Republicans Move to Limit Number of Presidential Debates

[green73]

MEMPHIS — 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.

Such rhetoric makes taking over the debates easier to sell to the committee’s more conservative members. But what party leaders are principally concerned about is reducing the number of debates to avoid a repeat of the 2012 campaign when a series of insurgent candidates used the forums — 20 in all — to draw attention to their candidacies. Some party leaders say they believe that the number of debates pushed Mitt Romney to the right in a way that contributed to his loss to President Obama.

Party leaders want to tighten their grip on a presidential primary season they believe has grown unruly and too long. This year, the party moved to set the nominating calendar by scheduling the first four contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — for February, allowing other states to begin voting in March and holding winner-take-all primaries starting March 15.

Party officials are also moving to find a city that can accommodate a convention in late June, earlier than usual to give the party’s nominee a head start on raising money for the general election.

Taken together, these procedural steps could thwart an underfunded insurgent who needs the free exposure of televised debates and would be hurt by a series of rapid-fire contests in March that could be tilted toward an establishment-backed contender.

cont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/politics/republicans-tighten-grip-on-debates-in-2016-race.html?hp

[Carson]

I don't think they can throttle them back enough to set pace with my lack of interest.

What's really the point of debates or a Convention at all if they're picking their shill?

[fr33]

This is how Rick Perry remained governor for 14 years.

[idiom]

If you can tip the scales though, you can own this beautiful powerful machinery.

[tod evans]

Taking over GOP franchises requires torches and pitchforks not flowers and kind words.

[Carson]

Taking over GOP franchises requires torches and pitchforks not flowers and kind words.


Who'd want it?

[JK/SEA]

and i'm supposed to run for a PCO position?...why?

[surf]

and i'm supposed to run for a PCO position?...why?
been asking myself this for 4 election cycles so far... i'd say the only good (and bad) moments are watching lori sotello squirm.

but i'll admit, some of my all-time favorite moments supporting Ron Paul came during the debates.

[nobody's_hero]

Some party leaders say they believe that the number of debates pushed Mitt Romney to the right in a way that contributed to his loss to President Obama.

These people are so fucking clueless it makes my head hurt.

Mitt Romney was a Masshole liberal who never had two consistent stances in his life. That's why he lost. He was 'pushed to the right'— for f#*$'s sake all you have to do is wait 5 minutes and he'll be back over to the left again.


Taking over GOP franchises requires torches and pitchforks not flowers and kind words.

At the very least, it requires control of the teleprompter.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/DNCteleprompterOnGodVote090512.jpg

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Meh.

[kahless]

They can't have the public see Rand getting more than 89 seconds of speaking time, otherwise how will they ensure that Jeb is the nominee.

If that does not work then they can haul out the trustee old newsletters as explosive new breaking news at just the right time.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

They can't have the public see Rand getting more than 89 seconds of speaking time, otherwise how will they ensure that Jeb is the nominee.

If that does not work then they can haul out the trustee old newsletters as explosive new breaking news at just the right time.

And did you know a guy who worked for Rand once wore a confederate flag mask??

[Zippyjuan]

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.

Such rhetoric makes taking over the debates easier to sell to the committee’s more conservative members. But what party leaders are principally concerned about is reducing the number of debates to avoid a repeat of the 2012 campaign when a series of insurgent candidates used the forums — 20 in all — to draw attention to their candidacies. Some party leaders say they believe that the number of debates pushed Mitt Romney to the right in a way that contributed to his loss to President Obama.

Curious how the "Liberal media" "pushed Romney farther to the Right". Seems it was more the desire by Republicans to have "anybody but Mitt" but one by one the "I'm Not Mitt" candidates self destructed. They picked the debates and moderators so they controlled the process in that election as well.

[orenbus]

This is how Rick Perry remained governor for 14 years.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByGf8lP87HU


Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who lost a bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is leaving the door wide open for another run in 2016.

"I think America is a place that believes in second chances," Perry said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC. "I think that we see more character out of an individual by how do you perform after you fail and you go forward."
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-2016-america-believes-in-second-chances-170456806.html

[HOLLYWOOD]

I don't want debates, how about a 3 hour session in every state for constituents to ask questions with one rebuttal to every answer by the politicians. say 10 question/response/rebutal per hr, for a total of 30 citizens per "show"


I think everyone has had enough of the sham of corporate media and gov propaganda media, moving the goal posts, setting the dialog, and controlling the candidates... aka Rigging The Shit

[RandallFan]

They should have bunch of shadow debates. Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and others should have a debate on identical issues.

Invite the candidates that drop out to join in. The sanctions won't matter.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Thank God. That 2008 GOP primary cycle was ridiculous, it felt as if there were fifteen debates.

There are only three presidential debates, plus one vice presidential one, before the general election, and that feels like more than enough to me. Cut back on the primary debates. They're just welfare for bottom-tier candidates anyway.

[TaftFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByGf8lP87HU


http://news.yahoo.com/perry-2016-america-believes-in-second-chances-170456806.html

To be fair, he was getting almost no sleep due to medication and back surgery. He was pretty sharp on Kimmell.

[alucard13mm]

I guess they learn their lesson where Ron just destroys almost everyone on the debate. Can't have that happen again, especially with Rand, who might be more ferocious and less polite.

[green73]

I guess they learn their lesson where Ron just destroys almost everyone on the debate. Can't have that happen again, especially with Rand, who might be more ferocious and less polite.

Dont tell that to Georgia "fan".

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I guess they learn their lesson where Ron just destroys almost everyone on the debate.

Ron Paul's poll numbers went down after debates in 2011, and rose back up during the lull when nothing was happening. We had threads here discussing that.

When did Paul "destroy" anyone in any debate this past cycle? He barely got any speaking time, and usually said stuff (legalize heroin) that was detrimental to his chances. In the final debate before the Iowa Caucus, on December 15, 2011, Ron Paul made some comments that suggested he had no problem with a nuclear Iran, and there was some smug Iowa GOP figure that said "Ron Paul just lost Iowa" after it.

[Occam's Banana]

The move represents the party’s effort to reduce the number of debates and assert control over how they are staged.

^^ official nominee for Best Use of Double Entendre in a News Report - Print or Audio/Video (2014)


Such rhetoric makes taking over the debates easier to sell to the committee’s more conservative members. But what party leaders are principally concerned about is reducing the number of debates to avoid a repeat of the 2012 campaign when a series of insurgent candidates used the forums — 20 in all — to draw attention to their candidacies. Some party leaders say they believe that the number of debates pushed Mitt Romney to the right in a way that contributed to his loss to President Obama.


Establishmentarians gonna Establishmentarianize ...

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Ron Paul's poll numbers went down after debates in 2011, and rose back up during the lull when nothing was happening. We had threads here discussing that.


This is completely irrelevant.

Americans had never been allowed to hear Rothbardian libertarianism ever before--and certainly not in the context of a major party nationally televised debate.

Up until Ron Paul snuck into the debates, Americans were only permitted to hear a poisoned version of libertarianism that was bad on the military, bad on the monopoly bank, and bad on almost everything else important.

If Ron had not had the nationally televised debate venue available to him--even though it was only a few minutes per debate hour--I don't believe the Love-o-lution would have turned into anything like it did.

Unspeakable Rothbardian libertarian truths being uttered in such a venue was not significant for its instant effects on bumping poll numbers. It was significant because it inspired so many high quality people to come out of the woodwork and prove that no matter what the government media's poll numbers said, the Republicans would still have to cheat their asses off and commit all sorts of crimes when it came down to counting votes in state caucuses where the votes could be audited.

Ron's next day South Carolina poll numbers may have dipped slightly after he was booed by the SC Christians after speaking the unspeakable golden rule. But we see now how they have to make sure that such a thing never happens again because of all of the more powerful non-poll-number-related effects.

So, of course they're going to abolish caucuses and debates now so that such a thing never happens again.

And, of course they're going to create firebreaks in the form of Rand Pauls who they don't have to worry about speaking the unspeakable in whatever national forums they allow to remain.

But we shouldn't let that stop us from drafting another Rothbardian libertarian to gum up their works in 2016.

My theory is that the candidate needs to be a "made man" in the government mafia in order to get whatever smidgen of 90 seconds per hour "respect" from the top dons that is available. That seemed to be the criteria for how the filtered who they let in the early debates.

So here's a short list off the top of my head of "made" government mafia men who I think are Rothbardian-libertarian enough whom we could draft as a 2016 candidate to revive the fast fading Love-o-lution:

Judge Nap (made man credentials--NJ Superior Court Judge)

Michael Scheuer (made man credentials--hit man for the CIA)


When did Paul "destroy" anyone in any debate this past cycle? He barely got any speaking time, and usually said stuff (legalize heroin) that was detrimental to his chances. In the final debate before the Iowa Caucus, on December 15, 2011, Ron Paul made some comments that suggested he had no problem with a nuclear Iran, and there was some smug Iowa GOP figure that said "Ron Paul just lost Iowa" after it.

If Ron had ran for real and not hired Rothard-libertarian-idea hating handlers to yank him off the stages with the vaudeville cane, run him ragged from one short stump speech after another, and hold him hostage for days at a time in places like Maine, we don't know what would have happened.

He almost won Iowa regardless. If Ron had rented out the Des Moine Indian casino concert hall (or whatever) and stood up there for days at a time with his Rudy's Reading List foreign policy experts to break it all down, answer follow up questions from the press and the voters in detail, I think we would have had a real revolution on our hands.

My theory is that Ron understood what Peggy(?) Freeman said in that video about how people would come out of the woodwork and stand in front of tanks if Ron ran for real and they heard too much of the unspeakable truth being uttered in all those places they had never heard it before. So I think Ron hired the Rothbardian-libertarian haters to run his campaign as some sort of counter weight. I think in his own mind he thought that he would be true and honest in everything that came out of his own mouth. But he would acquiesce to the Rothbardian-libertarian haters when it came to scheduling, venues, TV ads--all the that stuff.

I think the lessons are undeniable as far as how to go about promoting Rothbardian-libertarian ideas in the face of William F Buckley's 50+ year psyop project to poison, corrupt, and co-opt those ideas.