the republican national committee triumphantly seized control of the debates last year, saying it would not allow a repeat of 2012, when <u+201c>the liberal media interrogated our candidates on issues that were often not a priority to most americans. <u+2026> we need more conservatives <u+2026> in the moderator<u+2019>s chair.<u+201d>









but what was a play to keep their candidates safe inside a conservative cocoon now looks like a trap. the first republican presidential debate will air on fox news and will be moderated by bret baier, megyn kelly and chris wallace<u+2014>who happen to be the same three anchors that have provoked three republican candidates into embarrassing gaffes this month. turns out fox news<u+2019> anchors can make republican candidates look just as bad as msnbc<u+2019>s.









the rnc sought to install more <u+201c>conservatives in the moderator<u+2019>s chair<u+201d> because conservatives still are nursing grudges against some of the 2012 primary debate moderators. when abc<u+2019>s george stephanopoulos pressed mitt romney on whether <u+201c>states have the right to ban contraception,<u+201d> conservatives blamed the <u+201c>liberal media<u+201d> for asking an irrelevant question. when cnn<u+2019>s john king opened a debate by asking newt gingrich about allegations leveled by his ex-wife, gingrich brought the crowd to its feet by chastising king and lambasting <u+201c>the elite media protecting barack obama by attacking republicans.<u+201d>









at least in those instances, republicans could try the <u+201c>blame the media<u+201d> strategy to limit the damage. this year, when republicans shoot themselves in the foot on the debate stage, they won<u+2019>t have that option.









the recent gaffes on fox news by republican candidates are not because fox news journalists are suddenly out to get republicans. it<u+2019>s because even a softball question can trip up a candidate not ready for prime time. megyn kelly<u+2019>s interview of jeb bush was the journalistic equivalent of a warm hug. her simple iraq question<u+2014><u+201c>knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?<u+201d><u+2014>was only a couple of notches tougher than katie couric<u+2019>s <u+201c>what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read?<u+201d>









after jeb<u+2019>s initial answer, which skipped past the hindsight premise, kelly conversationally and neutrally asked for a clarification, <u+201c>you don't think it was a mistake?<u+201d> when jeb was done, she breezily moved on to a new line of questioning well-suited for fox: <u+201c>do you feel that america's place in the world has diminished under president obama?<u+201d>









but fox news teased the iraq clip before the full interview aired, sparking a media firestorm. rivals chris christie and ted cruz, both fervent hawks, jumped in front of the microphone to proclaim they would not have invaded. influential conservative radio talker laura ingraham was incredulous: <u+201c>you have to have [a nominee] who says, <u+2018>look, i<u+2019>m a republican but i<u+2019>m not an idiot <u+2026> i learn from the past.<u+2019><u+201d>









trying to clean up his mess a couple of days later, bush ran to what should have been safe ground, fox news<u+2019> sean hannity. the host functioned less as a journalist than as a friend helping a friend in need. he first suggested <u+201c>the media<u+201d> interpreted bush wrong and so <u+201c>i wanted to see if i could clarify that.<u+201d> after bush failed to actually clarify, hannity threw him a second lifeline, <u+201c>so in other words, with 20/20 hindsight, you would make a different decision.<u+201d> bush whiffed the softball, saying, <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t know what that decision would have been.<u+201d>









unlike the kelly and hannity chats, chris wallace<u+2019>s recent interview with marco rubio was truly aggressive. he wouldn<u+2019>t let up over rubio<u+2019>s abandonment of the senate immigration bill for which he voted: <u+201c>you bailed on comprehensive immigration reform. <u+2026> aren't leaders supposed to shape public opinion rather than just follow it? <u+2026> shouldn't you have campaigned for this?<u+201d> he also busted rubio for a <u+201c>dramatic shift<u+201d> in his foreign policy rhetoric, backing off his 2012 support for iran negotiations and forgoing earlier assurances he was <u+201c>not a saber-rattling person.<u+201d>









and those barbs were just the warm-up for the three-minute raking over iraq. as wallace bore into rubio<u+2019>s varying responses, the unprepared senate freshman dug himself into a hole by pleading semantic differences regarding questions about whether iraq was a mistake and whether he<u+2019>d have invaded knowing what we know now. relentless, wallace asked rubio about seven times <u+201c>was it a mistake?<u+201d> and he refused to let rubio answer it with caveats, cutting him off with <u+201c>i'm not asking you that.<u+201d>









if wallace were not working for rupert murdoch, the loaded questions, opinionated assertions and repeated interruptions would earn wallace a lifetime membership in the liberal media elite club.









you can expect wallace to be similarly unforgiving at the inaugural debate. in fact it was four augusts ago when wallace was the foil for gingrich<u+2019>s first public haranguing of a debate moderator. (he did not care for what he called a <u+201c>gotcha question<u+201d>: <u+201c>how do you respond to people who say that your campaign has been a mess so far?<u+201d>) gingrich was not alone. wallace dredged up mitt romney<u+2019>s record of layoffs and herman cain<u+2019>s litany of amateurish remarks. candidates who expect to get a free ride from wallace will quickly become debate roadkill.
fox news eats its own
noauthor