Via Mediaite, I see Frank Figliuzzi, a former deputy director of the FBI, who said today on MSNBC that he wants all future presidential candidates to be vetted by a bipartisan commission.
“We need to have a national discussion on how to control a presidential candidate. We got it all wrong. Whether it’s media that isn’t digging deep enough, whether it’s time to discuss a bipartisan committee requesting tax returns, making it a requirement, or exposing financial pictures for applicants. But we were wrong and it can’t happen again, ”said Figliuzzi.
Figliuzzi has every right in the world to hate the selection of the Republican Party in 2016 and 2020. But in the first months of 2016, 14,015,993 people voted in the Republican primary to nominate Donald Trump as president, 44.95% of all the votes cast. The next closest candidate was Ted Cruz with 7,822,100 votes and just over 25 percent of all votes cast.
What does Figliuzzi think should have happened? Should some “bipartisan commission for the approval of presidential candidates” have requested Trump’s financial documents, or examined them without his consent, and then vetoed the selection of Republican primary voters? Why should Republicans allow a commission – whose members are presumably at least half the members of other parties – to decide who represents them in a presidential election?
It can be assumed that voters in the 2016 Republican primary have made a terrible mistake. (I think so!) But that doesn’t make those voters less authorized, according to party structure and the traditions of American political parties, to make the selection. Trump won the primary and the general election fairly; we don’t need another blue panel of retired lawmakers to go out and study a problem and come out with a watered down consensus conclusion.
As for “the media isn’t digging deep enough,” Figliuzzi thinks the media didn’t delve into Trump before the 2016 election? Before Trump ran for president, he had written twelve biographies about him, excluding his self-critical self-critical books. Trump was in the public eye spotlight since the early 1980s.
Sure, the campaign began with major media institutions giving Trump the equivalent of $ 2 billion in free media, including full live coverage of his speeches, phone interviews at morning shows, and endless discussions about Trump at at the expense of other GOP candidates. Some of us remember, “nothing too difficult, Mika”. CNN’s Jeff Zucker offered him advice for the debate. CBS CEO Les Moonves laughed, “[Trump’s campaign] it might not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. “
The media loved Trump when he blew up the GOP primary and only turned against him in the 2016 general election. But once they did, boy, they got tough: “During his best weeks, the coverage was 2 to 1 negative over positive. In its worst weeks, the ratio was over 10 to 1 “.
What aspect of Trump does Figliuzzi think that the media did not look into enough before 2016? His business failures? His slippery relationship with the truth? His womanizer? His lack of familiarity with the details of the policy? His character? His addiction to blurting out any ideas he comes up with on Twitter? What does Figliuzzi think that the media could or should have discovered that it would have changed the course of the elections?
What if enough Americans in enough states had a clear view of Trump’s obvious character flaws and chose him anyway, because really, really, really didn’t you want Hillary Clinton to become president?
Come to think of it. . . Would Hillary Clinton have passed the background check and check by a bipartisan commission?