The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza Defends CNBC’s Debate Moderators And Discusses Bench Depth In Both Parties
HH: And the loyalty award goes to Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker. Having been a media figure who’s been in the target range before for incoming, I appreciated that Ryan stood up for the CNBC panel last night when no one else in America was doing it, Ryan Lizza. I hope they sent you flowers today.
RL: Are you attacking them, too? How much incoming did you get when you did the CNN debate?
HH: You know, not much, actually. I mostly was criticized for being quiet, for being too quiet. But I do think…
RL: That you didn’t have enough questions.
HH: Yeah, but I did. I felt perfectly fine about it. But I think the answer is I made my questions very, very short.
HH: I mean, that is where, that’s where people get into trouble when they speechify. It’s like Foghorn Leghorn, Ryan. Do you think they learned anything from that?
RL: Well, I think the biggest problem was that it was billed as a debate about the economy, and that’s not really what dominated the questioning. I think a second problem was the, just production of the debate was poor. It seemed like there was a lot of confusion, there wasn’t a lot of, the integration, that the moderators didn’t seem well-integrated like they knew what each other was doing. When the one moderator asked a question to Trump, it didn’t seem like she had the backup to back up what she was saying, and it turns out she was more right than Trump was, but she didn’t have the competence to realize that. So look, I didn’t, I had one tweet early in the debate about it. I didn’t do some full-throated defense that this was the greatest debate ever. Continue Reading