Jonathan Martin reports in the New York Times that the RNC has moved aggressively to reduce the number of debates Republican candidates for president will have to endure.
The Republican National Committee moved Friday to seize control of the presidential primary debates in 2016, another step in a coordinated effort by the party establishment to reshape the nominating process.
Committee members overwhelmingly passed a measure that would penalize any presidential candidate who participated in a debate not sanctioned by the national party, by limiting their participation in subsequent committee-sanctioned forums.
The move represents the party’s effort to reduce the number of debates and assert control over how they are staged.
In making the case for adopting the new rule, party officials repeatedly criticized the moderators and format of the 2012 primary debates, appealing to the suspicions that many Republican activists have about the mainstream news media. “The liberal media doesn’t deserve to be in the driver’s seat,” said the committee’s chairman, Reince Priebus, addressing committee members here at their spring meeting.
This means that underdog candidates will have to weigh the advantages of appearing in unsanctioned forums versus the disadvantages of being blocked from sanctioned forums. Of course, that’s an easy decision if you haven’t been invited to the sanctioned forums in the first place.
It’s smart for the Republicans to do this, but their distrust of the mainstream media is just one more manifestation of their divorce from reality, which really took place no later than Sarah Palin’s appearance on the national stage.
When being asked what papers you read is too hard of a question, mistrust builds up in a hurry. If the Republicans are hoping to go through debate season without anyone ever puncturing their right-wing media fantasy bubble, these reforms are not going to be fully productive. And, in any case, if the candidates are cheering the death penalty and talking about the sanctity of marriage and how “severe” their conservatism is, and the wisdom of a self-deportation immigration policy then it won’t matter who the moderator happens to be.
It’s true that the Republicans had too many debates, but so did the Democrats. And it didn’t appear to hurt the Democrats at all. It made Obama a better debater.
It says something that the GOP wants to have a primary season without allowing anyone to watch or question what they are doing.
I’m looking forward to seeing what future Presidential debates will look like when the RNC is “in the driver’s seat.” I would love to be able to hear and see the pushback from some candidates in pre-debate meetings when the RNC attempts to bar candidates from bringing up birth certificates, “the blacks”, suppression of women’s rights, false flags and Agenda 21! The RNC won’t be able to blame The Liberal Media for banning the discussion of these vital issues that all Real American Patriots care about.
Less exposure to the public is certainly better for conservative Republican TeaBaggers. Putting blame anywhere but on the debate audiences, the candidates, the candidates ideas, and the candidates behavior is just clueless.
Probably the two most damning events in the last cycle where the Romney tape (even more raw exposure of their beliefs and priorities) and the debate audience cheering the death of an uninsured patient.
Neither one was scripted or manipulated by a liberal press.
The Republican debate audiences also applauded and cheered loudly when moderators pointed out that Governor Perry had overseen the execution of more prisoners than any other Governor in the U.S.
Ghoulish and nasty.
What “liberal media?”
The RatPublicans were quite happy to see the so-called “liberal media” confine Ron Paul to 90 seconds of camera time during a 90 minute primary debate on CBS.
Why did CBS do this?
Because Paul was arguing at the time…as he later argued on CNN after this particularly blatant CBS fix attempt was widely publicized by Paul supporters. (CBS…aka “The CIA Broadcasting System” since the ’50s by many observers in the know. You could look it up.)
Gee.
Aren’t those supposedly “liberal” positions?
Hmmmmm…
There are no “liberal” media.
Not in the major leagues there aren’t.
Only centrist media.
WTFU.
AG
It is going to be comical to watch the RNC try and determine who among their covey of candidates is considered an underdog, unworthy of national stage time, and who is a serious player and deserves the GOP stamp of approval.
But the really funny part is when I look down this list of debate sponsors during the 2012 Primaries. Why, look at those sponsors!! It is nothing more than a cesspool of radical liberal media elements who are, no doubt, hellbent on the destruction and misrepresentation of everything sacred to Republicans.
And the list just goes on and on and on. No wonder they are shitting their pants. Look at all the crazy liberal media in that gang. No wonder they couldn’t get a desirable format to showcase their seriousness. Obviously, intervention is required.
Once again, they prove that it matters not what is actually true; but only what picture they decide is worthy to paint on their own canvasses of fantasy.
Exactly!!
“The liberal media doesn’t deserve to be in the driver’s seat,” said the committee’s chairman, Reince Priebus, addressing committee members here at their spring meeting.
Can someone ask the obvious anagram that is Rinse Prius what liberal media he’s talking about?
I believe that more debates would be good for the DNC for exactly the same reason that more debates are bad for the RNC – the positions of the DNC are obviously better for the average TV viewer than the positions of the RNC. Add to that the fact that Joe Biden seems to be stepping into the fray to halt the Clinton coronation and I believe we should have some robust debate about the best ideas and the best person to lead that effort.
The GOP also prefers elections in which most people can’t actually vote, either.