Opinion | Why Chris Wallace Won’t Be the Trump-Slaying Moderator Liberals Crave

Opinion | Why Chris Wallace Won’t Be the Trump-Slaying Moderator Liberals Crave

Wallace overcame some of these shortcomings to earn positive ratings for his 2016 performance Dylan Byers wrote for CNN and Hadas Gold for POLITICO. But Wallace never reached heights in these encounters as he did in his best one-on-one interviews. In 2018, he threw a pack of burning firecrackers into it Wladimir Putin’s lap during an interview, handed over to Putin – or rather, to attempt at hand– Robert S. Mueller Jr.’s charges against 12 military intelligence officers for hacking Democratic Party computers and spreading disinformation about elections. Putin chuckled, but the stunt kept Wallace on top in an interview in which he asked Putin why so many of his political enemies ended up dead “or close to” if Russia did Kompromat about Trump and his country’s bloody role in the Syrian civil war. Wallace’s talent is so great that his unanswered interview questions often produce more news than his answered.

In a rational world, the clarity Wallace brings to interviews should earn him a permanent place on political blacklists. Instead, the Poles finally surrender to his invitation, perhaps because they end up enjoying the challenge. Barack Obama resisted for eight years before ignoring the Fox stigma long enough to speak to Wallace in 2016 Hillary Clinton. Trump, who practically settled on Fox shows after taking office as president, headed for Wallace. Shortly after the Putin interview with Wallace told the New York Times that he was going to argue Trump that Putin sat down with him, so why not the president? Wallace’s baits were successful and soon got his Trump meeting. Finally came the July 2020 Interview that reviewed the prevailing Trump so thoroughly in real time that it “exposed” him in a fresh light, like that Washington PostAaron Blake wrote.

The good news about Wallace’s appointment, which we can all celebrate, is that he brings the greatest institutional knowledge to the scrum of the three selected moderators of the presidential debate. Since the first debate traditionally attracts the largest audience, we can be content with the fact that probably more viewers watch Wallace pursue Trump and Biden’s evasions than either of the other two presenters. Another bonus: Because he comes first and works for Fox, Wallace is likely to attract a larger number of Fox viewers than the other presenters, viewers who may be more receptive to his critical approach than his peers.

Nobody expects Fox viewers to switch their votes to Biden if Wallace could bring Trump to his knees. It’s too late in the game for that. Also, I have always doubted that the people who take part in the debates would do so because they were undecided. In my view, the debates are a political spectacle to end the last few weeks of the campaign season, which is now 22 months. Just because the debates don’t have enough political strength doesn’t mean we can’t be grateful that Wallace will be there to downsize the candidates.


The best way to prepare for Wallace is to take honesty classes. Which politician will do that? Submit Wallace ideas to [email protected]. My Email notifications listened to the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio and thought Kennedy had won. My Twitter Feed is not a Jack Kennedy. My RSS Feed hates candidate town halls.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here