She asked a legit question as far as I’m concerned. They were all asked questions about previous statements made and given the opportunity to address them. He was not singled out in being asked about previous statements. Instead of actually having an articulate answer he make a tasteless joke and then gave an insincere answer.
Her question was legitimate per the subject of diplomacy … and Trump was given an opportunity to explain his actions. But I have some other (IMO) observations.
Megyn looked like she was being a bit self-serving with her indignation and establishing some “feminist cred” in the way she put the question in the first place … and hectored Trump in the second place (implying he insulted women beyond Rosie O’Donnell - without naming another case, thus implying, I thought, that Trump just WAS sexist).
Four years ago I wondered why the GOP candidates had out and out foes “moderating” their debates … as the questions themselves all put the candidates on the defensive and proliferated negatives about them that must be answered … while the candidates’ message got delayed, obscured or made dismissively pointless.
The Fox News “moderators” did not seem so moderate to me. I generally like Fox as the best of the news channels, but moderators Kelly, Chris Wallace and to a lesser extent Brett Baier …
… came off to me as superior, self-righteous and self-congratulatory. They were tough on some … easy on others … laughed and smiled at some answers - interrupted others with attitude.
True … tough questions OUGHT to be asked of candidates for President. But IMO with a sort of (let me call it) C-SPAN dispassionate inquiry demeanor. < True … that is more BORING than “stirring things up” and encouraging infighting amongst the GOP field (and not conducive to lucrative ratings thereafter) … but more true to the Fox mottoes of “fair and balanced …” and “we report …you decide”.
Multipronged rambling “questions” that are more like little “anti-” speeches to be rebutted, delivered in a scolding tone looks like “moderators” putting their :twocents: in and influencing the audience before a candidate can answer the question.
It’s funny too. Of the 17 candidates that spoke in Cleveland (I include the other one, earlier) … Trump is probably my 17th pick of the bunch. I am a registered Republican and could vote for one of them next year in the California primary. I SHOULD be glad then that Trump was being “taken down” for pragmatic reasons, yes? No!
The arbitrary deciding of which candidates were “varsity” and which not is another thing … but really … the GOP would have done better to have staged their own events on CSPAN and appointed their own moderators, mutually agreed upon.
nytimes.com/2015/08/08/us/politics/fox-news-moderators-bring-a-sharpened-edge-to-gop-debate-stage.html?_r=0 < NY Times uncharacteristically praised Fox for its “moderation”. The paper won’t likely endorse any of the 17, but rather, the Democratic candidate in 2016, IMO.
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/07/trumps-poll-numbers-remain-on-top-despite-critics-debate-analysis/ < By contrast, this conservative news source critiqued the Fox moderators as being unfair to Trump.
That said, I am glad the broadcasts were made for all the glitches. Overall there was a lot of intelligence displayed between the moments of antagonism in Cleveland.
For now it seems “all about Trump” … but it won’t be. I hope there are more events like these … just a bit better done in the future. Ask tough questions … but don’t look so much like lobbyists with an agenda (“moderators”).
