NEW YORK (Borowitz Report)—According to a format negotiated between the Republican National Committee and the television networks, future Presidential debates during the 2016 campaign will strictly forbid questions about things the candidates “said” or “did,” the R.N.C. confirmed on Monday. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the R.N.C., said that the deal addressed the candidates’ concerns about the previously broadcast debates, which he called “abusively fact-based.”…. “In some cases, moderators were asking candidates questions about statements they made two or three weeks earlier,” Priebus said. “This new format will eliminate that kind of ancient history.”….Priebus said that the new format would satisfy not only the candidates but also Republican voters, many of whom have complained about moderators’ “out-of-control obsession with verifiable information.”…. “This is a Presidential debate,” Priebus said. “If people want facts, they can watch ‘Jeopardy.’ “
It seems Republican Presidential candidates are so soft and emotionally fragile that the very thought of having to answer tough questions on a televised debate is enough to send them scurrying for the exits. It’s as if they want the exposure a debate provides without having to actually do the one thing a debate requires- answer questions. As President Obama said, if they’re afraid of debate moderators, the Russians and Chinese won’t have much to worry about, will they?
I didn’t watch the CNBC debate, so I can’t speak to the quality and tone of the questions or the demeanor of the moderators. I have to assume that since all of the candidates were asked questions, the playing field was more or less level. How is it that someone who considers themselves worthy of being President and is attempting to sell themselves to the American sheeple as the best person for the job believes themselves to be above having to answer tough questions? Being President sometimes means being faced with nothing BUT tough questions, often with life or death consequences…and GOP candidates can’t handle probing questions from journalists?
In the new format, the time previously allotted to questions about things the candidates said or did will now be devoted to questions written by the candidates themselves and read, verbatim, by the moderators.
“Carly Fiorina would very much like to answer the question, ‘How has your experience as the most successful C.E.O. in U.S. history uniquely prepared you to be its greatest President?’ ” Priebus said. “This new format will let her speak to that.”
How long before Republican Presidential candidates do just that- write softball questions that will be spoon-fed to them verbatim by debate moderators so they might provide canned, well-rehearsed responses? How long before candidates are allowed to stage manage every aspect of a debate so as to place them in the best light? How long before Republican Presidential debates devolve into dog-and-pony shows? What will candidates demand next…on-air foot massages??
Sadly, it would seem we’re already there.
While the GOP pulls out of an already-scheduled February debate hosted by NBC because of anger over so-called ‘gotcha’ questions during a Wednesday session with CNBC moderators, a CNN host wondered whether the candidates understand what the word “debate” means.
“Debates are supposed to be established to help the people get to know the candidates and get to know what’s behind them,” Ben Carson said. “And what it’s turned into is a ‘gotcha.’ That’s silly.”
CNN host Brooke Baldwin questioned whether Carson and the others know what it means to debate, reading out the dictionary definition of it.
“The definition of a debate, and I quote, ‘a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something,’ or, ‘contention by words or arguments,’” she said. “I gotta wonder — I mean this is a smart, smart man, a pediatric neurosurgeon we’re talking about. Does he know what the definition of a debate is?”
Perhaps a far better question would be, “Does he CARE what the definition of a debate is?” In Carson’s case, the answer clearly is a resounding “NO!!” Not only does he not care, he’s just arrogant and entitled enough to believe that he should be able to set the ground rules. The inmate sincerely believes he has the right to demand that he be allowed to run the asylum.
That Presidential candidates could band together and stage a “mutiny” against debate organizers seems a clear case of the inmates thinking they’re within their rights to frame a debate to their advantage.
If voters are denied forums in which Presidential candidates are pushed, prodded, and yes, perhaps even asked what some might call “gotcha” questions, how are they to make informed choices? How can Americans fairly and accurately assess candidates and determine who’s worthy of their vote if candidates are afraid to put themselves out there and answer legitimate, perhaps even tough, questions? When Presidential candidates insist on being little more than the human equivalents of Potemkin villages, caveat emptor becomes the coin of the realm- except the buyers will have no real clue as to what they’re paying for. Worse, the democratic process will be bereft of what few shreds of credibility may have remained.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
