Were the questions asked by the panel fair? Yes, a candidate should be able to answer any reasonable question. But, were the questioners fair? And the answer is, of course they were not – and they were not trying to be. They never would have pounded Democrat candidates with so many loaded, “gotcha” questions. The real issue is not that the questions were out of line, but that the other side would never face questions half so impudent. Were CNBC to treat the Democrats with the same mailed fist it treats Republicans, or, conversely, slobber and gush over Republicans in the same way it does over Democrats, the charge of bias would not be supportable. Republicans generally have to face a much more hostile bank of interrogators than Democrats do; but everyone knows that, and should be able to filter out the bias. Of course, a panelist can do irreparable damage when he completely and knowingly misstates the facts or distorts a candidate’s positions, such as Candy Crowley did in the Obama-Romney debate in 2012 or John Harwood did in the CNBC debate. It may not happen often, but when it happens, it can be a game changer. Just imagine what might have happened if Candy Crowley had not leaped to President Obama’s defense in his debate with Mitt Romney, but instead had pointed out that the President and his administration had for years refused to use the word “terrorism,” and that even if he did utter that word once in his Rose Garden speech concerning the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, he never repeated it; and in fact did verbal gymnastics to avoid using the word ever again. It is not hard to presume that the Obama campaign would have gone down in flames.
And here is one big point that seems to have been overlooked: the Republican candidates objected to the tone and direction of the questioners at the CNBC debate, but they did not refuse to answer any questions that night, nor did they dodge any questions, nor did they walk out. We also must remember that the Obama Administration and the Democrats carried out a very public refusal to appear on Fox News for several years; and would not even define that channel as a news organization. Even if each party feels it is being treated unfairly, they will have a better chance of convincing and converting the public to their way of thinking if they make their cases directly to audiences they may view as hostile. One of the problems America faces today is that too many of us ignore or tune out or disrespect the opinions of political opponents. Candidates should not set such a bad example.
We have never liked the modern “debate” format anyway, and we also have never liked the idea that a candidate’s performance in them should be the factor that determines if we should support him or not. The format favors a glib, smooth-talker who has the ability to play fast and loose with the facts; and many a debate has been won on style rather than substance.
We guessed that when the Republicans pulled out of the scheduled NBC debate, it would provide fodder for the Democrats, and the President’s reaction was pretty swift – stating that the Republicans who are afraid of CNBC won’t present much of an obstacle for China and Russia. Perhaps, but it rings hollow coming from a President who has let Russia and China walk all over him for seven years – and also from a President who has such a public disregard for conservative news media.
Let’s face it, candidates who make themselves available to questioners should expect tough questions, and they should answer them. Telling the truth and sticking to one’s principles will win out most of the time.