Word is leaking out of the White House the President wants to host the 2020 presidential debates to ensure fair and balanced moderators and questions. To this end, he recently tweeted, “the Commission on Presidential Debates is stacked with Trump Haters…” Perhaps this tweet is just another unhinged Trump gripe, but it may portend changes to come.
His concerns should be the electorate’s concerns, because the commission did modulate his microphone (but not Ms. Clinton’s) in the first 2016 debate and adjust camera zooms to de-emphasize Trump’s height advantage. And who’s forgotten Candy Crowley throwing a lifeline to Democrat Obama in 2012 when Republican Romney had his opponent on the Benghazi ropes? Crowley was wrong – with her action and information – and undeniably partisan.
Of course, the Commission, which has hosted the debates since 1988, defended its record as “one of fairness, balance and non-partisanship.” Assuming that’s true, there’s still no harm in change after 30 years to let some air out of the bias balloon. We Americans believe in fair play, and this is one incumbent president entitled to home field advantage in light of how the press actively engaged in the Resistance.
The president wants veto power over time, manner, and place; ensuring equal time, balanced panels, and audiences that represent America. In fairness to the Commission, the universities of Notre Dame, Michigan, Belmont, and Utah are probably Trump-friendly venues. There is no reason to change where the debates are held or worry that Trump won’t have his fair share of microphone time.
The paramount issue for any Republican is always (liberal) bias in the moderator and questioners. This White House, in particular, should presume a bias-filled panel of journalists. In the spirit of fair play, each candidate should pick one “ringer” and agree upon the moderator. Further, the White House should insist Fox broadcasts two debates, because the DNC (proudly) black-balled that network during the Democrat debates.
This format replaces the pretense of un-biased questioners with the clarity of known knowns; thereby avoiding confusion in the electorate. Give it to the voters straight by allowing Jim Acosta (CNN) to question the President and Laura Ingraham (Fox News) to question the Democrat. In this way, voters can consider the source and expect/accept the bias. American candidates “run” for office (the British “stand”) and the hurdles should be obvious.
A right-minded Democrat should want better optics during the presidential debates to win over independent voters. In times of peace and prosperity, the challenger must prove his or her meddle under intense questioning, because ousting an incumbent requires millions of swing votes. This is true, and swing voters tend to stick with the devil they know, rather than risk four years under a bumbling (Biden) or double-talking (Warren) enigma. Hence, Trump’s idea would allow challengers to show off their “A” game.