Problem (and solution) with Fox News Debates

By Doug LaFeve
Central Point, Oregon

As a viewer of Fox News I was extremely disappointed in the first Fox Republican debate and with the second as well from what I was able to view. My disappoint stemmed from the total lack of substance in most of the answers to the sometimes inadequate questions posed by the moderators. Who, in my opinion, did little moderating.

It was not a debate, it was political theater, the bickering between the participants was laughable. Which wasted time and took away from the premise of a debate in the first place, learning the position of each candidate on specific issues voters are concerned about. What I wanted to hear was how each would describe the specific policies they would take and specific legislation they would propose congress enact to deal with the issues identified.

What we got was homilies, bickering, and very, very little specifics to concrete issues such as immigration, inflation, the national debt, over inflated government, foreign policy, the woke culture war currently in full force, the corruption in higher education, the corruption in the executive branch and the over extended reach of the federal government in our daily lives.

There is a way to fix this, but the question is will the “media” put their ratings and bottom line on the line to provide the voting public with actual information directly from the candidates. My guess is not.

Here is my format for a “Debate”:

Let me start with the stage set up;

1. Each candidates Mic will have an on off switch controlled by the moderator.
2. Their position on the stage will be determined by blind draw.

Now to the rules;

1. Each candidate will have 2 minutes to promote their policies and legislation they plan to support on the specific topic proposed by the moderators.

2. No participant will be allowed to interrupt the speaker. Their mics will be off while someone else is speaking.

3. No personal attack or comments are permitted. If the speaker proceeds to comment about another candidate they will be silenced and they loose the rest of their time on the subject.

4. Rebuttal to another candidates plan should not be considered by a candidate. What each candidate provides will be judged by the voter. What we want to know is how each candidates stands, we could give a rat’s about how they feel about each other. That is what campaign advertisements are for if they want to spend it that way, instead of focusing on what they stand for and promote.

5. Candidates should be admonished, and be told they will be cut off if they violate the rules. Stick to the specific topic under discussion and no other topic. If they cannot or will not agree to the rules provided, then their participation is not needed.

6. Each candidate will receive a 2 minute closing statement time. They must use it to promote themselves and not to take potshots at the other candidates.

Now to the moderators. They need to absolutely neutral. They need to follow the rules and enforce them. They need to prepare questions that deal with the issues facing the country and not issues between the candidates. The time frame for responding to the issues before the candidate can be modified based on the number of participants.(fewer equals more response time), the number of issues to be discussed, and the total broadcast time allowed for the event. Ideally the only commercial breaks would take place before the start, at mid-point after full participation of the current topic and at the end of the event.

This format will provide voters with a more concise and comprehensive view of each candidate with out the junior high school bickering. We will decide who we will support based on their approach to governing and the policies and legislation they propose.

It is sorely needed. If you think or support a debate of this type please copy and paste this to every media outlet you watch or don’t watch. Let’s change the political climate together.