Why not? Why not let a guy who was removed from a Trump presser last year, who warned in Time magazine a few days ago that “judgment day” is coming for those who “stay silent on Trump,” who vowed this morning that Latino voters won’t be as meek with the Republican nominee as Mexico’s president was yesterday, and whose daughter works for the Hillary Clinton campaign, moderate a Clinton/Trump debate?

You want ratings? Pitting the biggest amnesty shill in American media against the mass-deportation candidate while Hillary Clinton stands by and watches would deliver pretty decent ratings. It’d probably be good for Trump too: Having a Mexican-born activist “journalist” badgering him about opening the borders would be a fast track to getting undecideds on Trump’s side during the debate.

“I am a registered independent,” [Ramos] said. “I am never partisan.”…

[In a column he] suggested Maria Elena Salinas from Univision, Jose Diaz-Balart of Telemundo, Maria Hinojosa of NPR and ABC’s Cecilia Vega or Tom Llamas as people who could do the job, but didn’t mention himself. In a later interview, he expressed interest, and said his Time column shouldn’t disqualify him.

“What I’ve said is that we, as journalists, can’t remain neutral when a politician makes racist remarks,” he said. “That’s all. But in all our shows we report objectively about all the things (Trump) says and does.”

Trump should offer Hillary a deal. Ramos gets one debate if Sean Hannity gets one. Or better yet…

Is the Ramos idea really so far-fetched, though? Look who’s moderating NBC’s presidential candidate forum next week:

NBC’s Matt Lauer, who NBC Universal recently announced would moderate the upcoming Commander-in-Chief Forum with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, was once listed as a “notable member” of the Clinton Global Initiative, the leadership arm of the Clinton Foundation.

The page on the Clinton Foundation website that listed several other prominent journalists as members as well has since been deleted. But Mediaite screencapped the page when it was first reported on back in 2015.

The entire national media is pro-Hillary. The difference between one reporter and another is simply a matter of degree. The good news for Trump, though, as was clear yesterday in Mexico City, is that public expectations are so phenomenally low for him in “presidential” settings that he can win simply by not wetting himself. If a debate moderator asks him a loaded question about deportations and Trump responds with a smooth, detailed policy answer, he wins that exchange purely by dint of having demonstrated that he seems to know what he’s talking about. His biggest problem is people thinking he’s unqualified for the job, whether because he’s ignorant of the issues or because of his temperament. The solution is him sounding polished and prepared opposite Clinton and not taking the bait when she inevitably tries to irritate him. There’s only so much a moderator can do to impede the perception that Trump is fit for office if Trump takes care of business on those two points. And like I say, a moderator who’s overtly biased against him might see that bias backfire by getting the audience on Trump’s side. Any journalist who’s out to sink Trump would be far better off asking him a detailed policy question and hoping he chokes on it than they would with Ramos-style theatrics about the plight of illegals.

Here’s the would-be neutral moderator a few days ago on Megyn Kelly’s show insisting that sometimes neutrality isn’t an option.