Via Mediaite, it’s a moot point now that Trump’s blown up the big candidate huddle but either Kelly’s right or I’ve lost the plot after the CNBC debacle. The reason the CNBC debate was a disaster, I thought, was because those three dopes were supposed to moderate a forum about the economy and business and veered off instead into questions about, among other things, fantasy football — and delivered them snottily to boot. Get a panel that doesn’t obviously drip with contempt for Republicans and stick to topics that might reasonably influence someone’s vote at this stage (hint: we’re past the point of “what did you think when Donald Trump said XYZ?” questions at this point) and everything will be fine. A reasonable ask from the campaign summit would have been (1) unanimous approval by the candidates of the choice of moderators and (2) agreement on which broad policy subjects will be addressed at each debate. If you want to have one debate on, say, immigration and foreign policy then the moderators are confined to those subjects, period.

Instead we got this. Among the lowlights:

• Will you commit that you will not:

– Ask the candidates to raise their hands to answer a question..

– Have a “lightening [sic] round”

– Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning

– Allow props or pledges by the candidates…

– Allow members of the audience to wear political messages (shirts, buttons, signs, etc.). Who enforces?…

• Can you pledge that the temperature in the hall be kept below 67 degrees?

They also asked for pre-approval of network graphics, mainly because Jeb Bush got sandbagged when CNBC described him as a banker at the last debate instead of a two-term governor. And of course they wanted a 30-second opening and closing statement, which is a total waste of time for anyone who’s watched any of the previous three debates and mostly a waste of time even for those who haven’t, since there’s nothing meaningful to be learned in 30 seconds of focus-grouped politispeak beyond a basic impression of the candidate’s personal affect. The opening/closing statement is actually a defensive play designed to let each candidate fill airtime that might otherwise be devoted to making them answer a challenging question. There’s no need for this now that we’re four debates in unless, maybe, you intend to stick to one specific topic for the duration of the debate and the statement is limited to that topic. For instance, if you’re holding a foreign-policy debate, there may be value in having each candidate briefly sketch out his vision. But we don’t need another iteration of Rubio’s overarching “shining city on the hill” shtick or Rand Paul running through his “liberty candidate” pitch or Trump vowing to make America great again for the eighth thousandth time. Those messages will come through in their answers during the debate. It’s dead air to make them stand there for 10 minutes introducing themselves to everyone again like this is some sort of AA meeting. No wonder Trump walked away from this fiasco.

By the way, the latest demand from a member of the field is to reinstate the now-canceled Telemundo debate, where the immigration pandering from the centrist candidates would have flowed like a mighty river. I’ll let you guess who asked about that one. Here’s Kelly last night on Fox wondering why foot massages weren’t included in the candidates’ demand letter too. Exit question: When is Ted Cruz finally going to challenge Trump to a Lincoln-Douglas debate? Two outsiders enter, one outsider leaves and scrapes what’s left of the other off of his shoes.