The "Debate"

                                                            The “Debate”
 
            Here’s what I’m wondering on the “day of” tonight’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump:  what, exactly, are we going to see?  My first question is for David Muir, Linsey Davis, and ABC.  Will they, in fact, really ask the tough questions (my guess is “no”).  By “tough” questions, I’ll refer to David Leonhardt’s column in today’s New York Times.  Here are just a few they could (but probably won’t) ask Trump:

• The signature legislation of your presidency was a tax cut that disproportionately helped the wealthy. Now you want to make this legislation permanent — and expand it. How will a tax cut geared toward the rich help most American families? 
• You have called for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Whom exactly would you deport — everybody who’s in this country illegally, including children and people who’ve been here for years, or only some groups? And how would you identify and apprehend people? 
• You’ve suggested that Vladimir Putin should have a freer hand to do what he wants in Europe. Would you try to withdraw the U.S. from NATO? You have criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and pledged to end the war there in a single day. Isn’t this effectively calling for Ukraine to surrender and accept a peace deal favorable to Putin? 
• Middle East policy during your presidency often followed the wishes of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. His unwillingness to compromise on big questions appears to be an obstacle to peace. Do you disagree with him on anything? 
• You tried to overturn the 2020 election result after Biden beat you. Do you believe in American democracy? 
• A jury found that you had sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. Another jury convicted you for falsifying records to cover up an affair. And you have a long record of demeaning women. Do you regret any of this behavior?

 

            In the same way, will they ask VP Harris questions like those posed by MSNBC’s Ryan Teague Beckwith:

• As Joe Biden's vice president, you were present for many of the decisions he made over the last four years. Can you name an example of a time when you disagreed with his decision? How would you have handled it differently if you had been president?
• Even in a best-case scenario for Democrats, you would have a narrow majority in the Senate to pass your agenda. Would you support repealing the filibuster in order to pass laws by a simple majority?
• As a local prosecutor, you vowed never to seek the death penalty. But as California attorney general, you changed positions, successfully defending it in court. Why did you change your position? And what is your current position on the death penalty?

 
            Or some of the questions proposed by The Hill :
​

• What regrets do you have on how you handled border issues?
• What did President Biden get wrong on Gaza?
• You supported a ban on fracking in your 2020 campaign. Now you said you wouldn’t seek to ban fracking if elected. What changed?

            As important, will Muir and Davis provide timely fact-checking during the debate?  Will they correct either candidate when they know a statement is obviously and clearly not a fact?  Given the timeline until Election Day, this will probably be the only debate between the two candidates and, as such, is being billed as crucial to the potential outcome.  I’m not sure that’s entirely the case.  The first Presidential Debate led to Biden’s withdrawal, an unprecedented occurrence.  It’s unlikely this one will be as dramatic as that and, given the media hype, it’s quite possible that this will ultimately be a  “not-much” or nothingburger.            Given the way networks like ABC and the others cover these events, there will be lots of sound and fury prior to, a plethora of pundits dissecting the event  immediately after, a few days of analyzing and re-analyzing the event, a few choice sound bite clips being shown again and again in the next few days and then . . . . ?  Back to the campaign trail, etc.  A larger question is: will the “mainstream” (“fake news”) media ever start to cover the reality of Trump’s candidacy?  The “childcare is childcare” word salad, incoherent statement at the Economic Club of New York September 5th is only the latest of his rambling, nonsensical meanderings.  Why do the major media outlets continue to treat Trump as if he is a “normal” candidate when he is clearly  declining cognitively before our eyes?  They had no problem jumping all over Biden about it --- what makes Trump untouchable?  And that’s my concern with Muir and Davis this evening.  Will anyone finally sit up and look at Trump and just ask: “What the f&k does that even mean?  Do you, “sir,” hear what you’re saying?  And, who, exactly, are these “English Professors” who say your garbled discursive statements ‘weaves’ are ‘brilliant?’”  No one calls Trump on his bullshit, and he’s allowed to continue as if he’s any other candidate.  And, I fear, so it will be this evening.  Nonetheless, wouldn’t it be nice if the ABC moderators actually get around to asking both candidates some difficult questions?