gotchanewsdaily.com 
GOP pollster Frank Luntz on Saturday was hit with a barrage of criticism after he questioned why Vice President Kamala Harris wouldn’t debate Donald Trump on Fox News.
Harris over the weekend accepted a proposed CNN debate against Trump, which would, if accepted by the former president, take place on October 23. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported the news on social media, and Harris responded, saying she would “gladly accept a second presidential debate on October 23.”
“I hope [Trump] will join me,” Harris added.
ALSO READ: Something broke Trump’s brain
Trump himself rejected that option at a rally on Saturday, and was ridiculed online for his reasoning for refusing the debate offer. Trump had previously said CNN was extremely fair at his debate with President Joe Biden.
For his part, Luntz, a Republican strategist who frequently appears on CNN and on conservative media networks, had a question about Harris’ offer.
“Why didn’t she just accept the Fox News proposed debate this month?” Luntz ask on his social media.
That response didn’t go over well online.
Former Michigan Republican operative Jeff Timmer replied, “No one should treat Luntz as a serious person. I mean, they never should have, but geez. This is nincompoopery.”
Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko said in response, “Non-Fox networks and newspapers need to be done with this sexist dishonest pig.”
Reporter Molly Jong-Fast sarcastically noted, “Yeah Sean Hannity is known to be totally unbiased.”
Law professor Jennifer Taub said, “Why didn’t Donald? He said no already because he did not want those hosts.”
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann said, “Because Fox is a w—-house, Frank.”
Progressive author and former youth pastor John Pavlovitz said, “Because it isn’t a news network, you shameless fraud.”
Bill Grueskin, a faculty member at Columbia Journalism School, said, “There are exactly 787.5 million reasons why Harris wouldn’t do a Fox debate.” He was referring to the fact that Fox News previously agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $787 million to avert a trial in a lawsuit that the Associated Press said would “have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election.”
