidates are living in when they reply: "growth!". I'd rather have that "scandal" reported on, but here we are.
I don't like Ben Carson, but it isn't really because he shilled for Mannatech. This "scandal" strikes me as something of a creation in order to have a "crisis" in a campaign to report on. It looks bad for the media that report on it because it is basically juvenile, but the fact is that the RNC would react the same way had the moderators asked where all the lost revenue will come from for all the tax cuts that every Republican candidate is proposing. And, then especially after the moderators asked the natural follow-up of what reality the candidates are living in when they reply: "growth!". I'd rather have that "scandal" reported on, but here we are.
1
I love Mr. Blow's column I don't think there is any other columnist who writes for the New York Times or any media outlet, including Fox, who has the ability to avoid any sense of balance, nuance or subtlety. He has his point of view, and he is not going to let anything like facts or fairness get in the way. With respect to Dr. Carson, imagine if the following quote was written about an African-American with "liberal" views. " (his) strategy appears to be to appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur" Then all we would hear in the next several columns, is that everyone and everything is racist.
1
I'm all for the Republican candidates dumbing down their debates and making them friendlier, even down to insisting on FOX news bobbleheads as moderators.
I also have no doubt the Republican nominee will be totally and completely prepared to debate Hillary Clinton on the world stage for one of the biggest, most difficult jobs in the world. A job where everyone loves you, no one is ever mean or highlights your inaccuracies, or questions anything you do.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong with coasting through cushy questions that are designed to make you look good?
I also have no doubt the Republican nominee will be totally and completely prepared to debate Hillary Clinton on the world stage for one of the biggest, most difficult jobs in the world. A job where everyone loves you, no one is ever mean or highlights your inaccuracies, or questions anything you do.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong with coasting through cushy questions that are designed to make you look good?
6
asking them questions implies they aren't really the boss. everybody knows the real boss doesn't have to answer to anybody.
2
Charles, You must have watched the CNBC debate in a vacuum. The questions were unimportant, surly, designed to turn one candidate against the other, and demean each of the candidates. WE, the viewers, would like tough questions on substantive matters. CNBC prides itself as a news channel that reports on business. There were NO question about the economy, interest rates, the Fed, etc. The questions were designed to place the candidates ln the worst possible light. WE want questions of substance, so we can determine what these candidates really know about substantive issues.
5
"WE want questions of substance, so we can determine what these candidates really know about substantive issues."
The answer to this is already very apparent. That could be why CNBC didn't feel the need to ask.
The answer to this is already very apparent. That could be why CNBC didn't feel the need to ask.
I think "Gotcha" isn't only in the mind of the discomforted interviewee, but in the agenda of the asker. How you phrase your question can show a real desire to learn, or a real desire to frame a position (thinking here of the question to Huckabee whether Trump had values to lead the heartland). All journalists should strive to do a better job phrasing their questions.
The real question asked should be, "Where are the jobs"? They have not created one job but they have eliminated millions. All these gop clowns are the same, they will take the Koch 900 million and pass the Koch agenda, which is detrimental to the American worker.
5
Blow has hit a new low in ethnic and racial stereotyping, referring to the one African-American candidate as an "ostrich", a flightless African bird known for its stupidity, and by suggesting the leading Hispanic candidate has "weak rhetorical skills" and the "policy position" of someone in "kindergarten".
The Democratic Party, especially given its long history of nativism and racial bigotry, needs to take a stand against these "dog whistles".
The Democratic Party, especially given its long history of nativism and racial bigotry, needs to take a stand against these "dog whistles".
5
@wills11111 NY, NY:
You said, "The Democratic Party, especially given its long history of nativism and racial bigotry, needs to take a stand against these dog whistles."
I assume this is sarcasm.
You said, "The Democratic Party, especially given its long history of nativism and racial bigotry, needs to take a stand against these dog whistles."
I assume this is sarcasm.
2
The Perils of Reading Between the Lines ...
The New York Times definitely needs to add a "thumbs down" icon so we can express our opposition to claptrap like this.
The New York Times definitely needs to add a "thumbs down" icon so we can express our opposition to claptrap like this.
1
Probably the most famous gotcha question of the debate came from Jeb Bush and was directed to Marco Rubio. We can see how that worked out for Bush.
2
Republicans don't care about facts. Everyone but the media and brainwashed Republicans knows this to be true.
5
I don't recall Blow caring about how many "pinocchios" President Obama was awarded for his claim that we could keep our insurance if we liked our insurance, and that we could keep our doctors if we liked our doctors. As Blow well knows, "stretching the truth" has been the Obama stock in trade (as in telling us that his $800 billion stimulus deal will create millions of "shovel-ready" jobs, then admitting there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready" job). Maybe it's because people like Blow came up with excuses every time Obama lied (Benghazi was caused by the video), that the Republicans may think that lying to the American people is ok. We'll be waiting a long time for Blow to call Hillary out on one of her lies.
6
I know of no one who lost their doctor due to the aca, sometimes you have to PAY for the coverage you want. Who was warned of 911, Al Gore?
1
As the Republican candidates reject NBC for debates, it has been circulated that Reince Priebus is in negotiations with QVC for the next Republican debate. Republican candidate shopping made easy with 3 easy payments!
5
Calling a difference of opinion about what establishes a relationship a lie is another blatant form of bias. Neither Politico or Mr. Blow would have said it was a lie if it had been Ms. Clinton.
4
First, Charles, bloviate all you want. On all sides of the political spectrum, it is a well-accepted fact that CNBC did a horrible job, period. No debate about that. The sooner you agree with that, the sooner your credibility will begin to heal. Second, I love how everyone on the left runs to "Politifact" to buoy their arguments against Republicans and conservatives. The Tampa Bay Times is a well established liberal publication, and its "Politfact" wing is no more trustworthy than simply going to Wikipedia. My favorite is when they said Obama
garnerd no responsibility for his claim of unemployment below 5% by 2012, which it wasn't, because "he had no way of knowing how really bad things were." Wow. Give me a break. But oh, wait. I am reading a column by Charles Blow. Never mind.
garnerd no responsibility for his claim of unemployment below 5% by 2012, which it wasn't, because "he had no way of knowing how really bad things were." Wow. Give me a break. But oh, wait. I am reading a column by Charles Blow. Never mind.
3
For a moment there, I was thinking that those '... engaged in a series of "gotcha" questions, petty and meanspirited in tone, and designed to embarrass...,' a complaint lodged by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, was referencing the Benghazi committee's grilling of HRC. Funny how those Republicans are masters at compartmentalizing. It's OK for a bunch of partisan congressmen/women to pile on top of and badger Hillary for 11 hours, but somehow it's abusive for some CNBC moderators to probe each of 11 presidential hopefuls for no more than a few minutes. This is yet another example of how the GOP is great at dishing it out, yet runs for cover when even the slightest light is shone on its own activities.
177
Well considering no one watches C-SPAN and the major media outlets everyone watches have hardly ever touched on Benghazi, I don't think that you are making a fair comparison. Whereas the Republican candidates are on screen in front of millions of Americans during Prime-Time television. Yea, reaaaally comparable.... You notice also that the Dems haven't gone on Fox News to face their ideological counterparts in the media, whereas the Repubs put themselves in the firing line on MSNBC.
Blow and his profession are missing a seismic shift in the Republican Landscape; the Death of the "Southern Strategy". When Johnson 'handed the south to the Republicans' after the Civil Rights Act, the not so subtle exploitation of this nation's racial divide was set in stone by the RNC. Patting his compatriots on the back for legitimate questioning misses the elephant in the room - pun intended. Blow, nor his colleagues, question the party's pandering to angry white men who make up a smaller part of the the electorate than ever because - frankly - that same cohort makes up a large media segment not to be alienated. THAT is the gotcha issue.
1
Whether GOP or not, presidential candidates are accountable for their their own prior behaviors, positions and utterances. On the Republican side we are seeing a stampede to shoot the "mainstream" messengers of reality. Megyn Kelly's question to Donald Trump was entirely fair in view of his many previous declarations about women and his mendacious response when he was called-out about them.
Ted Cruz recently demanded a debate to be moderated by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. "Now, THAT would be a debate," Cruz opined. No, it wouldn't; it would be anything but a debate. Trump suggested that future moderators be vetted as GOP voters. Aside from the constitutional inconveniences, THAT would be a snow job on the American public.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Ted Cruz recently demanded a debate to be moderated by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. "Now, THAT would be a debate," Cruz opined. No, it wouldn't; it would be anything but a debate. Trump suggested that future moderators be vetted as GOP voters. Aside from the constitutional inconveniences, THAT would be a snow job on the American public.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Fox News will always be there to air fact-free debates and for the republicans, they must get that air time.
3
What is profoundly disturbing is that the GOP doesn't appear to believe in the First Amendment.
3
The problem with the Republicans is that they are so stupid that they actually think that having a diverse slate of candidates, including an African-American, two Latinos and a woman, will actually matter to Charles Blow or The New York Times. Blow and the Times would rather fall over themselves celebrating the Democratic slate of old white men and one old white woman. The Republicans actually believed that the Democrats' calling any disagreement with Obama racist was anything more than their way of shutting down debate. Now that the truth is out, that Blow is now saying it is fair game to disagree with an African-American and that it is ok to call an African-American a liar without being a racist, we'll see if the political debate changes.
2
I didn't see "gotcha", I saw three "moderators" who were snide, condescending, and sneering. That "debate" will change things forever. We out here are sick and tired of agendas. Just the facts if you please.
3
With respect to W.F. Gerson's comment below, not only would Sen. Ryan need to get assurances from the Republican Party that if he ran for and won the Presidency that he wouldn't have to work weekends, he would also need to get assurances from Putin and ISIS. Mr. Ryan's insistance that he must have time for his family should bar him from forever seeking public office again.
3
Ryan is not a Senator.
2
But, isn't that exactly what Carson said? he said, he was paid to give a few speeches. he said, he used the product and like it. So, where is the "gotcha"?
2
Point taken on Carson.
But while I'm no fan of Trump, the question posed to him as to whether he is a "comic book" character is not just "gotcha," it's downright mean.
And speaking of mean Mr. Blow, Rubio's comment about his grandmother was obviously intended (for those of us who watched it) as a joke.
But while I'm no fan of Trump, the question posed to him as to whether he is a "comic book" character is not just "gotcha," it's downright mean.
And speaking of mean Mr. Blow, Rubio's comment about his grandmother was obviously intended (for those of us who watched it) as a joke.
1
Perhaps the GOP candidates should heed the the old aphorism "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
The fact that Trump was, in comparison to the first and second rounds, relatively muted in the last bout of cat-hissing didn't launch him back into the front seat, but it didn't bench him, either. And, as Steve notes, everything about this collection of rocks is relative. There's not a gem in the display case. A piece or two of cut glass, maybe a bit of quartz, but mostly gravel, which doesn't shine no matter how much you try to polish it.
Rubio's performance puts him one tier below the shelf of Timex watches. Why below? Because Timexes are reasonable in price and, more important, reliable. Marco is suspect on the first and demonstrably not the latter.
Carson? He's what you get when you buy your Rolex at the flea market.
The fact that Trump was, in comparison to the first and second rounds, relatively muted in the last bout of cat-hissing didn't launch him back into the front seat, but it didn't bench him, either. And, as Steve notes, everything about this collection of rocks is relative. There's not a gem in the display case. A piece or two of cut glass, maybe a bit of quartz, but mostly gravel, which doesn't shine no matter how much you try to polish it.
Rubio's performance puts him one tier below the shelf of Timex watches. Why below? Because Timexes are reasonable in price and, more important, reliable. Marco is suspect on the first and demonstrably not the latter.
Carson? He's what you get when you buy your Rolex at the flea market.
92
Get rid of the primary system, go back to the Smoke Filled Room method of choosing candidates, THEN, let the two party's candidates Debate each other.
Pick a retired high school debating coach to moderate, give her a mic kill switch and let the games begin.
The Smoke Filled Room gave us as even a mix of good and bad, competent and clueless as this system has.
And it costs a lot less.
Pick a retired high school debating coach to moderate, give her a mic kill switch and let the games begin.
The Smoke Filled Room gave us as even a mix of good and bad, competent and clueless as this system has.
And it costs a lot less.
1
Why does anyone waste time or print space on these mass news conferences which people try to pass off as debates?
The campaigns and the RNC want to present the candidates in the best possible light; they are not that interested in the truth. What is wrong with that's? Of course if they have all their debates on Fox News, they risk credibility.
Oh please, Mr. Blow. The people booing the questioners loudest weren't the candidates. They were people in the audience. And there was definitely a striking difference between the "questions" in this "debate" and the fawning adoration by the panel with tepid inquiries for Ms. Clinton.
But I'll give you this...media on serving both sides of the political spectrum are serving their own peculiar flavor of kool aid. Even the NYT.
But I'll give you this...media on serving both sides of the political spectrum are serving their own peculiar flavor of kool aid. Even the NYT.
4
Oh please!!! Did you not see Mrs. Clinton interrogated for 11 hours by whatever passes for a Benghazi inquiry? The overwhelming majority of the questions posed to her were anything but tepid. Are you really trying to tell everyone that Mrs. Clinton could not have handled the CNBC questions over a period of less than two hours where she wasn't the only person taking questions?
Because believing that would be drinking the Kool-Aid, of any flavor.
Because believing that would be drinking the Kool-Aid, of any flavor.
2
The whining Republicans don't want to be winnowed down just yet. That is understandable - nobody likes to be booted off the island early. Unfortunately, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are coming up shortly and they will start carving the Republican turkey.
2
They are applying for a job and want to control the interviews. Wish I could do that.
7
It isn't the "gotcha" questions that are hurting Republicans. It is Republican's positions on the issues that is hurting Republicans. Duh.
5
I thought that two things aboutall this are nice: it's fun to see the candidates turn snarling on Reince Preibus and the RNC, and good to know that as suspected, the GOP is far too stupid to run a Kasich/Rubio ticket.
Childish. the MSM, especially CNBC was inexcusable in the debate. The world saw the CNBC clowns perform. No better than a bunch of monkeys. The overall debate was unbalanced and biased to the point of hatred.
Carson remains one of my top picks, as well as Cruz and Trump. I don't bother listening to the MSM children play their games. I listen to the candidates and watch their behavior.
Carson remains one of my top picks, as well as Cruz and Trump. I don't bother listening to the MSM children play their games. I listen to the candidates and watch their behavior.
3
If we remove all of the "Gotcha'" questions and the, "litany of discredited attacks" that have forced the "Strongest GOP field in 40 years", to run away from the RNC's scheduled debates in favor of a format that, like Karl Rove's fuzzy math will, "make them feel better as Republicans" we will be left with an opening statement, a closing statement, and two hours of attacks on the mainstream media... They are the, "Not Ready for Prime Time" candidates...
4
The march toward fascism continues.
3
The problem Ben Carson has is that he is a barely-known candidate, so almost anything said about him can serve to define him. He has forfeited the rights to his own narrative by his own silence.
3
The bulk of the Republican candidates are cowards and liars, and when exposed as such, cry "liberal media," and then pick up their toys and go home.
6
Let's put this another way; Rubio won by default.
1
The howling of the repubs shows the effectivness of the questioners.
6
As an independent voter, I am increasingly dismayed by the move of GOP candidates away from the center and to the fringe. Once upon a time, the GOP touted Tom Dewey and Dwight Eisenhower as its standard bearers. Then came McCarthyite RM Nixon, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, That second era marked the first deliberate steps by the GOP toward the fringes, but today's GOP slate is so skewed to the fringe, that Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan would be labeled "liberal" by the GOP candidates. What's an independent to do?
The only semi-mainstream Republican in the field is John Kasich, and even his roots go back to the Tea Party, hawkishness and corporate cronyism.
These candidates all deserve more "gotcha" journalism, not less. Do any of them really represent the best we can find?
The only semi-mainstream Republican in the field is John Kasich, and even his roots go back to the Tea Party, hawkishness and corporate cronyism.
These candidates all deserve more "gotcha" journalism, not less. Do any of them really represent the best we can find?
10
Are you equally dismayed by the avowed Socialist running a strong second in the Democratic Party? Or that the leading candidate is busy trying to run to the left of the Socialist?
1
Goes to character: Ben Carson is leading in a poll for a short time and now the guy, who can barely answer a question, thinks he has some say/clout in how the debates should be run.
Sure, the moderators should be askin' "friendly pitch" softball questions as if the candidates are guests/clebs on a late-nite talk show pitching their lastest movie.
Or maybe, the candidates should either be more prepared or have better ideas (ha) or both. Ya wanna be president? Start acting as if you could do the job.
Sure, the moderators should be askin' "friendly pitch" softball questions as if the candidates are guests/clebs on a late-nite talk show pitching their lastest movie.
Or maybe, the candidates should either be more prepared or have better ideas (ha) or both. Ya wanna be president? Start acting as if you could do the job.
4
I have heard this before from the Media. Republicans just cannot answer tough questions. Well, I'll cede that there may have been a tough question or two from this group of moderators, but to come out of the gate asking Donald Trump (whom I absolutely do not support) "Are you running a Comic Book Campaign?" I hardly think this qualifies as a "tough question." Similarly, the question that moved around about Government controlling "Fantasy Sports Betting?A" Come on! Does Charles Blow actually think that the country is up in arms about this subject? This was supposed to be an economic debate. I found little about economics watching this debate. I don't like Ted Cruz but he was right: This was representative of a "Cage Match."
2
asking trump the comic book question was in fact tough. it was asking if he were serious, since his entire campaign has been so superficial, and he will not actually provide details of what he would do as president. i think a big problem here is the inability of some people to follow nuance. nuance being a liberal thing.
1
Thank you. I'd love to see these candidates tangle with BBC interviewers who ask tough questions, interrupt, and follow up to get answers. Dr. Carson is no longer in the OR; he's out in public. He should not be able to determine who asks questions or what questions are asked. Where does he think he is?
4
reDONNA: Would not put too much faith in BBC moderators,who r in the tank for political correctness and the left wing even more so than our drive by, compliant media. And the British taxpayer is stuck with paying the fantastically huge salaries of the BBC's elitist leadership. True, they would have been hostile to the GOP debaters, but only because the latter were all Republicans. Recall when the British soldier was hacked to death by Islamic militants 2 years ago. BBC treated it almost as a "fait divers," miscellaneous news. Problem with left wing commenters, "no se ofenda," is that they bring more heat than light to any subject they broach, and were chary of making the hacking death of the British soldier a newsworthy story for fear of being accused of insensitivity to Islam. Likewise for the cruel custom of female circumcision, a common practice in Islam, even among the educated elites in Muslim west Africa. When is the last time you heard of a womens group leading a crusade against this cruel, inhumane practice? The response of NOW, just one example, is indeed muted. Do ur research and look at events with an objective eye.
Well, having a past almost textually selling snake oil is relevant when you are a presidential candidate. Particularly when your campaign is based on peddling miraculous economic remedies.
2
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time- Abraham Lincoln
Many Republicans have been trained by the right wing radio and television talking heads. The second part of this quote rings true.
Hopefully, the last part of the quote will be the outcome of this primary process and have the candidate be someone that will fool no one.
Many Republicans have been trained by the right wing radio and television talking heads. The second part of this quote rings true.
Hopefully, the last part of the quote will be the outcome of this primary process and have the candidate be someone that will fool no one.
3
I did not see all of the debate but I did find the repeated interruptions of Carson to be troubling and distasteful. Carson was challenged to explain how his 10% flat tax would provide enough revenue. He did see the point but he was repeatedly prevented from saying that a more realistic percentage would be 15 and that elimination of many deductions would be part of the package.
He may be right and he may be wrong, but he has the right to explain his case without interruptions, and any judgment must come AFTER he has said what he wanted to say. Interruptions in the middle of a sentence are not merely rude, they prevent the American people from really finding out what the candidate is proposing.
For that matter, I was also troubled when BLM people recently prevented Sanders from speaking. Sanders is a gentleman, a fact that may prevent his winning. But he should have been allowed to speak and he should not have tolerated the violation of his right to free speech and the right of his supporters to hear him.
He may be right and he may be wrong, but he has the right to explain his case without interruptions, and any judgment must come AFTER he has said what he wanted to say. Interruptions in the middle of a sentence are not merely rude, they prevent the American people from really finding out what the candidate is proposing.
For that matter, I was also troubled when BLM people recently prevented Sanders from speaking. Sanders is a gentleman, a fact that may prevent his winning. But he should have been allowed to speak and he should not have tolerated the violation of his right to free speech and the right of his supporters to hear him.
3
Carson stood on that stage and said he had given paid speeches for the company. If that earns pinnochios, then Hillary deserves thousands of them. Carson did not claim any one particular question was.a "gotcha", but about the debate questions in general. He, and the other candidates are right to do so. It wasn't a debate at all. It was more like a bullfight with the moderators antagonizing the bull.
The moderators (who no longer can be called journalists) were as petty and as condescending as they could be. The candidates expected difficult questions, but they expected that they would also be fair. Moderators threw mud instead of questions. They are right to complain about that pretense of a debate.
The moderators (who no longer can be called journalists) were as petty and as condescending as they could be. The candidates expected difficult questions, but they expected that they would also be fair. Moderators threw mud instead of questions. They are right to complain about that pretense of a debate.
1
Having endured the experience of actually watching the debate, I must say it has been fascinating (and slightly alarming) to watch the aftermath--as the Republican field--quickly recognizing that Cruz had struck gold with his denunciation of the questions and moderators--coalesced around the meme--and went to town with it.
What is slightly alarming is that the meme quickly moved from half-baked trope to a much more widely spread conventional wisdom--with virtually no effort in the so-called "main stream media" to examine the veracity of the claim that debate was just a series of "gotcha" questions.
It would seem, if this really is an issue, the logical starting point would be to compile a list, from the debate transcript, of all the questions that were asked--and then to contemplate whether or not those questions were legitimate in a debate about economy.
To the best of my knowledge--the only member of the press to do that in a published form, was Brian Beutler, in the New Republic.
www.newrepublic.com/article/123301/cnbcs-republican-primary-debate-was-e....
You'll find every question listed.
What you won't find are any questions that fit the description of a "gotcha question" at least as I would argue Sarah Palin defined it:
Questions designed to make the respondents look stupid, ill-prepared and unqualified.
Ms. Palin had that look down pat.
As did most of the candidates last week.
The fault for that is not in the questions.
Or questioners.
What is slightly alarming is that the meme quickly moved from half-baked trope to a much more widely spread conventional wisdom--with virtually no effort in the so-called "main stream media" to examine the veracity of the claim that debate was just a series of "gotcha" questions.
It would seem, if this really is an issue, the logical starting point would be to compile a list, from the debate transcript, of all the questions that were asked--and then to contemplate whether or not those questions were legitimate in a debate about economy.
To the best of my knowledge--the only member of the press to do that in a published form, was Brian Beutler, in the New Republic.
www.newrepublic.com/article/123301/cnbcs-republican-primary-debate-was-e....
You'll find every question listed.
What you won't find are any questions that fit the description of a "gotcha question" at least as I would argue Sarah Palin defined it:
Questions designed to make the respondents look stupid, ill-prepared and unqualified.
Ms. Palin had that look down pat.
As did most of the candidates last week.
The fault for that is not in the questions.
Or questioners.
3
Ever since Murrow and Cronkite crept into our lives the mass media has become part entertainment and enthrallment in the interests of ratings and advertising dollars. The journalists have become part of the story. Creating an incestous relationship between opinion and gathering and reporting the news. Every editorial decision about what to report, how to report it and when reflects a bias. Deciding which questions to ask and of whom is inherently biased.
Knowing the bias and trying to correct for is the job of the media as a whole. And it is the duty of the people to discern the bias and analyze and reach their conclusions. But the reality of human nature is to seek affirmation rather than contradiction. The "debates" have been a disaster.
Both the candidates and the moderators are playing the gotcha game. Trying to appear clever and wise at the expense of the other. Americans have the political candidate information winnowing process that they want and deserve. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union matstered the art of journalism and news as governing by propaganda.
Knowing the bias and trying to correct for is the job of the media as a whole. And it is the duty of the people to discern the bias and analyze and reach their conclusions. But the reality of human nature is to seek affirmation rather than contradiction. The "debates" have been a disaster.
Both the candidates and the moderators are playing the gotcha game. Trying to appear clever and wise at the expense of the other. Americans have the political candidate information winnowing process that they want and deserve. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union matstered the art of journalism and news as governing by propaganda.
1
It is not the responsibility of the media to facilitate the primary process with solicitous softball questions. Also, when a powerful political party dictates the operations of the media, that comes uncomfortably close to interfering with the First Amendment rights.
Based on the record ratings, a nasty contentious debate is what the audience is paying for. Of course, lower ratings may facilitate the establishment candidates taking the lead in the primary. That could help them finally get rid of Trump and other outsiders.
Based on the record ratings, a nasty contentious debate is what the audience is paying for. Of course, lower ratings may facilitate the establishment candidates taking the lead in the primary. That could help them finally get rid of Trump and other outsiders.
2
It is not the responsibility of the media to facilitate the primary process with solicitous softball questions unless the questions are for Democrats.
*fixed that for you*
*fixed that for you*
1
Starting next Labor Day if not sooner, most of the commercials during the nightly newscasts in Colorado will be political ads filled with half-truths and often lies. It is not only annoying but by definition corrupts the integrity of the news content reported between the ads. If the TV corporations had integrity they would not permit political ads to be run during a newscast. But making a financial killing showing these ads is what counts to these stations. Some of them have a so-called neutral commentator who judges and reports on the fairness of the ads, but they are typically either laughably biased or prone to the false-balance syndrome.
3
This political circus is full of amateur clowns that do not know how to entertain its 'troops'. I am in concurrence that 'gotcha' questions ought to give room predominantly to the core issues we need to know about. Of the main dozen problems affecting society, each candidate must give us his/her approach to, hopefully with no 'bull', and in as simple terms as possible, so we may have a better 'feel' of the knowledge, honesty and passion about a subject. The moderators, if anything, allowed too many questions to go unanswered, as the candidate in question conveniently chose not to (and Rubio and Cruz seemed masterful at). What a crop of losers, a potential danger for this country, should any of them be elected president.
3
First of all, I thought debates were supposed to have topics, and various sides or arguments to be made on those topics. A debate isn't a bunch of people at podiums answering questions and then arguing a little with each other. I don't watch the "debates" because they aren't about issues, as Carson says. They are about entertainment. They might allow the public to get some idea of how a person presents on television, but these debates do not introduce the candidates very well. There's not enough time per person. I look forward to Rachel Maddow's interviews with candidates. I think there will be more substance there.
But as for "gotcha" questions, these people want to be the President of the United States. This is no popularity contest like high school. This is a difficult, stressful job as leader both of the USA and among major world leaders. This person needs to be able to respond well in many settings, with many people and cultures. This is no game. So I say to the press, ask hard questions and don't let the candidate slip away. If they smoked marijuana in college, okay. Let it go. If they're smoking it now, nail them. If they have delusions about how to solve problems, and can't get their facts straight or tell the truth, nail them. We, the public, need to know if the candidates have the skills and intelligence and authentic presence enough to do the job. Adults who whine won't make the cut. Adults with something to hide need not apply.
But as for "gotcha" questions, these people want to be the President of the United States. This is no popularity contest like high school. This is a difficult, stressful job as leader both of the USA and among major world leaders. This person needs to be able to respond well in many settings, with many people and cultures. This is no game. So I say to the press, ask hard questions and don't let the candidate slip away. If they smoked marijuana in college, okay. Let it go. If they're smoking it now, nail them. If they have delusions about how to solve problems, and can't get their facts straight or tell the truth, nail them. We, the public, need to know if the candidates have the skills and intelligence and authentic presence enough to do the job. Adults who whine won't make the cut. Adults with something to hide need not apply.
3
In the wonderful fairy tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, it's a child who calls out the Emperor's lack of garments. We, unfortunately, must rely on a ratings grubbing, sensationalist press to do that job because the citizenry is seems no longer able to discern between fantasy and reality.
There are no "Gotcha" questions when the candidates are prepared, fluent in their positions, and willing to put the interests of We, the People, ahead of their lobby hobby. If a candidate knows his stuff, he/she should be able to dissect the question and turn it into a opportunity for cogent discussion of a particular plank in the platform.
That the GOP candidates seem completely unable to do this makes one seriously question how a GOP president would fare in a negotiation with a masterful word-bender like Vladimir Putin.....even in translation.
Right now, they're all doing a great impression of a game show. Come on down!
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
There are no "Gotcha" questions when the candidates are prepared, fluent in their positions, and willing to put the interests of We, the People, ahead of their lobby hobby. If a candidate knows his stuff, he/she should be able to dissect the question and turn it into a opportunity for cogent discussion of a particular plank in the platform.
That the GOP candidates seem completely unable to do this makes one seriously question how a GOP president would fare in a negotiation with a masterful word-bender like Vladimir Putin.....even in translation.
Right now, they're all doing a great impression of a game show. Come on down!
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
5
In the big picture we need a president with good instincts on a wide range of issues. We need to know what the candidate thinks is good (wants to keep) and what each candidate thinks is bad (wants to change). The debates should let each present the level of detail he feels comfortable with and let the viewers evaluate the blend of knowledge, values and judgment that should sit in the oval office.
Mr. Blow is almost as good as Donald Trump in identifying the character weaknesses of each candidate. Of course no one thinks Mr. Blow or anyone like him should be a debate moderator. Blow is incapable of bring out the good of his political adversaries. I understand that there is a need for the bad, or at least the weakness of a candidate to surface, but creating strife with gotcha questions is being done only to increase the television drama as it decreases useful information. The opinions of those asking the questions should not be known and should not be part of the story. A polite game show host personality or a priest, rabbi and imam might do a better job.
Mr. Blow is almost as good as Donald Trump in identifying the character weaknesses of each candidate. Of course no one thinks Mr. Blow or anyone like him should be a debate moderator. Blow is incapable of bring out the good of his political adversaries. I understand that there is a need for the bad, or at least the weakness of a candidate to surface, but creating strife with gotcha questions is being done only to increase the television drama as it decreases useful information. The opinions of those asking the questions should not be known and should not be part of the story. A polite game show host personality or a priest, rabbi and imam might do a better job.
2
It seems to me that there are too many questions per debate. The Republicans are having a dozen or so debates, so why not debate a dozen or so questions, one per debate? Each candidate would prepare his or her position/plan for the question of a given debate, and would present it during a 2-minute introductory statement. After that, it would just go round robin: each candidate would have the option of either making a further statement, a response, or posing a question during a (say) one-minute turn. This would continue until time was up (the last round would be a summary statement). If appropriate, certain questions could be revisited so that candidates could build on their previous debate. As the number of candidates drops, the number of rounds would increase.
The Democrats could do this too, by the way.
The Democrats could do this too, by the way.
4
Of course, those same Republicans gloat over the Benghazi "investigators" lobbing "gotcha questions" at Hillary for 11 hours for the sole purpose (as a committee member boasted) of driving down her numbers. Hillary handled the inquisition with the calm and grace one would expect of a President.
In comparison, the crop (not a typo) of Republicans behaved like toddlers crying to Mommy about a few "unfair" questions that made them uncomfortable and caught them lying. They want Mommy to keep the big bad mainstream media away, so that debates will consist of Hannity and Limbaugh giving them safe cues to recite prepared statements about God, fetuses, gays, guns, and tax cuts.
All this seem to show is that none of the occupants of the GOP clown car are worthy of consideration as Presidential candidates. And also that Hillary has proved herself with strength under pressure, as a worthy Presidential candidate.
In comparison, the crop (not a typo) of Republicans behaved like toddlers crying to Mommy about a few "unfair" questions that made them uncomfortable and caught them lying. They want Mommy to keep the big bad mainstream media away, so that debates will consist of Hannity and Limbaugh giving them safe cues to recite prepared statements about God, fetuses, gays, guns, and tax cuts.
All this seem to show is that none of the occupants of the GOP clown car are worthy of consideration as Presidential candidates. And also that Hillary has proved herself with strength under pressure, as a worthy Presidential candidate.
6
Hillary handled the inquisition with the calm and grace one would expect of a President.
==============
Hillary didn't have to "behave like a toddler crying to Mommy about a few "unfair" questions that made her uncomfortable and caught her lying" because she had Democratic members of the committee crying for her.
==============
Hillary didn't have to "behave like a toddler crying to Mommy about a few "unfair" questions that made her uncomfortable and caught her lying" because she had Democratic members of the committee crying for her.
The bias here is astounding. I expect it from Blow, but didn't expect liberals to be such hypocrites. The debate monitors were an outrage. It wasn't about 'tough' questions, it was about personal attacks. Especially as they were asked.
What the American people want is not to hear about whether Carson spoke at seminars for a company (he said he did, although that's not here in Blow's article) or whether Rubio has voted on state issues less than someone else - indicating he shouldn't be campaigning while there are votes to make - after Obama was absent for 70% of the votes during his first and only year in the senate). They want to know what policies a candidate would put in place to improve employment, minimize job losses overseas, reduce the deficit, cut spending, drive more accountability for efficiency and outcomes across the hundreds of agencies in the Federal government, improve the vetting process for Federal bids, decrease the costs of healthcare for those that don't qualify for subsidies, reform the tax code to eliminate loopholes for the wealthy, stop illegal immigration and enforce our laws, etc.
What the American people want is not to hear about whether Carson spoke at seminars for a company (he said he did, although that's not here in Blow's article) or whether Rubio has voted on state issues less than someone else - indicating he shouldn't be campaigning while there are votes to make - after Obama was absent for 70% of the votes during his first and only year in the senate). They want to know what policies a candidate would put in place to improve employment, minimize job losses overseas, reduce the deficit, cut spending, drive more accountability for efficiency and outcomes across the hundreds of agencies in the Federal government, improve the vetting process for Federal bids, decrease the costs of healthcare for those that don't qualify for subsidies, reform the tax code to eliminate loopholes for the wealthy, stop illegal immigration and enforce our laws, etc.
5
Republicans want to rig the debates the same way they rig the system in favor of the wealthy and the corporations. They talk about democracy and freedom, but these are concepts that they really hate. They think Americans should have total freedom to buy guns, but women should not have total freedom over their own bodies. They talk about "free markets," but actually game the system in favor of certain businesses (read The Times' current series on how arbitration clauses are crippling the justice system and taking rights away from consumers). They hate the press because it exposes their lies, their insanity and their faulty beliefs. If anything, media outlets aren't tough enough on these buffoons.
The experience of being President is full of "gotcha" moments, the most notable being the events of Sept. 11, 2001. During that moment, we watched a stunned President sit in a classroom for a full seven minutes while his nation was being attacked. Is that the kind of person we want in the Oval Office during times of crisis?
If the Republicans don't want to play by the rules, then let them hold their own "debates" without the cooperation of major media . . . that is, if media executives are willing to forfeit the advertising dollars and not cave in to the GOP's ridiculous demands.
The experience of being President is full of "gotcha" moments, the most notable being the events of Sept. 11, 2001. During that moment, we watched a stunned President sit in a classroom for a full seven minutes while his nation was being attacked. Is that the kind of person we want in the Oval Office during times of crisis?
If the Republicans don't want to play by the rules, then let them hold their own "debates" without the cooperation of major media . . . that is, if media executives are willing to forfeit the advertising dollars and not cave in to the GOP's ridiculous demands.
4
The GOP candidates don't need debate moderators - they need a really good cat trainer. Or cattle prods.
4
When David Letterman was host of late night, there was a segment called John McCain interviews himself. As a presidential candidate Sen. McCain was asked a question by a reporter, he responded by enlightening the reporter of the real question and proceeded to ask himself a series of short questions to which answered yes or no. At the time it was hilarious.
Not so funny anymore.
Not so funny anymore.
2
Yeah, debates are a chance to know the candidates. Just make sure to ask only the questions they want to answer. What these candidates want is free propaganda time. Nice try buddy.
3
And there was Carly Fiorina, just being interviewed on Fox News about her most recent debate lie regarding women's lost jobs under President Obama, and while begrudgingly, briefly, admitting that her statement was wrong, she then tried to make the issue a referendum about the media, accusing even Fox News of being "typical of what the liberal media does..." This standard is assuming that all media are supposed to be extensions of the campaigns and free outlets for talking points.
3
Not enough Gotcha in my opinion. The media on both sides allows the candidates to say the most outrageous lies without correction. If the liberal media was really doing their job there would be a lot more scrutiny around candidate tax proposals and who would really benefit.
Almost all of the GOP candidates are proposing Zero Capital Gains taxes which would benefit the .01% but not retirees. It must be noted that the majority of gains over the past ten years have gone to investors and not workers. Tax proposal to eliminate taxes on these gains is a clear dereliction of duty by our representatives.
Any tax plan does not begin by taxing all income as ordinary income is one that benefits the wealthy. Say it loud Mr. Blow. Do not let their greed go unnoticed.
Almost all of the GOP candidates are proposing Zero Capital Gains taxes which would benefit the .01% but not retirees. It must be noted that the majority of gains over the past ten years have gone to investors and not workers. Tax proposal to eliminate taxes on these gains is a clear dereliction of duty by our representatives.
Any tax plan does not begin by taxing all income as ordinary income is one that benefits the wealthy. Say it loud Mr. Blow. Do not let their greed go unnoticed.
135
I'm retired and a zero capital gains tax would benefit me a lot. Speak for your self
Today in the Onion: Area neurosurgeon who takes money from snake oil salesmen doesn't think he should be asked whether he takes money from snake oil salesmen.
7
Carson is the front-runner because he's a black man who is happy to do the work of white racists--denigrating a black president. Right-wingers love that. "Look at me. I'm a Republican who supports an actual black person, so I couldn't possibly be a racist." It's that simple. Plus, Carson shares their special brand of crazy.
5
These Republicans are such babies. Tough? Not so much. They can't even handle questions on a debate? What are they moaning about? They want everything the essay way, don't they?
6
Yes, the GOP candidates' opinion on fantasy football and their psychosocial assessment of Donald Trump were what the embarrassingly partisan CNBC moderators wanted to hear.
Your predictable, partisan diatribes certainly don't add to the objective discussion of important issues.
Your predictable, partisan diatribes certainly don't add to the objective discussion of important issues.
3
Thank you for analyzing this absurd situation. Instead of allowing a follow up answer to the Mannatech question, the audience booed at the question, or mooed or made some sheeple like noise that seemed to say "Hey, we can't understand actual words. We just like what we see and like the fact that you are handsome or well degreed or religious or intent on saving all our unborn children from evil Planned Parenthood and awful healthcare. The problem is not just with the bizarre collection of GOP contenders. It is with a party base with a frightening lack of actual brain power. A fired CEO who is hated by the families of the actual founders of the company, a brilliant doctor who is bought and paid for now by the same entities that promoted a Supreme Court justice, a family brother whose state was key in getting his brother in to help Cheney find those WMD and kill how many American soldiers for no good reason? It gets worse. It is bizarre how one party can get low information or actually dimwitted people to vote against their interests just by firing them up to hate "the other" .
4
@Patty W:
"Now, they are all saying I won't play and I'll hold my breath till you give me everything on my terms. '
That pretty much summarizes how the GOP has behaved ever since President Obama took office. One political tantrum after another. So it's no surprise that their candidates for president behave the same way.
"Now, they are all saying I won't play and I'll hold my breath till you give me everything on my terms. '
That pretty much summarizes how the GOP has behaved ever since President Obama took office. One political tantrum after another. So it's no surprise that their candidates for president behave the same way.
6
I guess tit for tat because that is exactly how Obama has acted since he came into office. My way or the highway.
So, the DNC did it first by refusing to go on Fox, so, are you going to point your poison pen in their direction, or are you just a partisan hack?
This is one more example of the bullies throwing up their hands and whining 'not fair' when they are challenged. Since Obama's election we have witnessed a protracted temper tantrum for 6 years and counting. Screaming 'you lie' in a joint session of congress - 'foodstamp president' during the republican debate following Obama's 1st term - it goes on and on - These people are not in power, but worse, they are irrelevant. White - Male - Conservative - 'Christian' society has had the breaks and the power for too long. It's over, get used to it.
6
The Republican contenders for their party's Presidential nomination seem to be unaware that potential voters are not just the "base." Now, I will not be voting for whomever the Republican candidate is, but one of these guys is going to be that candidate so I have great interest in knowing what their actual policies might be -- not their red meat answer deflection of the question actually asked. As for their chronic complaints about "gotcha" questions from the mainstream media, I can decide for myself whether a question is on point, stupid, vapid, or reasonable. Just answer the question asked -- you might make some converts to your cause.
63
ow unfortunate that the candidates are asked to reveal their policy positions or themselves to the voting public.
7
Bruce, I would love to see the Republican candidates get some questions on substantive issues (Fantasy football is not one such issue, or what is your greatest weakness). CNBC and Fox had little of substance in their questions. CNBC is supposedly a news channel that provides business news. There was not one question asked about our economy, the Fed, interest rates, the minimum wage, etc. We want questions asked about substantive issues., not the "gotcha" questions that were asked at the CNBC moderated debate.
4
Nothing wrong with tough questions as long as they are applied equally. The Republicans do get most of the "gotcha" questions while the Democrats get more of a pass.
3
Your logic will fly way over the heads of most of the commenters here.
1
Oh? Is the Benghazi Committee "a pass"?
2
Any question to a republican concerning shady financial dealings has to be a "gotcha" question because they're all poking dirty fingers in every cash pie they can find along the way. They do this while screaming and moaning about the working man, the elderly and the poor bleeding the country dry. Hypocrites. But, evidently the democrats are pulling dirty tricks of their own. It would seem these republican polls are actually created by democrats since they seem to show the candidates who are absolutely the craziest and would do the worst against any democratic challenger. In fairness all the republicans seem to be equally crazy, but Trump and Carson are neck and neck when it comes to insane thinking and acting. Good luck republicans.
1
Several reactions:
As current from runner, Ben Carson should expect greater scrutiny. He got it, was unprepared, and in manner uncharacteristic for him grumbled about the media. Not a good show by the doctor.
The grumblings about the quality of the debate moderators make the candidates look peevish and small. Politicians should never complain about the media. President Obama looks silly every time he complains about the Fox News Channel; the GOP candidates look no less silly here.
That said, the quality of the moderators was indeed horrible, and the GOP cannot be blamed for stiffing CNBC for future debates.
But you know, at least there was a debate between the GOP candidates on Wednesday. Was that a debate we saw between the Democrats three weeks ago? Hardly. Mere tea and crumpets on the way to the coronation of Mrs. Clinton (soup and crackers for Bernie).
And debate is healthy; a coronation is staged, contrived and phony.
As current from runner, Ben Carson should expect greater scrutiny. He got it, was unprepared, and in manner uncharacteristic for him grumbled about the media. Not a good show by the doctor.
The grumblings about the quality of the debate moderators make the candidates look peevish and small. Politicians should never complain about the media. President Obama looks silly every time he complains about the Fox News Channel; the GOP candidates look no less silly here.
That said, the quality of the moderators was indeed horrible, and the GOP cannot be blamed for stiffing CNBC for future debates.
But you know, at least there was a debate between the GOP candidates on Wednesday. Was that a debate we saw between the Democrats three weeks ago? Hardly. Mere tea and crumpets on the way to the coronation of Mrs. Clinton (soup and crackers for Bernie).
And debate is healthy; a coronation is staged, contrived and phony.
1
Could we please emulate the rest of the sane world and limit the election season to no more than six months (most do it much faster than that). We could also cut out TV commercials, which have TV laughing all the way to the bank, and spend the money on real stuff.
Our world is obsessed with two dimensions, but we live in three.
And we all need to think and pay attention better rather than standing in the middle of a room and throwing tantrums.
What we are learning is that what is of value is what you can get away with. But with a planet becoming less hospitable by the day, payback is coming soon. It will then be too late, as the boy cries wolf at every trending thing, and ignores the big picture.
Our world is obsessed with two dimensions, but we live in three.
And we all need to think and pay attention better rather than standing in the middle of a room and throwing tantrums.
What we are learning is that what is of value is what you can get away with. But with a planet becoming less hospitable by the day, payback is coming soon. It will then be too late, as the boy cries wolf at every trending thing, and ignores the big picture.
4
Asking questions about a candidates history of knowledge is appropriate. But asking questions that are designed to cause fighting between the candidates is
a "gotcha" by the press. They love to stir the pot; unless they are in the soup.
a "gotcha" by the press. They love to stir the pot; unless they are in the soup.
2
I think their objection to commentators is morphing into avoiding commentators and whole networks they don't want to deal with. They don't want to talk to Telemondo because of immigration. They don't want to talk to liberal or even neutral commentators. Keep this up and they'll refuse to answer any question but their own.
5
'Gotcha' questions? They're hardly confined to politics these days. Just ask anyone who's had to interview for university admissions or a half-decent job in this country. Assuming they even got past the 'gotcha' questions in the mumbo-jumbo online personality tests or being screened out on the basis of something they said or did - or didn't do- that somehow makes them fail to seem to fulfill the expectations of some company or school 'culture', and made it onto the REAL 'permanent record card' - the Internet.
The result of all this 'gotcha'? A generation coming of age whose relatively intelligent members have about as much desire to bring children into this world as most of us would have to go swimming with the sharks. In other words, what's the current state of our national morale getting to be? Gotcha!
The result of all this 'gotcha'? A generation coming of age whose relatively intelligent members have about as much desire to bring children into this world as most of us would have to go swimming with the sharks. In other words, what's the current state of our national morale getting to be? Gotcha!
2
Wow, this column and the comments seem to me to prove the point the GOP candidates are pounding. Hillary makes blatant, obvious lies proven by her own admission in the Benghazi hearings, and Blow and others declare how wonderful she performed. Her claims of a giant right-wing conspiracy (masterfully executed by thousands of right wingers in total secrecy) go unquestioned.
GOP claims of unfair treatment may be overblown, but claims of insidious bias by the Times and others are not.
GOP claims of unfair treatment may be overblown, but claims of insidious bias by the Times and others are not.
2
"Gotcha", it seems to me, implies triviality of content and a tone and choice of words which presuppose a negative and unflattering answer. At most, a number or debate questions were unprofessional in tone, but none were trivial in content. The candidates had a right to call attention to the tone and choices of words, but their anger reflects the painful relevance of the questions.
57
So the top two GOP candidates got there by making outrageous and/or outlandish statements that were reported on in the mainstream media. And now they don't like how the MSM is treating them. Regardless of the merit of some of the questions asked, my first thought is: are the candidates a bunch of whiny children seeking to blame the questions/questioners or is it that they really don't have much to say (other than everything is Obama's fault) of any substance.
6
I doubt that any members of the press would feel it fair if they were exposed to the same sort of questions that were sometimes posed in the last debate. No one is perfect, and no candidate claims to be perfect. So, what is the media trying to prove?
The more important questions dealing with policy, domestic and foreign, were hardly posed. Those are the sorts of things the public wants to know before they vote. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time.
The more important questions dealing with policy, domestic and foreign, were hardly posed. Those are the sorts of things the public wants to know before they vote. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time.
23
I agree and, in fact, I think the entire republican party is a waste of time.
1
Republicans have openly stated their hatred of government. So, why are any of us surprised that most of their candidates are nothing more than human paper weights or worse, walking-talking water bags - since we are 75% water. If they are looking for a better debate format that will fit their brand of politics they should call Mark Burnett the producer of the hit show, "Survivor."
3
This is not Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower
These are nobodies with nothing to say. This is what the GOP is now. Yes, I am a Democrat, 57, and count myself from the FDR tradition of the party. I think I know what I have been seeing, starting with Reagan in 1980. And it is purposefully stupid. Just like Ronnie taught them.
These are nobodies with nothing to say. This is what the GOP is now. Yes, I am a Democrat, 57, and count myself from the FDR tradition of the party. I think I know what I have been seeing, starting with Reagan in 1980. And it is purposefully stupid. Just like Ronnie taught them.
7
A Democrat in the FDR tradition? You obviously do not recognize today's Democrat Party.
Charles has it spot on. The GOP definition of a "gotcha" question is one for which the candidate is unprepared, challenges the cardboard persona put up for the voter, and has to be answered with a lie. The present hissy fit and calling for even more control of the already weak "debate" is just a demand for slow fat ones right over the plate.
One has to wonder "where have all the journalists gone, long long time ago?"
One has to wonder "where have all the journalists gone, long long time ago?"
6
When a public servant lies and/or a person running for public office lies there should be some type of penalty other than a "pants on fire" rating. There should be fines. If they lie repeatedly, they should be forced to suspend their campaigns for public office. No more lying, then deflecting your lie by blaming the "mainstream media" for catching you in a lie. Liars lie, and the last thing we need having a fingerprint on domestic policy in a liar. Answer the question and answer it honestly and to the best of your ability; but, don't lie about it.
4
It is easy to blame the messenger, the media when you have nothing to say or what you could say would destroy your candidacy. Imagine the impact if a Republican candidate would say what they really thought . If you elect me I will drastically cut or eliminate Medicare. I will send your sons and daughters to another endless senseless war in the middle east. I will make sure if you are laid off that will receive only two month's unemployment. You will be required to give birth to a child that is the product of rape or incest or one that is severely physically impaired with no hope of receiving any help from the government. You get the idea.
At least most gotcha questions leave room for the answer 'no comment' or that is a stupid question. Honesty in politics is as scarce as hen's teeth, but for Republicans it is impossible if they would have any hope of election.
At least most gotcha questions leave room for the answer 'no comment' or that is a stupid question. Honesty in politics is as scarce as hen's teeth, but for Republicans it is impossible if they would have any hope of election.
8
The debate questions seem more intended to enhance the entertainment qualities of the debate rather than give the candidates opportunity to explain their positions and show the strength of their characters.
So-called reality television with its emphasis on cut-throat, mean competition is popular with television audiences. The same behavior in politics has given us a dysfunctional government.
So-called reality television with its emphasis on cut-throat, mean competition is popular with television audiences. The same behavior in politics has given us a dysfunctional government.
67
Ted Cruz, and Republicans who think like him, seem to be intent on building a wall around the GOP. His suggestion that only Republican's serve as moderators implies that none of the questions address views or issues held by Democratic or indendent voters. Meanwhile, Trump is working to exclude Spanish speakers from hearing the Republican perspective on Tellamundo. Shrink the Party, shrink the number of people who vote, and gerrymandering to achieve political power are hardly the approaches of a Party interested in participatory democracy.
3
Carson is not my choice, but I bow to the inevitable. The collective frustration with Washington insiders and lopsided media has fueled full-on revolt, and the momentum is uniting people who think little can be worse than the last eight years.
3
I'm still perplexed by the Conservatives' insistence that the last eight years have been bad. I see an economy in recovery despite every drag the Republicans have attempted to impose; long overdue social reforms; resurgent tech-driven opportunities; and hard questions being raised about issues like racial equality and guns. I see a president who took an historically poor economy and acted decisively as his office permitted and as the situation required. I see the GOP embittered and dysfunctional because the nation is evolving away from the pinched, limited agenda it offers, and I see Conservatives dwelling in their poisonous rage at the stream of history they have failed to stop. I even see Conservatism itself shedding its own legacy of willful stupidity, fixed ideas, and privilege for some Conservatives the expense of the rest. I'm very optimistic about the foundation these last eight years have laid for this country.
If Ben Carson is your "inevitable" then you're going to take part in the end of the GOP as you know it, which is, really, grounds for you being optimistic too.
If Ben Carson is your "inevitable" then you're going to take part in the end of the GOP as you know it, which is, really, grounds for you being optimistic too.
The problem is more that these kinds of questions do not come up in Democratic debates. For example, not one question about the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations and poor charitable performances. (But one about Rubio pulling his pension money early.) No questions to the Democrats about the morality of late term abortions or whether the other candidates thought about a self proclaimed Socialist running as a democrat. You can defend the CNBC questions but you should also demand similarly tough questions of the Democrats - made by only conservative journalists, to have true fairness.
2
Perhaps if the Republican "candidates" weren't such cartoon figures they would get real questions about reality. But they've said so many idiotic things that a legitimate reporter must feel the need to probe it and expose it for the fantasy it is. Somehow asking about the idiocy is considered bad form--like trying to talk to the crazy aunt in the corner.
Too bad the average Republican primary voter seems thrilled to be given the mushroom treatment--covered in manure and kept in the dark.
Too bad the average Republican primary voter seems thrilled to be given the mushroom treatment--covered in manure and kept in the dark.
2
Ever since Nixon and Agnew in speeches writing by Pat Buchanan and William Safire Republicans have found it easier to lie and mislead about policy and then attack the Media for being biased and unfair. This approach has kept the Republicans in good stead ever since. The Press, by being intellectually lazy and ill informed have made the attacks much more powerful.
3
definition: A question which pre-supposes a position. A question it is impossible to answer. "Are you still beating your wife?" is the classic. In politics, some questions are not about policy. If the candidate answers the question at all, the candidate is saying that that irrelevant topic is important to his campaign. gotcha. If the question is about policy, the question can presume that a crisis exists, when it doesn't; or presume that government is the problem, when it isn't; or presume that government is the answer, when it isn't. Regardless how the candidate answers a question with a bogus premis, gotcha.
1
An event with more than 2 or 3 candidates is not a "debate." Until the Republican field is winnowed, we would all benefit from probing interviews in which the candidate cannot dodge the question and throw out a line from his or her stump speech.
"You have proposed large tax cuts. How would you reduce funding to pay for those tax cuts or are you willing to tolerate an increase in the deficit?" Don't move to the next question until there is a substantive answer.
"You have proposed large tax cuts. How would you reduce funding to pay for those tax cuts or are you willing to tolerate an increase in the deficit?" Don't move to the next question until there is a substantive answer.
6
As an observer of politics for half a century (I'm 67), I find it routinely confounding that the overwhelming majority of broadcast and print coverage of politicians is on what they say, or don't say, and how they look. The elephant in the room so often ignored is: from where does their money come? While a couple of candidates self-finance their campaigns, all the rest (with one exception) are darlings of millionaires and billionaires. Why so little attention to the men behind the curtain pulling the strings? Who are the power brokers trying to control the message, and the messenger? Those of us paying careful attention to Bernie Sanders get it. The rest of you should wake up and smell the coffee. Do you want a democracy? or an oligarchy?
7
Republican candidates have long accused the press of bias. It has often become a tired cliche. That said, media sometimes makes it very easy for them to complain.
CNBC fumbled the ball right at the kickoff with their lame opening question that better fit some high school race for class president. In the end, it felt like they had used their second-string questioners who had largely failed do their homework and be prepared for any followup that may be needed.
Finally, it is obscene that the debate sat behind a pay wall such that only those whose cable plan subscribes to CNBC could watch the debate. Presidential debates must be made available to everyone as a public service.
CNBC fumbled the ball right at the kickoff with their lame opening question that better fit some high school race for class president. In the end, it felt like they had used their second-string questioners who had largely failed do their homework and be prepared for any followup that may be needed.
Finally, it is obscene that the debate sat behind a pay wall such that only those whose cable plan subscribes to CNBC could watch the debate. Presidential debates must be made available to everyone as a public service.
4
I couldn't agree more about the pay to watch scheme. I was infuriated by that. Fox and CNN let me watch the debates they moderated even though I don't have a cable suscription. Shame on you NBC.
1
I do agree with some of the candidates' complaints about the moderators' questions--not that they are "gotcha" exercises, but that they are more fitting for one of Mr. Trump's reality shows than for serious political discussion. Nonetheless, the disaster that was the latest Republican "debate" was more of the candidates' making.
The repeated scenario was that the moderator asked a question of a candidate. The candidate responded by saying what a great question it was, followed by "But first," then launch into a speech on some other topic. When the moderator said that time was up, the candidate complained about not having been given enough time to answer the question, and then the questioned candidate was joined by the rest of them in a shoutfest.
I think the moderators should ask more relevant questions, yes. I also think they should have a kill switch on the candidates' microphones, to be used whenever a candidate ran overtime or interrupted another. Actually, maybe it would be even better to have each candidate in a separate soundproof booth with a mike that went live only to allow a response to a direct question.
The repeated scenario was that the moderator asked a question of a candidate. The candidate responded by saying what a great question it was, followed by "But first," then launch into a speech on some other topic. When the moderator said that time was up, the candidate complained about not having been given enough time to answer the question, and then the questioned candidate was joined by the rest of them in a shoutfest.
I think the moderators should ask more relevant questions, yes. I also think they should have a kill switch on the candidates' microphones, to be used whenever a candidate ran overtime or interrupted another. Actually, maybe it would be even better to have each candidate in a separate soundproof booth with a mike that went live only to allow a response to a direct question.
4
I love the idea of a "separate soundproof booth".
1
I realize that my "soundproof booth" suggestion was ambiguous.
The candidates should be able to hear what the moderators and other candidates say. But nothing they said would be audible outside the booth unless their mikes were activated by the moderators or other independent party. They could holler their heads off, but we wouldn't have to listen, and we'd be able to hear whoever had the floor.
The candidates should be able to hear what the moderators and other candidates say. But nothing they said would be audible outside the booth unless their mikes were activated by the moderators or other independent party. They could holler their heads off, but we wouldn't have to listen, and we'd be able to hear whoever had the floor.
To those of us actually in the mainstream, the rightwing's reflexive bashing of MSM is simply same-old, same-old distraction and defense, not to be taken seriously.
And critics of CNBC moderators have it wrong claiming bias and gotcha intent. It appeared to me the moderators were simply inept, performers playing what they imagined to be real, hard-hitting political reporters.
As far as all political news coverage goes: I'm for outlawing any question in the format of "So-and-so says you're......What's your response to that?" Seems kind of lazy and cowardly to me. Shouldn't a real reporter check out the truth and facts of what was "said?" And ask the candidate about those facts? Or ignore the matter altogether if no truth is there?
And critics of CNBC moderators have it wrong claiming bias and gotcha intent. It appeared to me the moderators were simply inept, performers playing what they imagined to be real, hard-hitting political reporters.
As far as all political news coverage goes: I'm for outlawing any question in the format of "So-and-so says you're......What's your response to that?" Seems kind of lazy and cowardly to me. Shouldn't a real reporter check out the truth and facts of what was "said?" And ask the candidate about those facts? Or ignore the matter altogether if no truth is there?
72
38% of the population identifies as conservative. 34% as moderate. Only 24% as liberal. By most standards, that indicates that most liberals are outside the middle of the bell curve. You are not mainstream.
First these are not debates, never have been. We ned to find out an bout these guys thats true . How about a format where they are asked the same questions and given time to answer? The questions would be very direct:
1- What exactly is your position on immigration?
2- How would you try to fix Israel and palestine?
3- How would you approach the problems with Iran?
4- How would you solve Syria and ISIS?
5-- What is t your position on tax reform?
6- Do you support the regulations on Banks?
The questions would require actual answers, no blaming things on the other side, and a fact check group would be available to question the false info at the time. The questions asked by regular informed citizens.
1- What exactly is your position on immigration?
2- How would you try to fix Israel and palestine?
3- How would you approach the problems with Iran?
4- How would you solve Syria and ISIS?
5-- What is t your position on tax reform?
6- Do you support the regulations on Banks?
The questions would require actual answers, no blaming things on the other side, and a fact check group would be available to question the false info at the time. The questions asked by regular informed citizens.
176
And yet the whining republican candidates have run a campaign of gotcha against Hillary Clinton. How about debates that include Fact Check and a couple of policy wonks or academics seasoned with enough public speaking skills to be on camera... somehow moderated by a tv type person. Anderson Cooper and some for FOX have done a good job in moderating - and please don't change it to simply another canned opportunity for Fiorina & others to spout untruths with conviction... because voters seem to buy anything said with conviction no matter how incorrect.
6
Is Carson the only one? I doubt that and your opinion although well written didn't get my vote.
4
Carson is the leader in the polls therefor he gets the most scrutiny, at least at this time.
2
What gets asked at the debates is a good reflection of what journalists think the 2016 campaign is about. After all, reporters could ask about almost anything, right? (Even pizza.) How many of the CNBC moderators questions could we fairly classify as "fluff"?
My advice to the candidates is is to make an outrageous statement or a wacky proposal, as with Newt Gingrich's moon colony. That gets people talking. Then wrap up your ideas up into a plan or plans and give them catchy names. I still get a chuckle out of Herman Cain's 9-9-9. Had Mr. Cain opened up and told the American people that his backers were the Koch Brothers, he could have turned that into a catchy phrase like: "Hey this is Cain and together with the Koch Brothers we are gonna give the American public Koch-Cain". He would have won not only the nomination but the election.
My advice to the candidates is is to make an outrageous statement or a wacky proposal, as with Newt Gingrich's moon colony. That gets people talking. Then wrap up your ideas up into a plan or plans and give them catchy names. I still get a chuckle out of Herman Cain's 9-9-9. Had Mr. Cain opened up and told the American people that his backers were the Koch Brothers, he could have turned that into a catchy phrase like: "Hey this is Cain and together with the Koch Brothers we are gonna give the American public Koch-Cain". He would have won not only the nomination but the election.
6
Scary, Charles Blow, your NYTimes/CBSNews poll of GOP primary voters taken last week after CNBC "debates". "Gotcha" is newspeak that fits our reprehensible cyber-widget age. That two Republican cyphers, face it - are losers - Dr. Ben Carson, who appears to be asleep on his feet, and is a hawker of snake oil, "Mannatech", at 26%. leading the poll, and 1 point down, the bloviator of birtherism, Trump, who can slap down his GOP adversaries with a word (like "wan" re JEB!). Marco Rubio is no more fit for the Presidency than any of the other doofuses running this campaign season: Graham tooting his"let's make war!" kazoo, Bush, in a strange political landscape he can't recognize after his Rip Van Winkle years out of Florida office, the rest of the lower numbers not factors in the GOP cattle call this year. No wonder all the striving debaters rose up against CNBC and Reince Priebus, their RNC leader and demanded fairer questions and fairer interrogators. You point out the emperor's clothes of fatally-flawed candidates on the left is a mess. If "gotcha!" questions are the key to eliminating the 13 or so wannabe POTUSes who are still sweatin' and struttin' their stuff on the primary debate stages, then yes, let's lobby for Gotcha questions. Can snake-oil scammers (viz Trump and Carson) be given the heave-ho? There are still 11 months left till Election day 2016. Still time enough for a new Republican contender to rise. As Sonny and Cher sang in 1967, "the beat goes on!"
11
Yes, well, any ONE of the republican candidates is a FAR better choice than the 2 democrat clowns, one of which is a PROVEN liar, the other an avowed socialist. We'll see how well that works for them in the general election.
4
30 years of recent history tell us Democratic presidents always work out better than Republican ones.
1
Please tell us exactly what that lie is.
....crickets...
....crickets...
It's sorta funny. Cruz gets freaked out because he thinks Becky Cruz was mean to him? What will he think if/when - Lord forbid! - he's sitting across the table from Putin.
Actually, it's not sorta funny. It's sorta pathetic.
Actually, it's not sorta funny. It's sorta pathetic.
28
Based on the debate I saw (BTW - I doubt if any of the NYT's usual sycophants actually saw anything but post debate clips) Cruz will point out to Putin that he is an idiot and force him to get back to real substantive issues.
So are we to suppose that as President, no one ever gets asked a gotcha question from anybody? With all the world watching?
28
How about a series of debates on network television, run by the League of Women Voters, held in a TV studio with no audience to provide background noises at the appropriate times ?
Oh, didn't we have that once ? What happened ? Now the political party is making the rules and wants to select the forum, the questioners and the questions?
And this is still somehow called a debate ?
Oh, didn't we have that once ? What happened ? Now the political party is making the rules and wants to select the forum, the questioners and the questions?
And this is still somehow called a debate ?
60
Thank you for the reminder this old mind needed. Let's all of us boycott the 'debates' until control is returned to the League of Women Voters.
Republican censorship.
1
Ms Egeli,
I think the NYT did an excellent job reporting the aftermath of the MSNBC debates simply by exposing how candidates like Dr Carson lack a presidential temperament. If Dr Carson ( or for that matter any candidate from either party) can't deal with "media bias" now, what does he expect to happen when he actually becomes president?
Except for Chris Christie, the GOP candidates ran back to the RNC crying like 5 year olds because they weren't treated fairly on the playground.
The NYT, Washington Post etc. did a terrific job exposing the GOP candidates to the scrutiny they deserved. If they dont have the fortitude to deal with unpleasant questions from John Harwood, how can we expect them to deal with Vladimir Putin.
So Ms Egeli, in regard to the debates, there is a lot of truth in the saying, "There is no such thing as a silly question".
I think the NYT did an excellent job reporting the aftermath of the MSNBC debates simply by exposing how candidates like Dr Carson lack a presidential temperament. If Dr Carson ( or for that matter any candidate from either party) can't deal with "media bias" now, what does he expect to happen when he actually becomes president?
Except for Chris Christie, the GOP candidates ran back to the RNC crying like 5 year olds because they weren't treated fairly on the playground.
The NYT, Washington Post etc. did a terrific job exposing the GOP candidates to the scrutiny they deserved. If they dont have the fortitude to deal with unpleasant questions from John Harwood, how can we expect them to deal with Vladimir Putin.
So Ms Egeli, in regard to the debates, there is a lot of truth in the saying, "There is no such thing as a silly question".
20
The Republican Party and its best-of-the-best clown-car full of candidates for president are upset over the debates; they don't like the format; they don't like the moderators; they don't like the questions; they don't like answering the questions. They don't like their own inept, bungling performance on the national stage.
They are now attempting to turn their not-ready-for-prime-time flop into a winning performance with their base by attacking the "liberal media". The liberal media (that's any media that isn't affiliated with the Heritage Foundation or the National Review) is the boogeyman that made them all look bad.
But it is not enough to attack the liberal media. Now Republicans want all moderators to be vetted as certified Republican voters. In other words they don't want a debate, they want a POLITICAL AD under the guise of a debate.
Next they will want to sit down with the moderators ahead of the "debate" to decide on the questions. And while they're at it they may as well collaborate with the moderators on the best way to answer the questions and decide on any followup questions. The future Republican debates should simply be produced and hosted by FOX. And in the interest of full disclosure, during the entire "debate", a scrolling text should state clearly that "this is a political ad paid for by the candidates who approve this message".
They are now attempting to turn their not-ready-for-prime-time flop into a winning performance with their base by attacking the "liberal media". The liberal media (that's any media that isn't affiliated with the Heritage Foundation or the National Review) is the boogeyman that made them all look bad.
But it is not enough to attack the liberal media. Now Republicans want all moderators to be vetted as certified Republican voters. In other words they don't want a debate, they want a POLITICAL AD under the guise of a debate.
Next they will want to sit down with the moderators ahead of the "debate" to decide on the questions. And while they're at it they may as well collaborate with the moderators on the best way to answer the questions and decide on any followup questions. The future Republican debates should simply be produced and hosted by FOX. And in the interest of full disclosure, during the entire "debate", a scrolling text should state clearly that "this is a political ad paid for by the candidates who approve this message".
46
After all of the pie-in-the-sky Tax Plans that the various GOP Candidates have been speaking of, I had initially wished there was some sort of a FactCheck App on my notebook. Well, that is, if there really were some facts to speak of.
But then, once we got into it, it seemed that all we got was John Ellis Bush's cherry-picking of numbers from his term as Governor, down here in Florida--along with a recitation of Marco Rubio's parents' resumes and Carly Fiarina's new fiction thriller: "How I shrunk Compaq-HP!".
But really, Marco: FOX and CNBC being Liberal Media? Aren't you reaching?
But then, once we got into it, it seemed that all we got was John Ellis Bush's cherry-picking of numbers from his term as Governor, down here in Florida--along with a recitation of Marco Rubio's parents' resumes and Carly Fiarina's new fiction thriller: "How I shrunk Compaq-HP!".
But really, Marco: FOX and CNBC being Liberal Media? Aren't you reaching?
17
It’d be more revealing
if News polls could add
another selection to the list for
Republican Primary Voters;
“none of the above.”
if News polls could add
another selection to the list for
Republican Primary Voters;
“none of the above.”
16
It'd be more revealing if News polls could add another selection to the list for the Democratic Primary Voters; " Do we have to really pick one of them?"
"appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur". Mr. Blow that is the best description of Mr. Carson's presentation skills that I have read anywhere.
22
Where is there balance?
When agreeing to the number of debates, the moderators and which networks, the RNC was running the gauntlet and, initially, ceding to the demands of the networks. Yet the DNC won't agree to a FOX News or FOX Business Debate or ANY Republican Moderators.
If the RNC made such demands of the MSM and cherry-picked the moderators for those debates there would be hell to pay. The DNC, Mesdames Wasserman Schultz and Clinton would fit to be tied.
When agreeing to the number of debates, the moderators and which networks, the RNC was running the gauntlet and, initially, ceding to the demands of the networks. Yet the DNC won't agree to a FOX News or FOX Business Debate or ANY Republican Moderators.
If the RNC made such demands of the MSM and cherry-picked the moderators for those debates there would be hell to pay. The DNC, Mesdames Wasserman Schultz and Clinton would fit to be tied.
6
If Fox News or Fox Business News were actually practicing journalists, the DNC would be debating on their stage. They aren't. They are lying showmen, admitted to in court. Bill O'Reiley can lie about his deeds as a journalist, and all Fox can do to defend him is say look at his numbers.
3
If Stuart Varney, Lou Dobbs and Charles Payne moderated a closed-door/delayed-airing FOX Business debate on Economic Policy to both the (R) and (D) candidates with the same questions, I'm GUESSING Fiorina and MAYBE Rubio might limp out.
Joe, your response is neither clever nor honest. You are avoiding the fact presented by Mr. Phil. And you bring up Bill Oreilly when Brian Williams is hanging over your head. DNC still does NBC debates. Please do a better job of incorporating intelligence into arguments.
This column is a joke. The Democrat "debate" was a love fest between the candidates and the panel of questioners. Not a tough question was asked, and Clinton was allowed to skate on her personal server and Benghazi. Blow knows this, but is so pro Democrat that he ignores the truth. This is not journalism; it is bald faced partisanship. When will The Times allow equal column space for the opposition point of view? The answer is simple: never.
10
Maybe its that actual record, policy positions and outcomes that you have a problem with. The Republicans have no real policies, other than to tear down, destroy and obstruct.
1
"Democrat" is a noun.
"Democratic" is an adjective.
"Democratic" is an adjective.
1
They've got one conservative columnist, but he's busy writing about schisms in the Catholic church. They've got another conservative columnist, but he recently just as much admitted-- in print! -- that the Republican primary candidates aren't even fit for a clown show. They've got Maureen Dowd, and she's doled out plenty of snark on Obama, Clinton and, well, just about everyone. What opposition point of view do you have in mind?
There is no there, there with the republican presidential candidates, so should any of us be surprised that they cry and whine like babies when they complain about the moderators. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton had to endure .... 11 hours ... of badgering and gotcha questions by the republicans. She didn't whine, she showed grace and leadership. Now, they are all saying I won't play and I'll hold my breath till you give me everything on my terms. The same republicans think it's responsible and good leadership shutting down our government over false and phony accusations over planned parenthood. I thought John huntsman was a real viable, republican presidential candidate and the Republican Party now is reduced to charlatans who literally lie about promoting their snake oil products ... Ben Carson. Carson is now demanding no more debates that illustrate just how empty and corrupt they all are. It's not the moderators that are the problems, it's the grifter republican candidates this year not wanting the light shined on their shady actions or crazy ideology. Even the Pope believes in evolution and climate change .... not these dangerous republican clowns. Where's someone like John Huntsman, the last decent and intelligent presidential candidate in the Republican Party.
268
What a shock, a leftist who thinks Huntsman is a good Republican (because he disagrees with everything the party stands for) and missed the fact that the so-called gotcha questions of the Benghazi committee revealed an email trail showing the degree to which she will lie to the American people during an election.
Congressional Committee investigation 4 deaths on her watch versus moderators at a third rate cable news organization. Come on, you can't be that simple. ...And i wasn't aware the Pope had a PhD in the sciences...
Say little, affect an affable personality, and the voters will project their own ideas of what kind of person you really are. A winning strategy.
15
I still can't imagine that the party that hated on President Obama because he is an African-American will nominate their own African-American for president. But then, nothing the Hypocrite Party does surprises me anymore.
14
Republicans hate Obama's policies and his plans, not his skin color.
1
You clearly don't know what hypocrite means, so please don't use the word. "Hating" on President Obama was clearly not because he is African American if Carson is doing this well, it's his policies, always has been. Are you really that simple as to believe what the liberal talking heads tell you?
A better question will be: Since the democrats and black community in general voted for Obama solely because he is black (or half-black), will they vote for Carson? Why not? Oh, because Obama delivered a flowery, pie-in-the-sky speech, or better put, read a teleprompter, promising "hope and change", right? What a joke you liberal idiots are. You are such hypocrites, it is sickening.
Did you notice how, at the third debate, Ted Cruz stopped to cue the applause after making his petulant remark about the media? Or how much thunder Trump captured from taking on Fox (of all Republican-friendly media!)? They may protest, or call it "lame-stream media," but this is less of a protest than a talking point.
16
The GOP will not be satisfied until the whole thing is canned.. They will submit the questions, they will provide the answers and the judges better toe the line.
25
This is a debate, not an interview for a profile story. Every question should be either an outright or at least a potential "gotcha" question.
Crybabies running for President!
Crybabies running for President!
24
Wow, now that's a thought that will be hard to get out of my mind. The three top leading Republican contestants are Palinesque.
17
If you want to know why under 25% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans, look no further than this plethora of candidates running for President with the possible exception of John Kasich. Kasich, if nominated and that is a huge if, won't scare the bejesus out of the 75+% of us who are not Republican.
Just have the rest of the debates on Fox and go further and further to the right ans stay home on election day next year. Pathetic.
Just have the rest of the debates on Fox and go further and further to the right ans stay home on election day next year. Pathetic.
8
Please share a link that shows under 25% of Americans identify as republicans. I doubt that VERY much, especially since seeing the trouncing Dimocrats took last year in the midterms. The truth is that Americans are getting wise to the lies and deception of the left.
Don't be so sure -- look a little deeper at Kasich and you ought to conclude he is very scary indeed. He does often sound reasonable -- at least by comparison -- but his record says otherwise, and thus he could be dangerous.
When all else fails in responding to questions in an informed and cogent manner, attack the moderators.
Good heavens, do these presidential "candidates" think that Vladimir Putin would let them off so lightly?
Good heavens, do these presidential "candidates" think that Vladimir Putin would let them off so lightly?
14
Given the whooping he is putting on Obama lately, probably not.
It is about the media plays "gotcha" back with the GOP, actively challenging their distorted views of reality and their unrealistic, hurtful policy proposals, not to mention their untruthful statements.
8
Yes, because asking Trump if he is running a "comic book campaign" is so enlightening of a question...the liberal idiot media and moderators don't even attempt to hide their bigotry and hypocrisy anymore, it really is shameful.
These candidates claim they are capable of dealing with the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc. and they can't even handle a few questions from reporters?
22
Mr. Blow's line of reasoning here is the standard twist I've been seeing from the left following last week's debate: "Oh, they can't hande tough questions."
That's an attempt to skew the truth of what happened.
Tough questions? Absolutely fair game. And Mr. Blow is correct to identify the Mannatech question directed at Dr. Carson as one of those tough but fair enties. I'm comfortable with that, as I was when Megyn Kelly confronted Donald Trump over his sexism.
But last week's debate went far beyond "tough questions." It went far beyond the civilly adversarial tone that is the media's right to take.
Last week's CNBC moderators were rude and combative. They acted as if their goal were to win the debate, not to moderate it.
Attacking that kind of mishebehavior is not just "good optics," no matter how convenient it would be for Mr. Blow and his partisans if it were.
A coda: Some of the candidates have suggested that conservative moderators should handle the next debate. The leftist squawk against that idea is predictable. But wait: This process is to choose who's the best Republican, not who's the best president. Having pundits from the right put the candidates through their paces would be an entirely valid test.
Mr. Cruz and others want people like Limbaugh and Hannity; I disagree, because those are clowns. But George Will? Niall Ferguson? Charles Krauthammer? You'd see more probity there than the upcoming Rachel Maddow lovefest is likely to provide.
That's an attempt to skew the truth of what happened.
Tough questions? Absolutely fair game. And Mr. Blow is correct to identify the Mannatech question directed at Dr. Carson as one of those tough but fair enties. I'm comfortable with that, as I was when Megyn Kelly confronted Donald Trump over his sexism.
But last week's debate went far beyond "tough questions." It went far beyond the civilly adversarial tone that is the media's right to take.
Last week's CNBC moderators were rude and combative. They acted as if their goal were to win the debate, not to moderate it.
Attacking that kind of mishebehavior is not just "good optics," no matter how convenient it would be for Mr. Blow and his partisans if it were.
A coda: Some of the candidates have suggested that conservative moderators should handle the next debate. The leftist squawk against that idea is predictable. But wait: This process is to choose who's the best Republican, not who's the best president. Having pundits from the right put the candidates through their paces would be an entirely valid test.
Mr. Cruz and others want people like Limbaugh and Hannity; I disagree, because those are clowns. But George Will? Niall Ferguson? Charles Krauthammer? You'd see more probity there than the upcoming Rachel Maddow lovefest is likely to provide.
8
Care to give any specific examples of "rude" questions?
LOL!
Clearly, you never watch Rachael Maddow interview guests...left or right, they get good questions, they're allowed to actually answer the questions, and the follow-ups are intelligent and fair.
Did you know she actually has more right-of-center guests for interviews than left? Because for all the GOP's whining about Maddow and MSNBC being somehow leftwing, they get a fair shake when they appear with her.
Clearly, you never watch Rachael Maddow interview guests...left or right, they get good questions, they're allowed to actually answer the questions, and the follow-ups are intelligent and fair.
Did you know she actually has more right-of-center guests for interviews than left? Because for all the GOP's whining about Maddow and MSNBC being somehow leftwing, they get a fair shake when they appear with her.
1
My friend buddy wasn't scared of any questions. "It's either true, or not true, he often said." So he never ran into the peonies, he was a real man.
3
Sorry Blow, but when CNBC staffer's stated they were worried about Hawood being the worst kind of commentator because of his liberal bias, and that he has the worst kind of liberal bias, the kind that he doesn't even believe he's biased, you're spinning to defend those proven guilty on National TV.
4
Imagine a MS or PhD candidate telling his/her review committee that they don't want tough questions or laying down the rules as to what types of questions could be asked? No, me neither.
19
In the Lincoln/Douglas debate there were no moderators. Our forefathers never intended for attention-hungry, dirty media wolves to control what the American people hear in debates.
5
I would never vote for any of the current crop of Republican candidates. That said, I watched most of last week's debate (OK, I had it on while I did other things on my computer) and I agree that many of the questions were disrespectful in the way they were asked. The purpose of these events is to make it possible for people to learn about candidates so that they can make up their minds a year for now in the voting booth. It's not to set them up for "gotcha" moments.
4
Martin: Do you think a President of the United States is never going to have to react to a crisis -- a "gotcha" moment -- with huge stakes for the entire nation?
Isn't it a good thing that we can see, before voting, how the candidates react to simple ones?
Isn't it a good thing that we can see, before voting, how the candidates react to simple ones?
The big “gotcha” was depriving millions of voters who cannot afford access to cable TV the ability to watch the debate. This is in conflict with basic rights as Americans.
16
Same goes for the Democrats. Viewing the debates should not be dependent on your ability to pay a $200 monthly cable bill.
1
I think a bit of liberal media bashing is pretty fair considering that it's their job to convey to readers an accurate portrayal of the world and US liberal media consumers are extremely misguided about many issues. MSM consumers believe that crime rates and homicides are rising with gun ownership which is not true. MSM consumers believe that the median incomes are better in Europe, which is not true, except for 3 very tiny countries. Median income purchasing power in Germany is lower than every US state. MSM consumers believe that the US is stingy on government spending when in reality there are only 30 million people in the entire world living in countries with more per capita government spending than the US. MSM consumers believe that twenty percent of college women are violently raped. MSM consumers believe that Catholic priests are more likely to sexually assault a child than a public school teacher. The list goes on and on and on...
2
What sources have you drawn on to support your claims, FreddyB, both in terms of the issues you cite and what "most MSM consumers" believe?
Republicans are less concerned with gotcha questions than with having so many candidates tearing into one another and finishing with a hobbled nominee. Hence they want to exert more control over the debates to prevent this happening and have already held a meeting to achieve this.
3
One almost has to admire the sheer hubris of the GOP that betrayed every tenet it said it fought for; exploited tragedy for its own profit; treated a divided, dispirited country as a hustler's mark; turned rancor into an industry; and now plays the victim.
20
The media needs to be called out for pandering to the politicians...watch any Sunday show to see it on full display.
The GOP is just using the formula of "blame it on the media". Better that than say, actually answering a question. Better to have the League of Women Voters host the debate. Put it on every channel. ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. And give the American people an opportunity to see what these guys are advocating. Besides, their egos, that is.
The GOP is just using the formula of "blame it on the media". Better that than say, actually answering a question. Better to have the League of Women Voters host the debate. Put it on every channel. ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. And give the American people an opportunity to see what these guys are advocating. Besides, their egos, that is.
17
Candidates for the highest public office in the land should be disqualified for that job when they misrepresent the facts upon being asked a so-called "gotcha" question. Carson certainly had a relationship with a company that paid him to give speeches. Even real estate agents are held to a higher standard of ethical conduct and can lose their license to practice for making misrepresentations to the public.
11
How about some public input on the questions and have them put to all the candidates from both sides? Then the moderators could moderate impartially and let the public know how everyone in the debates feels about the same issues. I want to hear how a candidate is going to address problems the country faces and not a side show.
3
The Republican Party and candidates are using demagoguery to blame the press so they can avoid answering tough questions. They want infomercials for their candidates, not real debates.
Perhaps they haven't seen a real debate like the last debate of the Democrat candidates. Sanders was asked about gun control and Clinton was asked about Benghazi. Webb and Chafee were asked questions they answered so poorly they ended their campaigns.
Perhaps the Republican candidates did watch that debate!
Perhaps they haven't seen a real debate like the last debate of the Democrat candidates. Sanders was asked about gun control and Clinton was asked about Benghazi. Webb and Chafee were asked questions they answered so poorly they ended their campaigns.
Perhaps the Republican candidates did watch that debate!
12
Republicans have spent many years developing a base of voters that hate. They hate nearly everything; government, science, anyone that doesn't look like them, gays, women, the poor, foreigners,...it's a long list. The Republican primary voter cannot be motivated be reasoned discourse or nuanced ideas about the economy or foreign policy. He must have red meat. He must be told the country is in crisis. It is threatened my liberals, gays, Muslims, atheists, blacks, poor people, Mexicans, Canadians (just kidding).
These are people are so ignorant they would vote for a carnival barker or a crazy neurosurgeon to lead the Free World as long as these people hit the right hot buttons. It doesn't matter that their ideas are insane or that they could never do what they claim. It only matters that they say it with conviction.
Conservatives, like Victor Frankenstein, have created their own monsters. Now they have no way to stop the destruction of their party.
These are people are so ignorant they would vote for a carnival barker or a crazy neurosurgeon to lead the Free World as long as these people hit the right hot buttons. It doesn't matter that their ideas are insane or that they could never do what they claim. It only matters that they say it with conviction.
Conservatives, like Victor Frankenstein, have created their own monsters. Now they have no way to stop the destruction of their party.
17
A 2 hour debate featuring 10 candidates ,who in this case most acted like suspects taking the 5th,will be a bit messy.It may have been less so had the candidates accepted CNBC's original plan for the debate to have been 3 hours.
As a Democrat,though, I didn't waste my time with the hours,especially since that would risk me tossing something through the T.V. screen.
I do watch the Democratic debates,though,and the candidates,including the one I support,damn well better be asked "gotcha " questions,if only to know how they hold up under pressure.
The GOP,with their gripes about gotcha questions come across as petty whiners.And someone needs to inform Piebus that the GOP candidates have long been embarrassing themselves,needing no help at that from CNBC or any other media.
As a Democrat,though, I didn't waste my time with the hours,especially since that would risk me tossing something through the T.V. screen.
I do watch the Democratic debates,though,and the candidates,including the one I support,damn well better be asked "gotcha " questions,if only to know how they hold up under pressure.
The GOP,with their gripes about gotcha questions come across as petty whiners.And someone needs to inform Piebus that the GOP candidates have long been embarrassing themselves,needing no help at that from CNBC or any other media.
11
The media-entertainment corporations that conveniently own their own polling organizations (including the Times) should be polling people less and informing people more. Nevertheless, when nearly two-thirds of voters don't care about facts or political experience, we have a bigger problem than prevaricating candidates.
8
I'm trying to understand why Blow and Polifact believe Carson made false claims. Refer to the tape, he said he uses the product and gave speeches. He also said they if his image was used, it was without his authorization and that he has no further ties to the company. That seems honest and fairly candid, not false. Carson has lots of issues, but his Mannatech answer does not seem to be one of them.
4
Carson didn't lie. He admitted getting paid. This is just desperation on the part of the media. Anyone who doesn't have a bone to pick with republicans can see he didn't lie. They are embarrassing themselves.
3
Whether he lied or not isn't the point. He's a well-regarded surgeon who's helping to market snake oil. Ethics, anyone?
2
tu is a trusted commenter freeman:
Whether he lied or not isn't the point.
*****
It's precisely the point. The media is trying to prove he lied.
Whether he lied or not isn't the point.
*****
It's precisely the point. The media is trying to prove he lied.
regrettably, the media corps in charge of that debate were a dull lot, nothing new among the tv
more-talk-show-than-news hosts...their ineptitude gave the republican candidates cover for their own brand of dodge ball...carson, especially (on that night) got away with his side step because his interrogator was unprepared to follow up her original question...all the candidates' best moments came in display of high dudgeon at the press: christy's "rude even in jersey" was the best, (a short right to the chin that marciano would have envied), cruz's was also top flight, an off-the cuff litany that hinted at the potential for actual debate, should we ever regain the critical and rhetorical skills that have long since vanished from national testing service passing for education.
more-talk-show-than-news hosts...their ineptitude gave the republican candidates cover for their own brand of dodge ball...carson, especially (on that night) got away with his side step because his interrogator was unprepared to follow up her original question...all the candidates' best moments came in display of high dudgeon at the press: christy's "rude even in jersey" was the best, (a short right to the chin that marciano would have envied), cruz's was also top flight, an off-the cuff litany that hinted at the potential for actual debate, should we ever regain the critical and rhetorical skills that have long since vanished from national testing service passing for education.
3
How many have noticed that these debates have become privatized? They're sponsored by cable TV networks. Those of us who don't subscribe to cable TV--either can't afford to or refuse to pay the outrageously high prices for bundled packages, the great bulk of which we don't want or need. We therefore cannot watch (and seeing is a large part of it: listening on radio isn't the same) what are supposed to be for the voters' benefit, therefore free to voters. I couldn't stream the last one. Whatever happened to debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters? It may have been in the news but I missed it.
12
Why would you assume the Republicans would accept a debate moderated by people they think shouldn't be allowed to vote?
1
Your description of the travails of the Republican party are perceptive, but the idea that the Neurosurgeon, or the Real Estate mogul or the Kid with the mother or the failed CEO should be taken seriously is chilling. And in the polls they are being taken seriously. This doesn't speak to Mr, Priebus or the RNC, but the state of the electorate. Why are they so dimly aware of serious challenges and how the world works? In the debates, you don't get questions about these issues, you get the fuzzy stuff that ?Barbara Walters? uses to let the electorate know the candidate. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we first figure out how qualified the candidates are and then decide who we like as people. Well you're the journalist and its your job to make these things known, so why is it?
5
"Of the nontraditional lot, there is a former neurosurgeon whose strategy seems to be to appear barely awake while delivering word salads of outlandishness in a murmur, a real-estate mogul full of bluster and bawdiness, and a fired C.E.O. engaged in a breathtaking example of pink-slip revisionism."
This is a classic case of "gotcha" or yellow journalism. Yellow journalism is a type of journalism, common in the internet era, which presents little or no legitimate well-researched news & instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Cheap pulpy yellow journalism techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism which now serves as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
Joseph Campbell, the famous mythologist, referred to yellow journalism as a style of newspapers who are eager to win new subscribers, resorting to sensationalism & bold headlines as they jockeyed for control of the day's thoroughbred "stories". The main characteristics: 1) scare headlines in huge print often of minor news 2) lavish use of pictures & imaginative drawings 3) use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience & a parade of "learning" from so-called experts 4) dramatic empathy with the "underdog" against a tyrannical system.
Like Wall St. bears vs. bulls, the struggle between the media & politicians only serves to increase the market of each entity's stock with the public.
This is a classic case of "gotcha" or yellow journalism. Yellow journalism is a type of journalism, common in the internet era, which presents little or no legitimate well-researched news & instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Cheap pulpy yellow journalism techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism which now serves as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
Joseph Campbell, the famous mythologist, referred to yellow journalism as a style of newspapers who are eager to win new subscribers, resorting to sensationalism & bold headlines as they jockeyed for control of the day's thoroughbred "stories". The main characteristics: 1) scare headlines in huge print often of minor news 2) lavish use of pictures & imaginative drawings 3) use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience & a parade of "learning" from so-called experts 4) dramatic empathy with the "underdog" against a tyrannical system.
Like Wall St. bears vs. bulls, the struggle between the media & politicians only serves to increase the market of each entity's stock with the public.
4
Should we ridicule the candidates when they whine about gotcha questions? YES!
Complaining about the gotcha questions won't make the underlying issues go away.
Complaining about the gotcha questions won't make the underlying issues go away.
14
One who aspires to the highest office in the land should be able to answer tough questions, it's a tough job.
14
A candidate is "hired" by voters and during the job interview process, the "employers" can ask any question they want. We use the debate moderators as stand-ins for ourselves.
8
Since NYT and its editors are part of the liberal media, naturally they become defensive when this media is attacked. However, they should get out of their bubble and try to see how others, outside their bubble, view them. The candidates were in effect trying to speak to the public and not to the moderators. Their answers obviously are a puzzle to the likes of Mr. Blow, and therefore they must be wrong.
What's worse, however, the GOP candidates must be attacked and attacked repeatedly lest the public continues believing them, and not NYT.
What's worse, however, the GOP candidates must be attacked and attacked repeatedly lest the public continues believing them, and not NYT.
4
And how do you justify Dr. Carson's misstatement (lie?) that he had no connection to this specific company?
Henry: And how do you justify the first question, referring to Trump's "comic book" campaign? You see, Henry, after having been insulted at the start, the audience no longer pays attention to any misstatement after that. You and I know this will be an attack, not regular monitoring of debate.
People want to know what Carson will do to fix the mess Obama made; they aren't that much interested in fleeting connections to fleeting companies.
People want to know what Carson will do to fix the mess Obama made; they aren't that much interested in fleeting connections to fleeting companies.
What's silly here is that most of the candidates on that GOP stage were looking to find their own "gotcha moments" ... to embarrass their opponents. And most weren't any better or more successful than the moderators.
8
What isn't told to people is that Mannatech's legal problems were prior to Carson being involved with the company,
Isn't that what Charles Blow meant to say or was he being did be as bad and lose with the facts like the moderators.
Isn't that what Charles Blow meant to say or was he being did be as bad and lose with the facts like the moderators.
1
These Republicans are debate lightweights. None of them has ever experienced anything remotely as "gotcha" as CNN's Bernard Shaw asking Mike Dukakis in the 1988 debates whether his views on the death penalty might change if his wife Kitty was brutally raped and murdered. In a similar vein, I'd like to hear each of these candidates discuss how their feelings on abortion laws might change if their daughter was brutally raped and then required by law to bear the child. The GOPers would, no doubt, scream "unfair". But, their answers would at least provide a basis for the people of this country to judge their characters -- something none of them has offered so far.
10
I'm not at all surprised that Charles Blow is anxious to circle the wagons around his fellow media pundits. Deep down Mr. Blow probably wishes he was part of the CNBC mainstream media inquisition turning the thumbscrews around the Republican candidates. However what would have been the ultimate "gotcha" moment was if all of the Republican candidates had walked off the stage en masse leaving those so called moderators with no one to bludgeon with those snarky questions. Now that's "must see" TV.
2
That would backfire. We are talking about individuals who are running for the office of president, not for the office of local dogcatcher. If they cannot answer questions on issues of economics, Social Security, medical health care, and the needs of future generations, and finally, as it concerns their past financial connections, then they are not fit for the office. But you simplistically think it would be a hit if they all walked off the stage in a hissy fit, not smart but lets the public see what idiots these candidates are and weakness. If they can't take the question of MSM when issues are critical, how will these idiots answer to the public, which they must as president, lock the doors to the White House, avoid the White House Press Room.
If "gotcha questions" are inappropriate in a debate setting, how does the GOP justify years of "gotcha questions" and "gotcha hearing" on Benghazi? It seem the height of hypocrisy.
13
Over the weekend, Senator Ted Cruz said in all seriousness that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin should moderate the next Republican Presidential debate. If Ben Carson can do infomercials for Mannatech why can't the Republicans do their own infomercials?
5
Mr. Blow you hit the nail on the head with this one, "(republican candidates are) a hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates". This is what you get when a few billionaires back their favorite "special interest" candidate. The candidates don't like the debates? Here's an idea - cancel them ALL because they're a waste of viewer/voter time. All debates should be held on C SPAN with neutral moderators/hosts and should include "gotcha" questions that uncover these flawed candidates' lack of intelligence and knowledge to hold public office.
8
Ha, this bunch is afraid of reporters but say they can stand up to Putin, Al Qaeda and ISIS?
12
Well put!
If they can't handle questions from tureen CNBC moderators, they have no business asking for the presidency.
5
Televised debates are useless and misleading when candidates aren't required to speak truthfully. Soft-balling questions and permitting candidates to duck doesn't help either. You might as well run a PR event.
We really need accountability in the debate cycle. Specifically: the real and exercised threat of judicial perjury. You face the same legal recourse every time you submit a job application; aren't presidential candidates applying for a job?
Perhaps Dr. Carson was simply ill-prepared for the question. However, I'd consider his statement equivalent to lying or misrepresenting yourself during a job interview. In the real world, you'd get pointed to the door with a swift boot to follow you out. Politics is the only industry where this behavior is excepted and rewarded.
We really need accountability in the debate cycle. Specifically: the real and exercised threat of judicial perjury. You face the same legal recourse every time you submit a job application; aren't presidential candidates applying for a job?
Perhaps Dr. Carson was simply ill-prepared for the question. However, I'd consider his statement equivalent to lying or misrepresenting yourself during a job interview. In the real world, you'd get pointed to the door with a swift boot to follow you out. Politics is the only industry where this behavior is excepted and rewarded.
7
Here's your money quote, from Carly Fiorina yesterday.
Well, in this particular case the fact checkers are correct,” Mrs. Fiorina said. “The 92 percent, it turns out, was the first three-and-a-half years of Barack Obama’s term, and in the final six months of his term things improved. But this is what the liberal media always does, it attacks the messenger trying to avoid the message.“
Sooo, translating that into English, it comes down to "I got my facts wrong, but the liberal media is attacking me to avoid accepting that my lie is true."
Well, in this particular case the fact checkers are correct,” Mrs. Fiorina said. “The 92 percent, it turns out, was the first three-and-a-half years of Barack Obama’s term, and in the final six months of his term things improved. But this is what the liberal media always does, it attacks the messenger trying to avoid the message.“
Sooo, translating that into English, it comes down to "I got my facts wrong, but the liberal media is attacking me to avoid accepting that my lie is true."
11
Outstanding comment!!
Since most of the moderators have a relationship with The Wall Street Journal and are avowed economic conservatives, the meme is that CNBC is a sister of MSNBC - therefore a member of the "liberal media".
If any of these candidates had a passion for solving actual problems that face the largest number of Americans that they have for playing the embattled victim, they might get some respect outside of their bubble.
If any of these candidates had a passion for solving actual problems that face the largest number of Americans that they have for playing the embattled victim, they might get some respect outside of their bubble.
6
The Journal also partners with NBC on polling. The polls themselves are conducted by a partnership of Democratic Peter Hart Associates and Republican Public Opinon Strategies. I've often wanted to be a fly on the wall during the questionnaire design meetings.
1
To the GOP candidates, any question that requires an informed opinion is a gotcha question.
9
Gotcha embarrassment is the experience of liars. Carson, is a liar. Representing himself as a genuine candidate is not in his interest. We should consider the Bill Cosby phenomenon. Carson likely has some serious skeletons, or imagines that he does.
2
While there really can be no doubt at this point that most of the media lean Democrat, the Republicans knowing this should have taken it into account and had an idea of how to deal with it.
On Sunday Armstrong Williams(yes!, the admitted "propagandist" who received barrels of taxpayer money from the Bush administration to secretly promote its policies) acknowledged that Ben Carson had a long-standing paid contractual relationship with Mannatech. So at the debate, Carson's response was an out-right lie. In fact, Jim Geraghty of NRO labeled Carson's comments at the debate "a bald-faced lie". Do his supporters care if he lies? No. They only care about his ideology and his opinion on things like guns and abortion. If he lies about everything else, they could care less. They, like so many on the right, are willfully ignorant. The bottom line: Ben Carson is a proven liar.
11
Whiners. They want their mommies to ask the questions.
did you sleep well, baby? what do you want for breakie? want to stay home from school today?
The moderators should be independents or of the opposite Party- to ensure that they are asked challenging questions.
"why do you run a comic book campaign" to Donnie Frump is indeed a legitimate question. Or the questions to Carson re a Doctor advertising product.
did you sleep well, baby? what do you want for breakie? want to stay home from school today?
The moderators should be independents or of the opposite Party- to ensure that they are asked challenging questions.
"why do you run a comic book campaign" to Donnie Frump is indeed a legitimate question. Or the questions to Carson re a Doctor advertising product.
7
For the person who ends up sitting in the Oval Office, ALL questions are potentially "gotcha" questions and they can come without warning. If these guys can't handle a debate for which they've had time to prepare, how do they expect to cope with the Presidency?
This wasn't a CNBC fail; it was a GOP fail.
This wasn't a CNBC fail; it was a GOP fail.
18
Ever since Trump's "they're sending us rapists" and "McCain was a loser" riffs, which did nothing but inflate his polling numbers, the Republicans have begun to realize that they can say virtually anything to their Base and never have to worry about the fact-checkers. Kasich is pulling his hair out over all the whimsy his colleagues are spinning out about taxes and the economy, but the carefully screened debate crowds just eat it up.
10
In other words, Ted Cruz wants what passes for "debate" on talk radio which is notoriously infmaous for its one sided conversation. Why am I not surprised?
11
The truth is that ANY reasoned, objective question to Republican candidates about their personal history or current political policy goals is a "gotcha" question.
That is their real problem with debates.
That is their real problem with debates.
6
The biggest failure of modern American journalists is that they are too afraid to ask enough gotcha questions. Today's MSM is primarily composed of people of average intelligence and integrity who like to cash their paycheck and don't want to rock the boat of their masters/employers who are almost all Republicans.
7
If the GOP can't man up and boycott the extreme leftwing media, then they deserve to be replaced. Democrats don't tolerate abuse, neither should their enemies. As far as the fake debates go, get rid of the moderators. It;s a disgrace. Real debates, no moderators, timekeeper only.
1
Did anyone else pick up on the real meaning of Marco Rubio's "mother comment"? He doesn't want to make radical changes to the Social Security program that will affect current beneficiaries, his mother for one. On the other hand, he's willing to implement such changes in time to affect future generations. If they're bad for Mom why wouldn't they be bad for Junior?
12
@stu
Um, do you really think that is his motivation or, more plausibly, could it be that any changes to any major program should permit some amount of time for transition?
Are you buying into that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of Hillary's?
Um, do you really think that is his motivation or, more plausibly, could it be that any changes to any major program should permit some amount of time for transition?
Are you buying into that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of Hillary's?
The GOP does not like its candidates embarrassed. Therefore, change the moderators and pre-approve the questions (that's next). The candidates want to pre=approve a moderator's use of graphics. When the GOP doesn't like being a minority party, they suppress and disenfranchise those they think won't vote for them. So, what's new.
Its not as if the GOP will field better candidates who say "bring on the gotcha questions," No, the GOP's remedy is to prohibit gotcha questions. Just one thing, if they ever make it to the world stage, how are they going to stop the bad guys, like Putin and Iran, from engaging in gotcha moments. Should that happen we'll find how poorly this GOP field is.
Its not as if the GOP will field better candidates who say "bring on the gotcha questions," No, the GOP's remedy is to prohibit gotcha questions. Just one thing, if they ever make it to the world stage, how are they going to stop the bad guys, like Putin and Iran, from engaging in gotcha moments. Should that happen we'll find how poorly this GOP field is.
8
The irony of calling the CNBC moderators part of the 'librul meedya' is lost on conservatives, evidently. And yes, Carson's shrill denial about his involvement with Mannatech clearly qualifies him as a liar of the first degree, as well as a snake oil salesman. There's nothing disingenuous about asking a candidate about their financial dealings with discredited or prosecuted business partner. It speaks to the candidate's honesty and credibility, or lack thereof.
12
Right-wing radio hosts like Mark Levin are making the same claim about the first Republican debate hosted by that bastion of left-wing thinking, FoxNews. "And let us not forget the moderator food fights did not begin with CNBC. It did not begin with CNN. You know damn well who it began with."
http://on.msnbc.com/1Hi8KF5
http://on.msnbc.com/1Hi8KF5
2
Once Trump threw his big-deal hissy fit and bullied CNBC into accepting his conditions for participating in the last debate, the groundwork was laid for Republicans double down in their effort to squeeze the media even further. These massive egomaniacs and serial prevaricators want only "squishy" spoon-fed questions, from their chosen moderators like Rush Gasbagh, and Bill OhReally.
What's next? In-depth analysis of Jeb!'s fantasy football picks and how he spent his winnings? A debate in which every candidate gets to go on endlessly about their faith and how it would guide them as president? At least when a journalist goes for a "gotcha" question, it gives the viewer the impression they might actually have done their job.
What's next? In-depth analysis of Jeb!'s fantasy football picks and how he spent his winnings? A debate in which every candidate gets to go on endlessly about their faith and how it would guide them as president? At least when a journalist goes for a "gotcha" question, it gives the viewer the impression they might actually have done their job.
6
The Republican candidates are perfectly willing to address tough questions but that is not what the liberal CNBC moderators were asking. They were determined to ask "gotcha" questions in an effort tp portray the candidates in a bad light, while other liberal moderators are tossing Hillary fluffy softball questions.
2
If you want to see what gotcha questions look like, watch the sham called the House special committee on Benghazi. And if you want to know how a credible candidate for the US presidency sounds, listen to how Hillary answers those and other questions, both the delivery and the substance, even when she avoids answering them. Republicans should be ashamed of their candidates, their party and the utter lack of seriousness and substance they display, instead of defending them. What a joke you have made of the country, its institutions and the electoral process.
2
The candidates' whining about the media is unbelievable. One wonders how well they would fare under the pressures of being president if they can't take tough questions. Putin would puree them and serve them with caviar on little slices of crusty brown bread.
8
The problems in the media have gone way beyond just "gotcha" questions or "liberal bias". The basic journalistic integrity of the media is being called into question. It's not just that disgrace of a CNBC debate. Earlier this year we had the UVA Rape Hoax from Rolling Stone that was eagerly reported on as true for weeks by the media because they don't have time to fact check, they got an endanger to push. Before that, we had the Michael Brown "Hands up, don't shoot" fiction that after the facts came out and the rioting was done, the media was forced to admit never actually happened. That's just 3 examples. There are many more. The media has a serious problem.
2
To paraphrase Robert Fripp, I recommend watching more attentively. First, no serious person considers Rolling Stone to be journalism. Second, the media correctly expressed the ambiguity of the Michael Brown case. I was asked by one of my students about the case, and I said, "I haven't seen anything in the media that gives me a clear cut answer one way or another. We'll just have to wait." The media did report the social unrest that ensued, but that is appropriate, isn't it? And third.... Oh wait, there wasn't a third.
time wasted on none sense questions.
Did Carson support a nutritional supplement?
Was Trump morally qualified?
Fantasy football regs?
Did I miss the question on the Keystone pipeline? the Trans Pacific treaty? cures for the 18 trillion debt? 42 million on food stamps? etc.
Did Carson support a nutritional supplement?
Was Trump morally qualified?
Fantasy football regs?
Did I miss the question on the Keystone pipeline? the Trans Pacific treaty? cures for the 18 trillion debt? 42 million on food stamps? etc.
4
I like the idea of questions from the audience. Perhaps they will be vetted. Perhaps they will be set-ups, but they can't be any worse than what the moderators come up with.
With the exception of Gwen Ifell.
With the exception of Gwen Ifell.
3
The Republican war on reality never ends.
The entire GOP platform is a sumptuous right-wing basket of fantasy, fiction and phoniness.
No honest question need apply.
Down is Up, God and Greed Are Good, We're #1: GOP 2015
Next question, please.
The entire GOP platform is a sumptuous right-wing basket of fantasy, fiction and phoniness.
No honest question need apply.
Down is Up, God and Greed Are Good, We're #1: GOP 2015
Next question, please.
379
Although all animals are equal , some pig are more equal than others. Orwell.
Nice conflation of about 20 people into a pithy caricature.
The entire Democratic platform is truly the sumptuous buffet of goodies and promises that could never be fulfilled. That's why it is better called the Dream Ticket.
Thankfully the American people are stubbornly refusing to turn over power to those whom you parody or support.
The entire Democratic platform is truly the sumptuous buffet of goodies and promises that could never be fulfilled. That's why it is better called the Dream Ticket.
Thankfully the American people are stubbornly refusing to turn over power to those whom you parody or support.
Why is this a NYTimes "Pick?"
The first question by John Harwood directed at Donald Trump was less of a gotcha question than a pure insult. Once he had shot that one out it was all over. All the candidate bristled and the debate never took off or happened. It showed very poor judgement on Harwood's part and he of all people should have known better but apparently he was self appointed to bring Trump down. He failed badly.
2
In reference to ostriches, Mr. Blow's focus on Ben Carson in the last G.O.P. primary debate, shows us how his race values can blind him to other likely candidate issues, some perhaps more important than Carson.
For the hands that once collected food stamps, to paraphrase Jesse Jackson ("The hands that once picked cotton are the hands that now choose a President"), will probably not be the same hands that sign new food stamp laws passed by Congress. But if Blow believes that Sen. Rubio won the last debate, why waste ink on Carson?
Why not discuss the relationship (or lack thereof) of Rubio's (as well as Cruz's) views on immigration, the racism of white Cubans in South Florida such as the late Bebe Rebozo and other leaders of the anti-Castro community there, the political rivalry of Mexican and other South American voters (mostly Democrat voters) here with Cubans (mostly Republican voters) there?
For the hands that once collected food stamps, to paraphrase Jesse Jackson ("The hands that once picked cotton are the hands that now choose a President"), will probably not be the same hands that sign new food stamp laws passed by Congress. But if Blow believes that Sen. Rubio won the last debate, why waste ink on Carson?
Why not discuss the relationship (or lack thereof) of Rubio's (as well as Cruz's) views on immigration, the racism of white Cubans in South Florida such as the late Bebe Rebozo and other leaders of the anti-Castro community there, the political rivalry of Mexican and other South American voters (mostly Democrat voters) here with Cubans (mostly Republican voters) there?
1
Indisputably, Ben Carson gave several paid speeches on behalf of Mannatech, a very questionable outfit, and appeared in at least one "infomercial" for them. And he says he had no relationship? Carson, quite simply, lied about this in the debate. In addition to all his other deficiencies, like not knowing the first thing about any aspect of public policy, he is a liar. But as long as he is or claims to be a "Christian" he will garner a lot of votes in some states like Iowa.
18
I agree almost completely with Charles Blow here but there was at least one question that -- even as a Democrat not fond of any of the Republican candidates --I found to be a terrible question, a question calculated to that enlighten no one. And it was this one to Mike Huickabee: ". . . Donald Trump. When you look at him, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite the country?
That question was not posed to enlighten us about the candidates but it did tell us the moderators wanted to have a an insult fest.
Serious questions to serious candidates seem not to draw big audiences in America anymore, since our critical thinking skills have been dulled by too much trashy TV commentary. But questions that cause the candidates to fight with one another DO draw big audiences.
Big audiences lead to big revenues for the media giants.
And that is ALL that matters to the media chieftains.
Yes, I believe the candidates would rather be able to just deliver their stump speeches at "debates" but it is also true that the CNBC moderators were really not up to the job of helping the American voters to know and understand more about the candidates and their political views.
That question was not posed to enlighten us about the candidates but it did tell us the moderators wanted to have a an insult fest.
Serious questions to serious candidates seem not to draw big audiences in America anymore, since our critical thinking skills have been dulled by too much trashy TV commentary. But questions that cause the candidates to fight with one another DO draw big audiences.
Big audiences lead to big revenues for the media giants.
And that is ALL that matters to the media chieftains.
Yes, I believe the candidates would rather be able to just deliver their stump speeches at "debates" but it is also true that the CNBC moderators were really not up to the job of helping the American voters to know and understand more about the candidates and their political views.
3
I've never quite understood the GOP's contention that the mainstream media are liberal and anti GOP: The have their very own cable news channel (Fox) which is the most watched of them all. They virtually own the AM band in talk radio. They have tons of featured syndicated columnists (Parker, Brooks, Krauthammer, Hughes, etc., etc.) and I'd bet the vast majority of editorial pages of newspapers are reliably Republican.
So what's the problem? Don't want to talk about personal use of campaign cash and personal financial problems? (Rubio) Don't want talk about personal lack of management of assets? (Trump's corporate bankruptcies) Don't want to talk about endorsements of sketchy consumer products? (Carson) Don't want to talk about Las Vegas sugar daddies? (Rubio, again)
Or the earth being 6,000 years old? Or climate change not human caused?
Maybe it *would* be better to talk about three page tax codes and doing away with the IRS and the Department of Education.
So what's the problem? Don't want to talk about personal use of campaign cash and personal financial problems? (Rubio) Don't want talk about personal lack of management of assets? (Trump's corporate bankruptcies) Don't want to talk about endorsements of sketchy consumer products? (Carson) Don't want to talk about Las Vegas sugar daddies? (Rubio, again)
Or the earth being 6,000 years old? Or climate change not human caused?
Maybe it *would* be better to talk about three page tax codes and doing away with the IRS and the Department of Education.
316
There's no problem. It's become a routine tactic for dissemblers to play the role of victim in order to cover up their dishonesty and repressive policies.
3
The Mainstream Media. Usually referred to as the "liberal mainstream media." Or, if one prefers, the Lamestream Media.
This meme has become such an established part of the right wing victimhood narrative that few really give it the thought it deserves.
But consider: Those on the right are quick to compare the ratings of Fox with those of the other major organizations. Everybody concedes that the right owns talk radio. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page regulars bash Obama in every column they write. For every MoveOn.org there is a RedState.
So, why do we never talk about the "conservative mainstream media?" Fox is hardly Pirate Radio anchored outside of territorial waters.
This meme has become such an established part of the right wing victimhood narrative that few really give it the thought it deserves.
But consider: Those on the right are quick to compare the ratings of Fox with those of the other major organizations. Everybody concedes that the right owns talk radio. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page regulars bash Obama in every column they write. For every MoveOn.org there is a RedState.
So, why do we never talk about the "conservative mainstream media?" Fox is hardly Pirate Radio anchored outside of territorial waters.
24
Anyone complaining about difficult "gotcha" questions in a "debate" needs to go back and watch the Benghazi committee and Hillary Clinton. That's like its own university course on the topic. Instead of griping about not getting the right questions and getting all flustered over them, how about presenting the facts and showing the moderators' questions to be slanted rather than throwing a tantrum and going home with all your toys?
2
Oh I am so sick of these egotistical, overweening, whining, self serving Republican candidates. If they think asking an ethical question to the front runner is "gotcha" then their definition of gotcha is whatever disputes their narrative. The narrative is, in some quarters, called lying.
21
Now that it's been announced that the GOP candidates want to control future debates, one would have to conclude that the elephants are trying to take over the circus.
15
Intellectual flat-footedness? That's too much credit for these creatures. They have no intellect to begin with and no feet to stand on.
13
It is a copout to blame the medium when one's message doesn't come through. If these candidates think that debates are traps in which they have to be constantly "on" and think on their feet, what do they think the actual presidency requires?
14
Spot on. Hell, Cruz complained when they asked him a question about the budget deal which was just passed. If that isn't in scope for a candidate, what is?
The telling part of this is that the candidates (especially Trump) complained about the questions when they were on Fox.
The telling part of this is that the candidates (especially Trump) complained about the questions when they were on Fox.
12
I like it! The elephants in the room are playing ostrich!
15
Maybe Ben Carson as low talker is the new Clarence Thomas
Braying about "gotcha" questions strikes me as a cowardly way to lower the bar for the nation's highest office. A negotiator - and the job of the President is to be the nation's top negotiator - must always save face and preserve their bargaining position, even when presented with unpredictable situations. If you think the media is being unfair by asking tough questions, just wait till you're on the line with Putin.
28
Where are the Republicans heading with their reality TV campaign. The answer is obvious: staged debates where they control the questions and the questioners.
23
I guess we'll find out whether the NYT can recognize "gotcha journalism" when the Democrats debate on Fox News. Oh, wait. The Democrats are afraid to debate on Fox News. So I guess we'll never know.
6
We'll know the media is serious about "gotcha" questions when they start asking democratic candidates:
Are you in favor of abortion at 8 months? Seven months? Where should the cutoff be When do you believe life actually begins?
Do gays hate Christians?
Why do democrats hate white males?
Are you in favor of abortion at 8 months? Seven months? Where should the cutoff be When do you believe life actually begins?
Do gays hate Christians?
Why do democrats hate white males?
2
Oh, come on. The Democrats are well aware that FOX may be the Republican branch of "mainstream media" but, unlike their "liberal" counterpart they are "fair and balanced".
1
Pretty lame. . . CNBC is the network of Wall Street and many of its commentators are straight up Republicans, i.e. Rick Santelli (Mr. Tea Party) and Larry Kudlow (Mr. Supply-Side Trickledown) so it is hard to say that CNBC is "liberal". Besides Reince and the RNC chose them and Fox as "safe choices". Talk about whiners! Meanwhile, go to the CNN debate and you will see plenty of tough questions (if you want to classify them as gotcha) asked of the Democratic candidates.
2
Arthur Brisbane and Daniel Okrent, both past public editors at the New York Times have acknowledged liberal bias at your paper. You have no standing to comment on this topic.
2
In that case, since you are exhibiting conservative bias, you have no right to comment on the article either. Get real!
1
you are absolutely right they were not "gotcha" questions. but the questions were designed to try and embarrass the candidates or make a mockery of the GOP nominating process, I watched all 4 debates (3 GOP and 1 Democratic) and out of the 4 the one on CNBC was the worse, when CNN held the Republican debate it was a good debate but looking back I seen they were trying to get the candidates to fight amongst each other but with the Democratic debate it was a different story, the questions were all about what can you give the American people to buy their vote, they had the former Secretary of State on that stage and they only asked 1 (one) foreign policy question. so you can say there is no media bias against the republicans but I have seen it and after Sen. Cruz pointed it out on the CNBC debate I looked back and seen exactly what he was talking about.
2
The moderators were weak in the sense that discourse was disorderly. Rules were unclear or inconsistently enforced. Candidates butted in, interrupted each other and talked over one other. I change the channel when that happens. But how do you hold an orderly debate when there are a dozen candidates and each one is auditioning for a billionaire donor? (I guess in that sense, Rubio won. He got asked to the prom by a sugar daddy two days later.) But for Cruz to complain about "liberal media bias" and Carson to rail against "liberal propaganda" when confronted with facts of climate change or being a paid pitchman for quack medicine means that they are delusional.
I wish I (American history professor) could moderate a GOP debate. I would ask, Mr. Cruz, did the right side or the wrong side win the Civil War?
Or Mr. Cruz, in 2013 you helped shut down the federal government in opposition to The Affordable Care Act, and then you signed your family up for insurance under an ACA federal exchange because it was the best deal your family could get. You were quoted as saying you believe in following the text of every law, even if you disagree with it personally. Were this the year 1851 and the federal Fugitive Slave Act was in effect, would you have hidden or reported to authorities a runaway slave that knocked on your door for help?
I understand that GOP candidates don't want to articulate detailed policy positions or have their records probed, so just scream "liberal bias."
I wish I (American history professor) could moderate a GOP debate. I would ask, Mr. Cruz, did the right side or the wrong side win the Civil War?
Or Mr. Cruz, in 2013 you helped shut down the federal government in opposition to The Affordable Care Act, and then you signed your family up for insurance under an ACA federal exchange because it was the best deal your family could get. You were quoted as saying you believe in following the text of every law, even if you disagree with it personally. Were this the year 1851 and the federal Fugitive Slave Act was in effect, would you have hidden or reported to authorities a runaway slave that knocked on your door for help?
I understand that GOP candidates don't want to articulate detailed policy positions or have their records probed, so just scream "liberal bias."
13
C'mon Charles, for most (all) of them this is just a book tour and an audition for highly-paid speeches and talking head gigs. Even if they lose they win; just look at Huckabee, for example. He'll never have to worry about money; he can always go hawk cane sugar as a cure for obesity. His base would believe him, except for those who who are no longer with us as a result of their belief that cinnamon would cure their diabetes.
Gotcha questions? They don't need no stinking questions at all. They're just up there for the free publicity and to strut their loud-mouthed ignorance. The fate of the country isn't even a consideration for them. They're set for life, so why worry about "those people"?
I saw a clip of Trump saying something like "The hell with the media!" yesterday. Maybe it's time for the media to say the hell with Trump and the rest of the whiners and stop giving them free publicity. Make 'em pay for it at least. They're such believers in their "market-based" religion that they should be okay with that. That way they'll have some "skin in the game."
Gotcha questions? They don't need no stinking questions at all. They're just up there for the free publicity and to strut their loud-mouthed ignorance. The fate of the country isn't even a consideration for them. They're set for life, so why worry about "those people"?
I saw a clip of Trump saying something like "The hell with the media!" yesterday. Maybe it's time for the media to say the hell with Trump and the rest of the whiners and stop giving them free publicity. Make 'em pay for it at least. They're such believers in their "market-based" religion that they should be okay with that. That way they'll have some "skin in the game."
24
OK, Charles Blow, good column. If anything you went easy on the candidates and the media, but your point was made. Now, where are prescriptions for change? I am less concerned about whether a question is "gotcha" or not than if it has substance or not. Of course I see no reason to expect improvement (based on my observation of media and politics in recent decades).
1
The Republican candidates don't all have the same interests when it comes to the debate modalities. But the "establishment candidates" happily went along with bashing the media, and didn't rise up to defend the RNC, out of fear of appearing even more establishment friendly. Thus, they will get what they deserve. Now that the candidates are "free" to chose, pre-debate bickering between them over the rules is inevitable. I say it's better to laugh than to weep over Republicans. It doesn't change anything either way, but it's better for your health.
10
So, if I am understanding this, a "gotcha question" is any question you don't have a prepared/coached answer to. These GOP candidates clearly are more afraid of their own ignorance and their lack of substance and realistic ideas than their low-to-no info backers are.
15
Some examples of non-gotcha questions I would like to see addressed by all candidates, directly and as completely as possible (take your time, but no diversions!):
(1) Do you support using the shutting down of government to gain political leverage?
(2) same question with respect to the debt limit specifically?
(3) Is it your position that taxes should never be increased?
(4) Do you favor universal health coverage, and, if so, how might it best be achieved?
(5) To what extent do you think the US can affect long-term trends in the Middle East?
(6) Please give an example(s) of a modern government(s) that you deem to be of appropriate "size" (i.e. not "Big Government").
(1) Do you support using the shutting down of government to gain political leverage?
(2) same question with respect to the debt limit specifically?
(3) Is it your position that taxes should never be increased?
(4) Do you favor universal health coverage, and, if so, how might it best be achieved?
(5) To what extent do you think the US can affect long-term trends in the Middle East?
(6) Please give an example(s) of a modern government(s) that you deem to be of appropriate "size" (i.e. not "Big Government").
26
Mostly good questions. I especially like questions 4 and 5 as they could equally be applied to Democrats. You could also change 3 to: "Is it your position that taxes should never be cut?"
I would also ask: "Given that consumer spending accounts for 70% of the GDP, which income group should get the most tax relief to spur the economy?"
I would also ask: "Given that consumer spending accounts for 70% of the GDP, which income group should get the most tax relief to spur the economy?"
If Ted Cruz has his way and replaces the moderators with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, should the candidates have to pay for the privilege of running what at that point is essentially an infomercial?
17
The Repubs blame media moderators for trying to get their candidates to think on their feet--quite a feat if you either lead with your chin or what comes out of your mouth is what should be coming out of another orifice.
Thinking on one's feet is necessary for any elected office in a Constitutional democracy.
What the GOP wants is a permanent authoritarian autocracy, merged with a plutocratic pornocracy.
Thinking on one's feet is necessary for any elected office in a Constitutional democracy.
What the GOP wants is a permanent authoritarian autocracy, merged with a plutocratic pornocracy.
20
Perhaps you should have watched the debate as I and many other did because I can guarantee you a Democratic candidate would not have been asked those questions. When you ask a question and it is so below the belt that the entire audience starts to boo you know it was completely inappropriate and uncalled for. When candidates enter into a debate it is to get their views out and why not "hey Marco, Jeb said this about you.....how do you respond" and hey Mr. Trump is your candidacy a clown like freak show....and hey Marco you used money from the house you sold to pay something off.....those were questions asked and they were questions no Democratic candidate has been asked. Perhaps before judging the Republican party you should watch a debate of theirs instead of all of you and your love affair with the new socialist/Marxist/Democratic party.
2
All of this faux outrage by Republicans about how they are being assaulted and humiliated by the so-called ' liberal press' along with there decision to cancel the NBC debate raises this chilling speculation. If ---perish the thought---any of these Republican characters should actually become president, would only right wing reporters be invited to press conferences? No 'liberal' representatives need show up.
28
Splg, there's a big difference between a presidential press conference meant to serve the entire nation and a GOP debate meant to inform GOP voters.
Why do Democrats care about these debates at all?
Why do Democrats care about these debates at all?
One hopes you're not suggesting that others than Republicans need not bother to, or should not, scrutinize that party's candidates in GOP debates. If so, you are underscoring my point that those who are not of that persuasion just aren't welcome.
if gotcha questions are uncomfortable because they put the candidate under unexpected stress, then we need lots more - for that exactly is what being the president is all about. Trial by fire. Unexpected stress. We need a president who can tough out the inevitable gotcha situations with humility, equanimity, good sense, humor, reason, and aplomb. Who can keep their cool and their good sense when the going gets tough. By demanding there be no more of these, the RNC is openly admitting their candidates can not do that. If I needed a brain surgeon, I would not ask the President of the United States to do the operation! By what possible grounds do we think a nervous, insecure, mumbling brain surgeon can do the president's job? In the words of Kipling - 'if you can keep your head when those around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you . . . you'll be a man, my son."
302
They can only "getcha" if you lie.
20
I pretty much agree but I don't spend nearly as much time considering Carson because unlike Trump, I really don't think Carson is serious candidate.
On the larger question about the debate, I thought it was awful. I thought the moderators were awful. I have lost pretty much all respect for Harwood. I now view him as someone not very bright. I think about the first question, what was supposed to be their introductions. Why ask, "what is your greatest weakness?" Why start off with that tone??? Why not ask, "what is your greatest strength and how will you utilize it in office? Or What do you view as America's greatest challenge and what is your plan to address it? Or What will be the overriding theme of your presidency? These questions are open-ended, allow for real answers and real insight into the candidates, and most importantly, they don't automatically put the candidates on defense. I just don't understand the thought--if any--that went into facilitating that debate. It will be taught in colleges as "the way NOT to run a forum." Harwood is pretty much DONE.
On the larger question about the debate, I thought it was awful. I thought the moderators were awful. I have lost pretty much all respect for Harwood. I now view him as someone not very bright. I think about the first question, what was supposed to be their introductions. Why ask, "what is your greatest weakness?" Why start off with that tone??? Why not ask, "what is your greatest strength and how will you utilize it in office? Or What do you view as America's greatest challenge and what is your plan to address it? Or What will be the overriding theme of your presidency? These questions are open-ended, allow for real answers and real insight into the candidates, and most importantly, they don't automatically put the candidates on defense. I just don't understand the thought--if any--that went into facilitating that debate. It will be taught in colleges as "the way NOT to run a forum." Harwood is pretty much DONE.
2
Tam, I could not disagree more with your suggested opening questions. Think about it: All candidates have their standard, excruciatingly well practiced stump speeches and one liners that they can rattle off in their sleep. Rarely is that campaign trail rhetoric truly informative. By asking tough questions designed to make the candidates think on their feet and maybe even squirm a little, the debate moderators were doing us all a favor huge by trying to force the candidates to speak beyond their prepared stump speech rhetoric. While I wished the debate questions were more logically organized, I thought the questions themselves were appropriate and totally fair.
3
Tam - I agree with you that the debate "was awful", but the degree of "awful" was much higher with the candidates than the moderators!
The problem with the CNBC moderators wasn't the "gotcha" questions: it was that they let the candidates ignore the rules, they weren't prepared with follow-ups (or the sources of their opening questions) and they just let the whole thing run wild.
Tough questions are an opportunity for a candidate to show us what he or she is made of. The reason the GOP candidates came off looking bad isn't the questions: it's the answers.
Tough questions are an opportunity for a candidate to show us what he or she is made of. The reason the GOP candidates came off looking bad isn't the questions: it's the answers.
24
The problem (besides the fact that reality has that well-known liberal bias) is that the GOP has become so coddled by Fox News and Clear Channel that they don't know what to do when actual journalists, not PR flacks masquerading as Fox News hosts, ask real questions.
Most of the GOP avoids interviews with any media that doesn't share their bias. Back in the good old days when the FCC made broadcast channels be impartial in their reporting, hard questions were expected. The GOP lives in its own little bubble and the dwindling number of self-identified Republicans have all moved there too. It's a comfortable neighborhood where uncomfortable facts don't intrude.
Most of the GOP avoids interviews with any media that doesn't share their bias. Back in the good old days when the FCC made broadcast channels be impartial in their reporting, hard questions were expected. The GOP lives in its own little bubble and the dwindling number of self-identified Republicans have all moved there too. It's a comfortable neighborhood where uncomfortable facts don't intrude.
26
It's always somebody else's fault when it comes to the republicans. Especially when it comes to crashing our economy..
17
Chris K it wasn't the Republicans who crashed the economy. It is Obama who is destroying it. It wasn't the Republicans who crashed the housing market. It was Bill Clinton and his "Community Reinvestment Program" who did with their thoughts that anyone who wanted a home should be able to buy one. As for it always being someone elses fault.....I can't believe you or any other leftie out there can say that with a straight face.....especially with Obama the King of blaming someone else for the fact that he is so completely unqualified and inept to hold the Presidency
2
Dr. Carson is all over social media telling his story. What a brilliant move! He captures the hearts of the readers ever day on FB and the like. And it is now up to the readers to vote and they love this man! He does not have to act rude and bud in while others are speaking at the debate. He listens, and he learns what to do and not to do. Of course he would....he's the only one up there, besides Trump who has a brain. CARSON/TRUMP 2016 or visa versa. Both are credible candidates looking for true change this round.
1
By "credible" do you mean tax plans that favor the rich, and more boots on the ground in the middle east?
1
Gotcha questions should be asked on the Sunday morning interview shows. Instead guests are lobbed softballs. The other six days of the week there seem to be some reporters following some candidates but not allowed to ask any questions. We have no news, just the appearance of news.
11
I totally agree with the GOP. We need good answers to substantive questions. The transcript of the CNBC debate shows substantive questions were indeed asked. It seems that across the board, the candidates would rather not have to answer them. Frankly, I'd love to see them have their staged debate, with moderators who agree with them asking questions the candidates have already written for themselves. It's almost SNL funny, except that it's scarily real. Notably the most reasonable candidate, Kasich, has stayed out of this media-bashing and the group letter by the candidates. Kudos to him. I hope the rest of the GOP is paying attention to his maturity and leadership.
8
Why hasn't anybody pointed out that Hillary's Bengazi hearing was full of gotcha questions. And it was 11 hours long. Far far longer than these debates which divide the questioning among 10 candidates. These delicate candidates cry unfair and partisan and complain about 3 long hours ....babies all.
33
Probably should have watched the debate Brigitte. As for Hillary, she wouldn't have had to answer questions for 11 hours had she simply complied with the requests for her e-mails 3 years ago. Heck, even after the questioning the Benghazi panel are still receiving more of her e-mails, the ones of course that don't involve communication with Obama. Those are being withheld also in this ever so transparent administration.
1
@brigitte: There is huge difference between congressional investigation into wrongdoings of an ex-official and a debate of among people who want to get elected. The gotcha questions belong in investigations; they don't belong in debates.
It would be a totally different story if the same liberal press would have posed the same gotcha questions to Hillary and company in the dem debate.
It would be a totally different story if the same liberal press would have posed the same gotcha questions to Hillary and company in the dem debate.
"Republican field is littered with candidates with strong résumés — I use the word strong here loosely, to mean the existence of governmental experience, not the quality of it — but relatively weak rhetorical skills."
I'm kind of curious how this doesn't describe Hilary Clinton?
I'm kind of curious how this doesn't describe Hilary Clinton?
1
Which of the Republican candidates have been Secretary of State? Which have been full-term senators? Which have been the spouse of both a state governor and a president of the United States. Being First Lady is very much a political job.
You may not like Hillary Clinton, but you can not base that dislike on lack of experience or the poor quality of the experience she has.
You may not like Hillary Clinton, but you can not base that dislike on lack of experience or the poor quality of the experience she has.
6
Vincent, the answer to your question is a resounding 'no'. Hillary has excellent (at least in comparison to the GOP 'candidates') rhetorical skills. She has poise, strength under fire, decades of experience in actual positions of authority. I will admit, her tenure as SOS was a poor performance, as has all US Foreign Policy been in general for more than 15 years now. John Kerry, no exception.
3
Hillary's resume is reasonably strong: six years as a U.S.Senator, four as Secretary of State, and active involvement in her husband's long executive career in Arkansas and the White House. You'd have to go back to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and (yuk) Lon - er, Dick - Cheney to find stronger resumes of candidates for national office. As for rhetoric, she handled the Benghazi hearings superbly, and is generally thought to have won the first Democratic debate against Bernie Sanders, himself an effective speaker.
-- I hope this answers your question, Vincent.
-- I hope this answers your question, Vincent.
3
All the participants in the CNBC debate look like they were running for class president rather than POTUS. CNBC revealed a field of GOP candidates who were simply unprepared. What really made the whining over the hard questions pathetic? Clinton stayed cool, calm and collected after the Benghazi Committee grilled her for 11 hours and the whiners couldn't handle 2 hours of a debate!
13
There is no coherence in the Republican Party. Republicans I know believe that welfare encourages the poor to have too many children so it should be cut back. Meanwhile the party does everything it can to sabotage family planning and access to abortion.
12
Welfare does encourage the poor to have more children and it has decimated the black family structure. And exactly how do the Republicans sabotage family planning? Because they believe people should pay for their own birth control instead of society? Why should society and hard working taxpayers pay for someones birth control? If they're old enough to have sex they should be responsible enough to get birth control. And your saying that killing a human life should be a means of family planning? Do you have any idea how sick and twisted that idea is? How about instead of killing a human they go down to the local drug store and purchase a damn 50 cent condom ahead of time in preparation? Or are you saying women are too stupid to think ahead and prepare?
1
The republican "candidates" are just the symptom of the party's disease. Conservatism is the malady, a mean vicious self-centered hate of the other. To promote reason and fairness is the kiss of death for them.
13
Most of the Republican candidates are not conservative. They're reactionary, a much more serious condition.
3
but . . . wasn't 'gotcha' exactly what the Bengazi hearings were all about? Only we tax payers paid for that entertainment. Seems like the RNC is being just a tad bit disingenuous here, don't'ja'think?
21
You didn't go into this but it seems to me the RNC's action suspending the GOP presidential debate on NBC is based on the same faulty logic that Egypt used to imprison 3 reporters who work for Al-Jazeera English. Al Jazeera English isn't Al Jazeera just as CNBC isn't NBC.
4
Not sure why the RNC felt the need to sell the rights to these debates to TV networks in the first place. It does reflect the problem with corporatists though.
3
When you do not have a good answer, when you are caught in a lie, when you contradict your record Attack the Media. Political Science 101.
17
The uninformed comments on this page amaze me. All ten of the GOP candidates are superior to the corrupt Hillary out on the trail yesterday promising more freebies and supporting Black Lives Matter. This corrupt liar admitted in the Benghazi hearings that she emailed her family that it was an Al Queda attack orchestrated attack then went out to the public and the families of the victims with the internet movie lie! The Republican debate showed what they stand for and was a success. They want to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Hilary has no plans that are new or creative. Reagan did it and so can the new President. What did the dems talk about? Free maternal leave pay! What a sham.. Just like their party. Where was the question about the national debt that Obama has doubled? More taxes for more regulations and more worthless over bloated government that kills jobs! And, Hilary! Who has lost more economically the last 8 years? Women! Her increased socialism will not solve problems and her lies and sell outs to huge money interests will further ruin this country.
3
Umm by every measure there is we have actually GAINED economically over the last 8 years.
5
Hillary lied about the video. That's a "fact", just not one partisans are interested in. Another "fact" is Obama lied about the Affordable Care Act.
What we've learned from democrats is that their party's members "misspeak". Only republicans "lie."
What we've learned from democrats is that their party's members "misspeak". Only republicans "lie."
2
Mike Clouser: You state "the national debt that Obama has doubled" - please go online to the Cato Institute (not a liberal think tank!) and check out your claim. The national debt has decreased significantly during the Obama administration.
2
Attacking the media is more than just good optics: attacking the media is good propaganda, especially when propaganda is required to sell economic solutions based on snake oil and magical thinking.
13
Mr Blow, please name three ABC, NBC or CBS anchors or Sunday morning news show hosts over the last 50 years who were NOT Democrats.
Now that you're stumped, please realize there is a major problem with ideological diversity within your profession. Which is to say — you have none.
Now that you're stumped, please realize there is a major problem with ideological diversity within your profession. Which is to say — you have none.
6
Most people who are inquisitive---a trait useful in journalism---tend to be liberal in their thinking.
Try not to confuse intellectual curiosity with diversity in political leaning.
Try not to confuse intellectual curiosity with diversity in political leaning.
6
So you have voter registration data on network news anchors going back 50 years to support your assertion?
5
Of course he doesn't. All politics is about what you believe to be true for the modern GOP. My tax plan will work because I want it to. Foreign countries will do what I want. Immigration problems can be solved by simply removing 11 million people, which will be painless. If you call me on these fantasies, it's because you're a biased stooge of the "Democrat" party.
2
Mr. Blow, you have been too kind to Marco Rubio in this piece. As any attentive Floridian knows, in last week’s ‘debate,’ Rubio relied on so-called “media bias” to dismiss questions about his financial woes calling them “discredited attacks.” That was a bald-faced lie, as ample court records will document. Consider these excerpts from a recent Orlando Sentinel article (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-marco-rubio-president-scott-ma...
“he [Rubio] has been dogged by financial and ethical questions from the moment he became Florida House speaker and immediately spent $559,000 in taxpayer money to renovate offices and build a new members-only dining room.
He entered the Florida Legislature nearly broke and with $30,000 in credit-card debt — but managed to live high on the hog thanks to a GOP credit card funded largely by special interests that wanted legislative favors.
He used this Amex to charge everything from plane trips to limo rides. Even stone pavers at his home, an incident he described in his book as a mistake.”
Discredited attacks, media bias? I don't think so. A weak, inexperienced, arrogant candidate? Far more likely.
“he [Rubio] has been dogged by financial and ethical questions from the moment he became Florida House speaker and immediately spent $559,000 in taxpayer money to renovate offices and build a new members-only dining room.
He entered the Florida Legislature nearly broke and with $30,000 in credit-card debt — but managed to live high on the hog thanks to a GOP credit card funded largely by special interests that wanted legislative favors.
He used this Amex to charge everything from plane trips to limo rides. Even stone pavers at his home, an incident he described in his book as a mistake.”
Discredited attacks, media bias? I don't think so. A weak, inexperienced, arrogant candidate? Far more likely.
28
See corrected URL for above-referenced Orlando Sentinel piece by Scott Maxwell:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-marco-rubio-president-scott-ma...
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-marco-rubio-president-scott-ma...
The problem is that politicians seem to to lie alot.Embellishing careers forgetting past mistakes and then blame the media when it is pointed out to them.If they simply told the truth in the beginning their would be know need for the gotcha question
5
Candidates don't even answer the asked questions. They skew their answers to fit some previously-decided upon narrative.
12
The contrast between these Republican cry babies and Hilary Clinton is stunning. Clinton more than held her own in front of yet another bogus Benghazi hearing for nearly 11 hrs (basically all the Republicans lobbed at her were "gotcha questions") with nary a whimper. But ask Ted Cruz about the national debt or Ben Carson about being paid by a phony nutritional supplement company and they go bonkers, obfuscate or worse. Is too much to ask that these people who strive to become President of this country man up?
744
For the record, Ben Carson didn't go bonkers. He never does. He doesn't have to. It is the liberals in the media who are bending over backwards desperately trying to make their case that he lied.
2
Yes, and those hearings proved she lied to the America people repeatedly.
1
If Blow thinks that the questions were designed to stimulate debate vs. attack the candidates, he is living in a dream world.
And if he wants to see a "hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates"m he need only view the Democratic slate.
And if he wants to see a "hodgepodge of fatally flawed candidates"m he need only view the Democratic slate.
2
Clearly the Republican Party is trying to bully the media into avoiding asking tough, probing questions of its candidates in future debates.
What a bunch of wimps! I hope the media have the backbone to stand up to the GOP's threats.
We are not choosing county teacher of the year here. We are voting for an individual to go toe-to-toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin. And these folks bleat about "gotcha questions"!
Though, to be clear, I would expect the county teacher of the year to be a good deal more resilient than what we are seeing here from the GOP.
What a bunch of wimps! I hope the media have the backbone to stand up to the GOP's threats.
We are not choosing county teacher of the year here. We are voting for an individual to go toe-to-toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin. And these folks bleat about "gotcha questions"!
Though, to be clear, I would expect the county teacher of the year to be a good deal more resilient than what we are seeing here from the GOP.
14
A "gotcha question" is any question you don't have an answer for but should. It gets you off the hook and you can divert to the person who asked the question instead of answering yourself. Re Carson. If you are paid by a company to endorse their product and talk about it YOU ARE ASSOCIATED. Carson makes enough ignorant remarks I don't really care that he is associated with this deceptive company.
10
I don't understand much of what little Carson has to say because he mostly mumbles. When I do manage to understand it, it makes little sense. That, and he doesn't seem to understand the role of government in society. Is this the best the Republicans can do? These people scare me. They appear to be a disaster waiting to happen.
16
Bottom line: today's GOP has no use for democracy. As representatives and advocates of oligarchy, debates are a bothersome remnant of a form of government they actively seek to destroy.
18
The kind of question the Republicans want in the next "debate"...
How do you expect to restore greatness to America, bring God back into our lives, demand respect from the world through an awesome display of our military might, allow business to be unhindered by government regulation, taxation & unions & remove soul destroying entitlement programs from promoting indolence & dependency in a way that was pursued, say, between the years 1980 & 1988?
How do you expect to restore greatness to America, bring God back into our lives, demand respect from the world through an awesome display of our military might, allow business to be unhindered by government regulation, taxation & unions & remove soul destroying entitlement programs from promoting indolence & dependency in a way that was pursued, say, between the years 1980 & 1988?
8
Fair minded Democrats disagree with your highly partisan analysis Mr. Blow.
NY Post
Even top New York Democrats are describing last week’s CNBC “debate” as a partisan fiasco designed to embarrass the Republican presidential hopefuls and undermine their chances of winning election next year.
“If that was a Democratic debate and the Democratic candidates were treated by CNBC like the Republicans were, we’d be as upset if not more upset than the Republicans are now,’’ one of the state’s best-known Democrats — a strong Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter — told The Post.
“CNBC created a terrible environment in which to have a debate and it looked very, very partisan.
“The CNBC hosts were very adversarial and the questions were really self-serving, designed to give the questioners a chance to outshine the candidates themselves,”
He singled out CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood for special scorn, calling him “really terrible as the lead questioner” and “a one-man rant against all of the candidates.”
The Democrat said he was especially offended by Harwood’s “nasty’’ comment that Donald Trump’s tax-cutting proposal had as much chance to succeed as Trump had of flying from the podium “flapping your arms.”
“I understand that journalists are going to ask tough questions and sometimes bring up stuff that candidates are going to have to figure out how to get out from under. But does every question have to be that way?” he asked.
NY Post
Even top New York Democrats are describing last week’s CNBC “debate” as a partisan fiasco designed to embarrass the Republican presidential hopefuls and undermine their chances of winning election next year.
“If that was a Democratic debate and the Democratic candidates were treated by CNBC like the Republicans were, we’d be as upset if not more upset than the Republicans are now,’’ one of the state’s best-known Democrats — a strong Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter — told The Post.
“CNBC created a terrible environment in which to have a debate and it looked very, very partisan.
“The CNBC hosts were very adversarial and the questions were really self-serving, designed to give the questioners a chance to outshine the candidates themselves,”
He singled out CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood for special scorn, calling him “really terrible as the lead questioner” and “a one-man rant against all of the candidates.”
The Democrat said he was especially offended by Harwood’s “nasty’’ comment that Donald Trump’s tax-cutting proposal had as much chance to succeed as Trump had of flying from the podium “flapping your arms.”
“I understand that journalists are going to ask tough questions and sometimes bring up stuff that candidates are going to have to figure out how to get out from under. But does every question have to be that way?” he asked.
3
One unnamed Democrat is complaining to the Post about the debate? Obviously an example of fair and balanced reporting.
The Debates....are between the candidates...not between the candidates and
the Media.
So..Charles Blow....you too...advocate that the Debates are between you
the media and the TV media.
Well...now I gottcha...the media...stirs up trouble...to get viewers..
and
The Media...is as you are...ruining the debates.
the Media.
So..Charles Blow....you too...advocate that the Debates are between you
the media and the TV media.
Well...now I gottcha...the media...stirs up trouble...to get viewers..
and
The Media...is as you are...ruining the debates.
4
October 3, 1988 press release from the League of Women Voters.........
LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"
WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
WASHINGTON, DC —
...."It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
....Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.....
13
So true. Debates are for the citizens to know and understand the Candidate, as Ben Carson says. FYI. The moderators are doing just that! There are no 'gotcha questions' except questions to present their true selves. If these guys had no bones in the closet and had policies to find solutions to what ails our country, it would'nt be a gotcha question but an opportunity to reveal their true selves.The list of Leaders of the Pack in descending order is horrifying, Ben Carson, the most dangerous is leading the pack!! He is touted as a brilliant neurosurgeon, but his utterances are leaving his fellow professionals totally aghast. Autism related to vaccination, ban abortions with no exceptions, dismantling Medicare to be replaced by a health savings account, are all signs of a demented mind. And he is a liar to boot revealed by the Mannatech question. And silly us, we are hypnotized by his gentle demeanor! The questions were NOT gotcha questions but 'trying to reveal the truth' questions. The fact that the Republicans are crying foul is because they do not want to reveal their empty headedness and lies. Why did'nt the Democrats have a problem? The Media is being made a scapegoat. I just hope they keep doing their job of finding the truth and exposing the lies. For those in the Media, we the 99% deserve to know truth because that is the only way these shenanigans are revealed as shenanigans who fold their hands in prayer and practice voodoo.
12
"Gotcha" questions from the news media are simply an effort by the news media to get beyond the stultifying superficiality of campaign speak. No candidate these days (perhaps with the exception of Trump) dares to speak extemporaneously; instead, their handlers develop key "message" or "touch" points for the candidate to speak no matter what the question or who's asking.
Of the Republicans, Rubio and Fiorina are best at this fuax patois. Jeb happens to be one of the worst I've seen in modern times. Carson, however, seems to be following the old Marshal McLuhan idea that the media is the message. That is, Carson apparently believes that a somber, measured, quiet, almost somnolent style is all he really needs to convey, no matter what actually comes out of his mouth. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's prepared and vetted comments have not helped her connect with voters.
Political reporters detest this canned nonsense, but they have no real way to penetrate the veil of deliberate non-speak other than through the occasional gotcha question. So in that sense, they serve a real public purpose.
Of the Republicans, Rubio and Fiorina are best at this fuax patois. Jeb happens to be one of the worst I've seen in modern times. Carson, however, seems to be following the old Marshal McLuhan idea that the media is the message. That is, Carson apparently believes that a somber, measured, quiet, almost somnolent style is all he really needs to convey, no matter what actually comes out of his mouth. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's prepared and vetted comments have not helped her connect with voters.
Political reporters detest this canned nonsense, but they have no real way to penetrate the veil of deliberate non-speak other than through the occasional gotcha question. So in that sense, they serve a real public purpose.
11
What about Bernie? About as plain spoken as any candidate I've ever seen.
The whiners are whining strategically. For a significant contingent of Republican primary voters, the press (with the possible exception of Fox News) is the enemy (along with "the gummit" and liberals). It seems plausible, perhaps likely, that campaign strategists have told their candidates to attack journalists and to complain and whine about "gotcha" questions at every opportunity, thereby deflecting attention from their own lack of policy substance or, in some cases, competence for the job. If this assessment is correct, then Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, and others would complain regardless of what the question is. Turning the questioner into the problem is an old strategy, akin to blaming the victim. As long as journalists accept the premise of the exercise (I should not have to answer questions I don't like), the whining party will continue to attack them. After all, with many in the Republican primary electorate it was unfair for Katie Couric to ask Sarah Palin which newspapers she read. "All of them," was her famous reply. None of them was probably more accurate. And we voters are entitled to know that.
14
Oops, I mis read Republican primary electorate as Republican primate electorate.
1
Gotcha questions are the ones that require "damned if I do, and damned if I don't" answers. In other words, questions that demand inconvenient answers, ones that expose lies.
The problems arises when the party one belongs to distorts truths, exaggerates their successes and opponents' failures, determined exclusively on ideological beliefs, to score political points. If the truth is exposed they deny it, then proceed to explain away the facts as if the questions come from subversive journalists, implants from the opposition.
Belief become facts, regardless of the truth.
The problems arises when the party one belongs to distorts truths, exaggerates their successes and opponents' failures, determined exclusively on ideological beliefs, to score political points. If the truth is exposed they deny it, then proceed to explain away the facts as if the questions come from subversive journalists, implants from the opposition.
Belief become facts, regardless of the truth.
7
There would be no problem with "Gotcha Questions" if MSNBC had posed an equal number of them to the Democrats. But it seems a bit bias when personal, ad-hominem abusive questions are directed toward one party while softballs are thrown to the other party. Any honest and intelligent person could admit that the mainstream media, which is owned and operated by liberal New Yorkers (who think nothing like the rest of America) is largely biased toward non-Democrats.
1
As an independent voter, I have to say I can see merit on both sides of this discussion. First, I wish the media would focus their "gotchas" on policy, like tax plans that don't add up rather than personal stuff. The candidates should answer the question that is asked, or at least explain why they won't. Ted Cruz is a classic example of responding to a different question than the one that has been asked. Yet, some thought Cruz did well in the debate? Perhaps the whole notion of the debate is flawed? If someone like Rubio, who is smart and articulate, uses the debate to hide the fact that he is not qualified to be president, then I have to question the value of debates. This whole debacle reminds me of my work experience with job interviews where a candidate knocks it out of the park during the interview, but really has weak experience to do the job.
12
These made-for-TV gatherings of candidates are not debates and should not be referred to as such.
Here's a format that would prove more valuable to the viewing public:
Give each candidate 12 minutes to address the identical 4 major issues facing the US over the next ten years. No interruptions.
When that session is complete, allow each candidate to ask one question of each of the other candidates. Allow 3 minutes for each answer.
We will learn more about each candidate's position in this time than any competing format.
Leave the "gotcha" questions to the press during one-on-one interviews with each candidate at a different time.
Here's a format that would prove more valuable to the viewing public:
Give each candidate 12 minutes to address the identical 4 major issues facing the US over the next ten years. No interruptions.
When that session is complete, allow each candidate to ask one question of each of the other candidates. Allow 3 minutes for each answer.
We will learn more about each candidate's position in this time than any competing format.
Leave the "gotcha" questions to the press during one-on-one interviews with each candidate at a different time.
10
The cry of "blame the media" is usual for Republicans. As several comments below say, the only real surprise this year is that they have started screaming it so soon. By now I have heard it repeated so much over the decades that it plays older than one more rerun of "I Love Lucy," yet it fails to revive even the faint memory of a belly laugh.
In some ways, I am surprised they have resorted to it at all. For the last seven or eight years, they have been working on a newer cry for attention. They started directing it mainly at the President, but now from all the office holders and candidates, through all the talking heads and operatives, down to basest elements of their base, we hear it again and again: "The President and the liberal Democrats insist on tearing us apart as a nation." This cry is always delivered in a whining voice by speakers oblivious to their own constant attacks on those with whom they disagree, sometimes even in their own party. Usually, it is voiced by someone also demanding "their" country back from other citizens they despise. Some great bringing together there!
The humor that this cry brings to non-Republicans is much more satisfying than the tired out re-runs of old comedies. Now at least we can laugh, however distressingly, at the foaming mouths of blind hypocrites.
In some ways, I am surprised they have resorted to it at all. For the last seven or eight years, they have been working on a newer cry for attention. They started directing it mainly at the President, but now from all the office holders and candidates, through all the talking heads and operatives, down to basest elements of their base, we hear it again and again: "The President and the liberal Democrats insist on tearing us apart as a nation." This cry is always delivered in a whining voice by speakers oblivious to their own constant attacks on those with whom they disagree, sometimes even in their own party. Usually, it is voiced by someone also demanding "their" country back from other citizens they despise. Some great bringing together there!
The humor that this cry brings to non-Republicans is much more satisfying than the tired out re-runs of old comedies. Now at least we can laugh, however distressingly, at the foaming mouths of blind hypocrites.
12
Couple thoughts:
1. How do have substantive debates with 10 candidates vying for air time? The RNC should winnow the field so candidates have ample time to explain their position. Both the GOP and Democratic debates are sound bytes without much substance because of the short time allotted to answer. Next question is, is this purposeful?
2. While I disagree with the idea that the candidates should mandate the type of questions (one can imaging the GOP format would be variations on the themes of "explain why Hillary is the worst choice" or "why Bernie Sanders will give away the farm"), but a question asking if a campaign is a comic book version is also out of line. Questions should be a vehicle to give detailed explanations of policy positions. One can imagine several of the candidates who would fumble this and that is a good thing.
3. While these are primary debates, at least move the general election format back to a style akin to the League of Women Voters approach. Once
the Commission on Presidential Debates took the reigns for the 1988 election, the results have been more kabuki theater than substance.
1. How do have substantive debates with 10 candidates vying for air time? The RNC should winnow the field so candidates have ample time to explain their position. Both the GOP and Democratic debates are sound bytes without much substance because of the short time allotted to answer. Next question is, is this purposeful?
2. While I disagree with the idea that the candidates should mandate the type of questions (one can imaging the GOP format would be variations on the themes of "explain why Hillary is the worst choice" or "why Bernie Sanders will give away the farm"), but a question asking if a campaign is a comic book version is also out of line. Questions should be a vehicle to give detailed explanations of policy positions. One can imagine several of the candidates who would fumble this and that is a good thing.
3. While these are primary debates, at least move the general election format back to a style akin to the League of Women Voters approach. Once
the Commission on Presidential Debates took the reigns for the 1988 election, the results have been more kabuki theater than substance.
118
I completely agree that the short time allotted for candidates to answer is unfair to both Democrats and Republicans. How can we voters learn how candidates stand on important issues with a 1 minute response and 30 seconds to rebut. I would prefer a longer time to answer fewer questions. I want to know how these people plan to act on issues like Isis and the Middle East, taxes, gun control, Social Security and Medicare, shipping manufacturing to foreign countries to avoid US taxes and why congress is in a downward spiral because it can't get anything done. Give them 5 - 10 minutes to respond to issues important to voters. I really don't care if Marco Rubio had to take money out of a his retirement savings.
It is disingenuous, to say the least, that the TGOP wants "more substance" in questions, and "more time to answer" when their two top pseudo-candidates demanded shorter, rather than longer, "debates", and got them. There were a few ridiculous questions, to be sure, such as "Is your campaign a comic book campaign?" directed towards Mr. Trump - but the real problem with the TGOP is that they have zero substance, zero depth, zero credible solutions to real world problems, and they rely instead upon tired, thoroughly discredited voodoo economics, as George H.W. Bush once correctly opined, and extremist Christian religious beliefs - rather than facing facts, science, medical reality, and the complex global situation today. This is a truly frightening crowd, supported by a carefully stoked xenophobic, paranoid and jingoist ignoramuses. The last thing we need is an unconstitutional muzzling of the press, a la Ted Cruz - we need stark, bright sunlight, active analysis, and aggressive media pushback against the reactionary insanity of what was once at least a sober (if generally wrong) party.
8
So pathetic! The GOTP has spent years gridlocking the country, giving their leadership absolutely nothing to run on when it comes to basic accomplishments. For them, it's all obstruction, conspiracy theories, Obama blocking, and mythmaking, all the time. The investigative committee has replaced the legislative committee as their "productivity" tool of choice. They endlessly investigate the actions of the action oriented... having no actions of their own to worry about or occupy their time.
Now their campaigning strategy is made clear: first they spend their years in Washington on useless, divisive ideology, then they claim that questions that expose their weaknesses are unfair, and all about political gotchas, rather than anything fair and aporopriate. It now seems that to counter the realities of their policy failures, they want control iver their own scorecard. If you don't like the reality exposed by debate questions, then change the questions. If that doesn't work, change the format and the people asking the questions - even close the debates, so that inconvenient questions about inconvenient reality will not intrude.
For years, GOTP policy has been nothing but self satisfied pronouncements in their own mirror walled echo chambers. Now it seems they want their debates to run the same way. When will even their own base get it: they have nothing, and have done nothing, to benefit America. Killing government and hostage taking is not an effective governance policy.
Now their campaigning strategy is made clear: first they spend their years in Washington on useless, divisive ideology, then they claim that questions that expose their weaknesses are unfair, and all about political gotchas, rather than anything fair and aporopriate. It now seems that to counter the realities of their policy failures, they want control iver their own scorecard. If you don't like the reality exposed by debate questions, then change the questions. If that doesn't work, change the format and the people asking the questions - even close the debates, so that inconvenient questions about inconvenient reality will not intrude.
For years, GOTP policy has been nothing but self satisfied pronouncements in their own mirror walled echo chambers. Now it seems they want their debates to run the same way. When will even their own base get it: they have nothing, and have done nothing, to benefit America. Killing government and hostage taking is not an effective governance policy.
13
Republicans have been working the refs since the Reagan years, though the tactic dates to the 1950s.
It was the 1980s when we saw a calculated surge in the mass-marketing of the right-wing charge of "liberal media bias," a durable and quite shameless Big Lie that has been immensely profitable to GOP fortunes.
Combined with the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine, this tactic opened the floodgates. We suddenly inhabited a news environment in which any news organization that strove for a sort of centrist political truth-telling would find itself instantly overwhelmed by thousands upon thousands of angry letters (later emails, later tweets) representing the indignation of a prefab "grass roots" movement inflamed by the unfairness with which Republicans and conservatives were depicted.
Tragically for us all, the news industry soon buckled and capitulated. We entered the pastel, toxic era of "both sides do it," of false equivalence, of a growing editorial reluctance to cover a negative story about a GOP pol unless an equally negative story about a Democratic one could somehow be baked into the cake.
This has sometimes meant muted coverage--or none at all--for corrupt and extremist GOP politicians, if no Democratic equivalent could be found for "balance." Best not to awaken the beast.
Nowadays, the tactic no longer has a serious purpose, its objectives having long since been achieved. But it lingers on, part of the tactical apparatus of the GOP's mass movement. Cult stuff.
It was the 1980s when we saw a calculated surge in the mass-marketing of the right-wing charge of "liberal media bias," a durable and quite shameless Big Lie that has been immensely profitable to GOP fortunes.
Combined with the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine, this tactic opened the floodgates. We suddenly inhabited a news environment in which any news organization that strove for a sort of centrist political truth-telling would find itself instantly overwhelmed by thousands upon thousands of angry letters (later emails, later tweets) representing the indignation of a prefab "grass roots" movement inflamed by the unfairness with which Republicans and conservatives were depicted.
Tragically for us all, the news industry soon buckled and capitulated. We entered the pastel, toxic era of "both sides do it," of false equivalence, of a growing editorial reluctance to cover a negative story about a GOP pol unless an equally negative story about a Democratic one could somehow be baked into the cake.
This has sometimes meant muted coverage--or none at all--for corrupt and extremist GOP politicians, if no Democratic equivalent could be found for "balance." Best not to awaken the beast.
Nowadays, the tactic no longer has a serious purpose, its objectives having long since been achieved. But it lingers on, part of the tactical apparatus of the GOP's mass movement. Cult stuff.
10
The Republican candidates reflect the mood of their hardcore base perfectly. It has become a segment of the population growing increasingly paranoid and insular with each rejection by the greater populous of what the far-right perceive as their core "principles". Talk radio amplified commands to march in lockstep with only the most rigid of ideas about governing, makes a subversive of anyone that dares to question the party line or its messangers. The more conservatives feel they are loosing control over thier ideals about how the world and all others who occupy it should operate, the more desperate and insular they become. These latest complaintive attempts to control media questions are just another symptom of the far right's greatest problem. It continues in a desperate, hate filled effort to "take the country back" from the imaginary forces of doom. Mass paranoia, ironically constructed and fortified by a handful of right-wing media hosts who profit spectacularly from the schisms and chaos it all creates.
10
GOP strategists would love for the voting public to debate bias in the media--all the better to shift attention away from the candidates' questionable ideas and rigid world views. If candidates for the highest office in the land offer economic proposals that are either untenable or even at odds with basic macroeconomics, it is perfectly appropriate to ask them to account for these ideas. Moreover, given the fact that right-wingers relentlessly criticized President Obama as inexperienced, it seems fair to challenge the qualifications of Carson and Trump, who have never held political office. Both have made numerous statements that indicate lack of comprehension about key issues, such as Carson's assertion that the Fed links interest rates to the defificit. Finally, given the GOP's new-found critique of the reach and power of the exeuctive branch, it is vital to question the candidates' pie-in-the-sky promises that are wholly incommensurate with the actual power of the presidency.
10
As an independent voter of several decades, I believe that I am a mostly dispassionate observer of American politics and I understand that the televised Presidential debates are designed more to get ratings than to provide substantive illumination of the candidates positions. Yet even with that rather loose standard in mind, a great many of the questions posed by the moderators of during the most recent debate were frankly, appalling.
Rather than "gotcha", I would use words such as unprofessional, sophomoric, inane, vapid, superficial and lazy to describe most of the questions. It should come as no surprise then that the answers provided by the candidates are accurately described by the same adjectives. The debate was supposed to focus on economic issues however, relatively few questions focused in any meaningful way on the candidates economic ideas. Worse, there was no follow-up, no request for more detail on the many shallow candidate responses and no challenging of obviously incorrect facts.
"Deplorable" is the term that seems most appropriate to describe the performance of both the candidates and the moderators.
Rather than "gotcha", I would use words such as unprofessional, sophomoric, inane, vapid, superficial and lazy to describe most of the questions. It should come as no surprise then that the answers provided by the candidates are accurately described by the same adjectives. The debate was supposed to focus on economic issues however, relatively few questions focused in any meaningful way on the candidates economic ideas. Worse, there was no follow-up, no request for more detail on the many shallow candidate responses and no challenging of obviously incorrect facts.
"Deplorable" is the term that seems most appropriate to describe the performance of both the candidates and the moderators.
6
Yes and no: some of the questions were gotcha questions or trivial pursuit questions intended to prompt inter-candidate controversy. Some were about candidates' past alliances and allegiances. Fine. But where were the economic issue questions touted before the debate. Why did someone not ask Carson about his flat tax and its fairness, not in terms of what the tax takes, but what it leaves behind. And once he gets into an exemption for the first $X thousands of dollars, why did someone not ask how that exemption is not the start of a progressive tax system. But, no, the journalists did not brief themselves on the issues which were advertised. So we got dumb questions, disarray on the panel, and disorder throughout the entire "debate." Shame on everyone in it!
5
My, my, the effort to paint Ben Carson as a "liar" is sure firing on all cylinders. It's obvious to anyone not on a witch hunt that Carson's explanation was based on what he believed "relationship" to mean. It didn't help that his spokesman misspoke afterward and got it almost all wrong.
Note to the media: Trying to make Carson appear to be a liar is like trying to make Hillary Clinton appear to be an honest person. Just won't work. Too many people understood and respect Carson.
Note to the media: Trying to make Carson appear to be a liar is like trying to make Hillary Clinton appear to be an honest person. Just won't work. Too many people understood and respect Carson.
9
@ AACNY
Well since a couple of days ago in this very newspaper you personally lied about Carson's response to the Mannatech question and were called out on it by numerous people, you're not really qualified to comment are you?
Well since a couple of days ago in this very newspaper you personally lied about Carson's response to the Mannatech question and were called out on it by numerous people, you're not really qualified to comment are you?
86
I think I heard the same line of defense during the hockey mom and lip-stick era. The problem with Carson is that he is not a liar. To me, he is an intellectual light weight, and not fit to lead me or this country.
7
Give it up, John. Claiming Carson lied doesn't make it so. It's literally the word of an honest man, Carson, against liberals in the media desperate to hang something on him.
I didn't like. I made a mistake and admitted it. I would appreciate your refraining from personal attacks. Thanks.
I didn't like. I made a mistake and admitted it. I would appreciate your refraining from personal attacks. Thanks.
1
I don't watch the debates because I think they are a waste of time. But avoiding tough political issues is a bipartisan issue. How long did Hillary Clinton avoid taking a position on Keystone until she had to move further left to counteract Bernie Sanders? And what is her position on gun control? She endorsed the Australian approach (gun confiscation) but then her spokeswoman said she was opposed to gun confiscation. And there are many more examples.
But this commentary - and my response to it - are emblematic of the problem. The press and individuals all complain about negative campaigning, but then they all focus on the negatives. Why are Mr. Blow and those commenting on his piece all critical of the GOP candidates? Why not extoll the virtues of your preferred candidate? The reason is that it's easier to criticize the opposition's stupidity than to state your own positions on an issue. That's why negative campaigning works and why we'll see lots of it.
But this commentary - and my response to it - are emblematic of the problem. The press and individuals all complain about negative campaigning, but then they all focus on the negatives. Why are Mr. Blow and those commenting on his piece all critical of the GOP candidates? Why not extoll the virtues of your preferred candidate? The reason is that it's easier to criticize the opposition's stupidity than to state your own positions on an issue. That's why negative campaigning works and why we'll see lots of it.
3
Unfortunately for Republicans the bar is set so low it's impossible to be positive or optimistic that any of the so called candidates can raise above their lies and false platitudes. For some unknown reason the party & potential voters are letting them get away with it, Gotcha!
1
"Why are Mr. Blow and those commenting on his piece all critical of the GOP candidates?"
Did you ever notice that all GOP candidates suffer varying degrees of crackpotism?
Did you notice that every one who has presented a tax plan made sure that cuts benefiting the wealthy were first and foremost in their thoughts?
Perhaps the Democratic would-be candidates do not give off that alluring aroma of nuttiness; perhaps they are not willing to give away foreign and domestic policy to the likes of Singer and the Koch brothers.
Did you ever notice that all GOP candidates suffer varying degrees of crackpotism?
Did you notice that every one who has presented a tax plan made sure that cuts benefiting the wealthy were first and foremost in their thoughts?
Perhaps the Democratic would-be candidates do not give off that alluring aroma of nuttiness; perhaps they are not willing to give away foreign and domestic policy to the likes of Singer and the Koch brothers.
3
There is a huge difference between not answering a question or taking no position on an issue and outright lying in your response. Carson issued an outright lie in his response to the question on Manatech. trump issued an outright lie his response to the question about his comments about Rubio that came directly from the Trump website. Hillary delayed her position on Keystone until it was politically expedient. Nothing wrong with that. And Australia did not confiscate all guns. They outlawed future sales of and bought back all the automatic and semi-automatic rifles then in private hands. And study the history of modern negative campaigning and you will see it was perfected by republican strategist Lee Atwater (who decried it on his deathbed) and elevated by his loyal protégé Karl Rove.
56
Recipe for baloney stew:
Get a clean-faced, mildly mindless "newsperson.
Get a money-bags candidate with no political sophistication (no idea that holds up to examination).Using the newsie, quickly stir the candidate until its eyes open and words appear.
Give him/her 60 seconds to rise.
Give another lump nearby 30 seconds to perc.
Continue until you feel Mine Eyes Glaze Over.
Continue for 2 or 3 hours.
Voila, a quick, simple, brain-free baloney stew.
One caveat: It's 100% calorie-free, indigestible, tasteless, basically not nutritious, and soporific or even fatally poisonous for unwary consumers with I.Q. scores above 50. It is best served to donor dodo birds, believers in unicorns, and tv sponsors.
Caveat: In Europe, it is called "a dog's breakfast".
Get a clean-faced, mildly mindless "newsperson.
Get a money-bags candidate with no political sophistication (no idea that holds up to examination).Using the newsie, quickly stir the candidate until its eyes open and words appear.
Give him/her 60 seconds to rise.
Give another lump nearby 30 seconds to perc.
Continue until you feel Mine Eyes Glaze Over.
Continue for 2 or 3 hours.
Voila, a quick, simple, brain-free baloney stew.
One caveat: It's 100% calorie-free, indigestible, tasteless, basically not nutritious, and soporific or even fatally poisonous for unwary consumers with I.Q. scores above 50. It is best served to donor dodo birds, believers in unicorns, and tv sponsors.
Caveat: In Europe, it is called "a dog's breakfast".
10
Carson is not worried about the questions he has to answer. He just wants the limited time allotted to speak in the debates to allow each candidate to inform the electorate about their policy positions on the important issues that affect this nation, not on nonsense like the Mannatech question. These debates are meant to be for those who will vote in a Republican primary to help decide who they will vote for. Not for those who already lean democratic to try and build up their candidate. Does it really matter that he gave speeches for Mannatech? Absolutely not. Everybody knows he was not responsible in any way, fashion , or form for the deceptive advertising settlement with the state of Texas. So why waste limited time on such a trivial matter( just like that stupid question about fantasy football). That is his point and those of us who will vote Republican agree with him. These are not general election debates.
3
But how can Republicans make up their minds when the candidates don't outline their plans for the country? There are tools like speeches and papers that can be used.
I have yet to hear Dr. Carson present an actual "policy". He is a mendacious grifter.
I think Mr. Blow is right when he write about "the invocation of the dreaded 'gotcha question' to excuse poor performance and intellectual flat-footedness." Fortunately, we will not have to wait long to find out.
The Republicans have demanded a series of changes for upcoming debates. We will see if these changes achieve the goal of more serious, substantive discussion among the candidates. My guess is we will not see dramatic changes because the problem with the debates, at its core, is not their format or the moderators, it is that there are too many people on the stage and those who are there are not good debaters but are well versed in the rhetorical skills of diversion, evasion and skirting the truth when it suits their ends.
The Republicans have demanded a series of changes for upcoming debates. We will see if these changes achieve the goal of more serious, substantive discussion among the candidates. My guess is we will not see dramatic changes because the problem with the debates, at its core, is not their format or the moderators, it is that there are too many people on the stage and those who are there are not good debaters but are well versed in the rhetorical skills of diversion, evasion and skirting the truth when it suits their ends.
45
they want the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to be asking the questions. That should truly be a joke of a "debate."
Why are liberals so fearful of having choices? It is a shame that "right to choose" doesn't mean as much as it should for you folks.
While Rubio is grudgingly supported for not supporting policies that will hurt his mother or ours, what about his support of policies that will harm his wife or his and our daughters, sisters, friends. He opposes abortion in all circumstances even when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. This is unacceptable. I have written before about how this is the ONLY life threatening medical emergency where care is not only willingly denied but would be denied under threat of criminal prosecution if any medical intervention is used that results in the loss of the fetus even though it results in the loss of the mother's life as well. Carson and Fiorina support this as well. None of these candidates is acceptable for this policy alone, not to mention "not a scientist, man" Rubio's denial of climate science agreed to by 99%+ of all climate scientists, his refusing to accept evolution and scientific data that proves that, yes, the world is far older than 6 thousand years, his damaging economic policies, his idiotic policies concerning Cuba and his far more dangerous saber rattling at the Middle East. One should not forget that he signed the treasonous Iran letter, threatening Iran with reprisals as soon as the presidency changed party. He lied about his family history and stole from the citizens of FL. How anyone believes that consummate liars, Rubio and Fiorina, bombastic Trump or sociopath Carson, who suffers delusions of grandeur are qualified to lead this country is terrifying.
74
Rubio is nothing but a paid hack who actually thinks he can be president…what a joke, he is so immature, so unpolished and clearly totally unqualified for any public service position, he does not even do the job he is currently being well paid to do in the Senate….another small guy with big ego w/ no talent and he is clearly the little lap dog of his big $ backers who will tell him what to do and when to do it….scary to consider. Say NO to Rubio!
1
When and under what circumstances should government regulate how people managing a business affect all the rest of us is the elephant of a question in the room of a republican debate. The baby elephant is when should government spend public money to protect the nation's infrastructure, such as on public transit systems, rebuilding roads and bridges, on health research, and on protecting all of us from rising sea levels. The other part of the question is what have any of these candidates done to show they can be reliable partners in forging compromise with people in the democratic party who want dearly to make government work in achieving these goals. These republican candidates have no answer that most will accept, so any question on these topics is to be avoided if possible and if not, used to mislead. The republican party itself, sad to say, has become a party of failures and incompetents who take money from those who do not give a darn about anyone than themselves and make sure government does nothing to interfere with what they want.
21
Take the moderators out of the debate. Allow the candidates to ask questions of each other. Then we will see if gotcha questions are the fault of the media or the entertainment forum that debates have become.
Debates should be between parties with competing postions and not between media and candidates. By taking the moderator questioning out of the debate it will be up to the candidates to use questions of other candidates to highlight their differences. Now that would be interesting.
Moderators should have two and only two tasks. First as time keeper to ensure that questions are short and to the point (similar to the questioning a lawyer is permitted) and second to ensure that the question is answered.
To use a sports analogy, the moderators are the referee of the debate. They watch the clock, enforce the rules, and penalize those who do not follow the rules. They do not participate in the actual debate
Debates should be between parties with competing postions and not between media and candidates. By taking the moderator questioning out of the debate it will be up to the candidates to use questions of other candidates to highlight their differences. Now that would be interesting.
Moderators should have two and only two tasks. First as time keeper to ensure that questions are short and to the point (similar to the questioning a lawyer is permitted) and second to ensure that the question is answered.
To use a sports analogy, the moderators are the referee of the debate. They watch the clock, enforce the rules, and penalize those who do not follow the rules. They do not participate in the actual debate
267
One of the talking heads captured it perfectly on a Sunday AM talk show. The moderators at that CNBC debate were acting like democratic presidential candidates, challenging and even interrupting the GOP candidates. They were behaving like political adversaries.
The GOP candidates should have put a stop to that treatment a long time ago. It's insulting and painful for republican voters to watch the candidates try to break through the harassment to finally get to state their positions.
The GOP candidates should have put a stop to that treatment a long time ago. It's insulting and painful for republican voters to watch the candidates try to break through the harassment to finally get to state their positions.
3
@AACNY
NY
This would be a conservative talking head no doubt. In fact Media questioners of political candidates ARE in an adversarial relationship with their subjects. They're not there to throw softball questions that allow candidates to lie and obfuscate. If Republican candidates can't handle Harwood what chance have they with Putin?
NY
This would be a conservative talking head no doubt. In fact Media questioners of political candidates ARE in an adversarial relationship with their subjects. They're not there to throw softball questions that allow candidates to lie and obfuscate. If Republican candidates can't handle Harwood what chance have they with Putin?
30
To believe this would work you would have to assume that the candidates, or their handlers wouldn't collude to ensure that the questions don't veer off into anything that would make them all look bad.
2
The Republicans are simply attempting to change the subject to avoid discussing (among other things) the gaping holes in their policy proposals and records where the protection and expansion of the lower- and middle-class should be found.
If the media allows the Republicans to change the subject from the issues to the tone of the questions about the issues, then the media are as worthless as the Republicans claim, just for a different reason.
If the media allows the Republicans to change the subject from the issues to the tone of the questions about the issues, then the media are as worthless as the Republicans claim, just for a different reason.
34
Wow, did you hit the nail on the head! Who said the circus was dead? Admit it! Didn't you love the moment when they all fell out of the car together? And they will continue with the act until they find their Bozo! It is hilarious but on a more sober note it's also deeply troubling. There are many fine Republicans but there are just not enough of them. They must gain the upper hand inside the GOP but it's going to take a serious defeat before they sober up. Until then the Clown Car will tour the country.
1
No the media is worthless. So what is the Democrats policy just to say we give free stuff and not show how to pay for it? Americans have seen how Democrats do business and it is corrupt.
2
Well, IF you are right (a dubious proposition on so many levels) get ready for 8 years of just hating the upcoming Republican administration. You cannot beat any of the ten with Hillary.
The media has created their own problem with their desire to be relevant as kingmaker, and anoint the candidate. And because the voters are having none of it this time, the moderators and CNBC decided that they would play fast and loose with gotcha questions.
It's clear there is a liberal bias, it's clear the liberal media and their bosses want to play kingmaker, it's clear the Republican candidates have weaknesses in answering questions and it's clear that this election cycle will be more shrill than usual.
It's also clear that the media is less relevant to voters than ever, having made it clear to voters on both sides that it wants to push and support the establishment candidates, no matter what the voters actually want.
It's clear there is a liberal bias, it's clear the liberal media and their bosses want to play kingmaker, it's clear the Republican candidates have weaknesses in answering questions and it's clear that this election cycle will be more shrill than usual.
It's also clear that the media is less relevant to voters than ever, having made it clear to voters on both sides that it wants to push and support the establishment candidates, no matter what the voters actually want.
5
As Howard Kurtz asked on his Sunday AM show, Media Buzz, (paraphrasing), "Since when did the media get to decide whether a republican candidate drops out of a race?"
He was responding to The Times' Editorial Board's piece telling Christie to drop out. By the media's injecting its views, it slants the coverage.
He was responding to The Times' Editorial Board's piece telling Christie to drop out. By the media's injecting its views, it slants the coverage.
3
@AACNY
NY
Now you want to ban the media from injecting its views? Will this ban extend to Fox News, the WSJ, the NY Post? Or will they get an exemption on the grounds of their objectivity under your new regime?
NY
Now you want to ban the media from injecting its views? Will this ban extend to Fox News, the WSJ, the NY Post? Or will they get an exemption on the grounds of their objectivity under your new regime?
22
The role of media is not to take positions. And being unbiased use to be a requirement for being a journalist. But it seems today the media is just a bunch of opinion writer and reportes, and a big majority of them with liberal bias.
1