Another RNC Power Grab: Debates

[supermario21]

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/reince-priebus-rnc-can-control-debates-84963.html

The Prince is out to control the debate process. He doesn't like that there are 20 debates and cable networks willing to offer 2 hour slots for whichever candidate wants them.


He said in the interview that the RNC now has the chance to link “the nomination process to the debate calendar.”
“Now, we didn’t have that opportunity two years ago; there is no mechanism to tie the nomination process to the debate calendar,” he said. “But we have that opportunity now. We can do that with a three-quarters vote of the Republican National Committee…. The RNC could hypothetically say, ‘Look, here’s the debate calendar. Here are the moderators. We’re going to have one debate a month starting on this day.’”
Candidates, he said in the story, will have to abide by that schedule in order to clinch the nomination. The RNC could enforce that, Priebus added, through carrots and sticks: “either through bonus delegates or penalties of delegates subtracted.”
The presidential primary debate process came under fire in last campaign season, and some Republicans said after the election that Romney had become damaged goods by the time the GOP debates came to an end. Priebus himself voiced opposition to the lengthy primary debate process as early as April of 2011.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/reince-priebus-rnc-can-control-debates-84963.html#ixzz2EqsaiCPi

I think it's nothing but a power grab designed to restrict the field...and Rand will be first on the chopping block.

[cajuncocoa]

Why is anyone surprised? :rolleyes:

[CaptUSA]

The problem was NOT having too many debates. The problem was settling on a piss poor candidate.

I suppose if the party wants to handpick their candidate, they don't want him beat up. But when the party picks the candidate, they lose anyway.

[Victor Grey]

I never understood this nonsense about there being too many debates. If you didn't want to watch them, don't watch them. They were on an average of one day a week for an hour at the best. I wish there were more debates.

Cable news is like what 85% politics? More perhaps? Talk radio is the same.

People that watch cable t.v. all the time, but them turn around and gripe over the amount of political campaign debates... it's stupid, it's just stupid.


On the topic of Priebus, he just wants to narrow down the potential candidates further and that is all there is to his angle. If the slop they champion wasn't do detestable the amount of debates wouldn't have much negative affect.

[itshappening]

Hopefully the networks and the candidates won't let him do this.

what's he going to do? sanction candidates who take up invites to debates? that is crazy.

[thoughtomator]

Anyone who wants less public vetting of candidates is up to no good.

[itshappening]

The networks should narrow the field themselves by only inviting 'viable' candidates that are actually raising money and show some kind of support.

I dont think having 15 people on the stage is going to make a good debate under any circumstances and there could be 15 people wanting to "run" next time.

There are too many joke candidates. Cain for example was never a serious candidate but he got up there for his 15 minutes of fame

[thoughtomator]

Nay, networks want Republicans to lose - put it in their hands and they will cut out some of the best candidates, like they did last year to Gary Johnson. The two best candidates, head and shoulders above the rest, were treated the worst by the networks. If they are given the option they would cut out Paul and those like him every single time.

[VBRonPaulFan]

The networks should narrow the field themselves by only inviting 'viable' candidates that are actually raising money and show some kind of support.

I dont think having 15 people on the stage is going to make a good debate under any circumstances and there could be 15 people wanting to "run" next time.

There are too many joke candidates. Cain for example was never a serious candidate but he got up there for his 15 minutes of fame

Early on, that's good. The field was whittled down pretty quickly, anyways.

[supermario21]

It depends on who you let define "viable candidates." The early Republican debates were a joke. There were maybe 4 serious candidates, Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (as a punching bag). Listening to Perry, Bachmann, and Cain was like a bad comedy show and Huntsman was akin to that infomercial on a Saturday morning.

[twomp]

The networks should narrow the field themselves by only inviting 'viable' candidates that are actually raising money and show some kind of support.

I dont think having 15 people on the stage is going to make a good debate under any circumstances and there could be 15 people wanting to "run" next time.

There are too many joke candidates. Cain for example was never a serious candidate but he got up there for his 15 minutes of fame

And who gets to decide which candidate is a "joke" candidate? For a LONG time, the television called Ron Paul a "joke" candidate...

[jbauer]

Why do a debate or convention or election if they are just going to do what they want to do?

[sailingaway]

they aren't going to have a party left.

We are watching death throes.

[nobody's_hero]

One of the GOP's more critical mistakes was showing up to the foreign-policy debate right before election. Romney should've faked a sore throat.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't fool yourselves for a second. This is about excluding libertarian-leaning Republicans, nothing else.