Will the GOP Let the MSM Back for the Primary Debates of 2016?
We all know the old saw, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
But how about “Fool me two dozen times and you’re the Stupid Party!” (aka, the GOP)?
The Republicans certainly did their best to prove the latter in election 2012.
And how were they fooled? The last election was arguably over and done before the real battle started when the mainstream media overtly and covertly made mincemeat of the Republican candidates during the primary debates, effectively neutering them for the main event.
Well, except for, momentarily, Newt Gingrich, who provided the one intellectually stimulating moment during that tedious and seemingly interminable series of events when he called the media out. That, unfortunately, could only be effective once.
Otherwise, the MSM performed the role of an unopposed air force in a softening up operation against a Third World country before the ground troops are brought in to mop up. And they did it well. (Yes, I know it was a “close” election, but in an economy with 8 percent unemployment and 16-trillion dollar deficits, it should have been a Republican wipeout.)
The extraordinary thing is that the GOP leadership allowed this to happen when a reasonable person could see it coming so far off he could have read War and Peace twice.
It was like nominating George Stephanopoulos to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Might as well go Full Monty and make it Chris Matthews next time.
The first thing the GOP has to do to win in 2016 is put an absolute, dead stop, end to this.
How?
To begin with, learn who your friends and enemies are. (Yes, I also know we’re supposed to keep our friends close and our enemies closer. But that doesn’t mean you give your enemy your daughter to sleep with.) Then, obviously, you set up your own party debates your way. Keep the MSM as far away as the nearest leper colony.
Then what do you do?
I don’t recommend putting Hannity, O’Reilly, and the Fox News crew front and center. However you may feel about them — I, like many people, have different feelings about different ones — they are celebrities. You don’t want the media to shine, even if they’re on your side. They’re unelected and will be there for decades anyway (sigh). You want the candidates to shine – and their ideas.
One approach might be to start with a list of intelligent right-of-center people who will ask reasonable questions eliciting substantive responses. You can find them in abundance at such places as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, HotAir.com, RedState.com, and, to be self-serving, PJMedia.com. There are plenty more, including, naturally, the Wall Street Journal opinion pages.
Don’t bother with Twitter. That’s just new-media grandstanding. No matter what happens, there will be twelve skillion Twitter questions out there, almost all of them repeats. Someone will have to pick and choose between them, making that person effectively the questioner.
I’ll make it simple. I nominate me for that job. Don’t like that? Well, forget Twitter. As I said, it’s a phony.
Another thing to ignore is “town halls.” They’re even phonier. Whoever heard of a town hall in a country of over three hundred million?
And don’t forget the obvious:
The presidency is not a debating contest and the president should not necessarily be a great or even the best debater. Lincoln and Douglas were a bit before my time, so I will assume they had special skills, but I can’t think of one presidential candidate or president of either party in my lifetime who was an exceptional debater. If that’s what you’re looking for in a president, elect Alan Dershowitz or the late Johnnie Cochran. Those guys would probably run rings around any president since Roosevelt in a Lincoln-Douglas mano-a-mano.
But whatever methodology is chosen, the time to move on it is now. Wait very long and, just like nature abhorring a vacuum, the Candy Crowleys and Brian Williamses will once more take what they believe to be their God or Goddess given roles as the arbiters of our political fate.
If the Republicans allow that to happen again, they are not just the Stupid Party. They are the Lobotomized Party.
So let’s light a fire under the often lethargic Republican leadership. Start getting this sorted out now. And, please, leave your suggestions in the comments. (Of course, this all refers to the primary debates. Next we’ll have to figure out how to deal with general election debates — a yet dicier problem.)
[Dept. of Self-Promotion: After some technical glitches, THE PARTY LINE, a play by Sheryl Longin & me about Walter Duranty, among others, is now up in print and Kindle form on Amazon. Have a look.]
The important aspect of keeping your enemies close is to make sure that they are much less well armed than you are at the time. Making them moderators of your public debates violates this principle.
I am hoping that PJM readers will consider the role that populism has played in both parties. Hence the yielding to “progressive” moderators, who co-opted populism and who have no sympathy for supply side economics as wealth creation. I wrote about that problem in the civil rights movement here: http://clarespark.com/2012/12/01/petit-bourgeois-radicalism-and-obama/.
We are better armed with better understanding of political history and competing economic theories. I am in total agreement with Roger Simon on his point in the article.
“The first thing the GOP has to do to win in 2016 …”
I’m not in “agreement” with Roger. That he would use the words “GOP,” “win,” and “2016″ in the same sentence is laughable.
Hillary will most certainly be running in 2016. If that’s the case the GOP will be shut out of the WH for 16 years. Any candidate the GOP puts up will be a sacrificial lamb, as was Romney. It doesn’t matter what the MSM does. The MSM has nothing to do with ever-shrinking GOP base demographics, and that will only get worse as time goes on.
The GOP is in deep electoral doo doo, and all Roger and most of the posters here seem to propose is that the likes of Fox News and their brain dead cast have more of a role! Really?
Are you suggesting the United States could survive 16 years of Democrat Party rule? Sometime after the federal debt breaches $26 trillion in 2016 the bottom certainly must fall out.
Since when do republicans care about the debt? You should do comedy. You’re good at it!
8 years of listening to Hillary’s stupid fake dialects and fingers-on-a-chalkboard laugh will do at least as much damage to the country as Obama’s tax plan!
Blah, blah, blah … Nothing but a bunch of regurgitated old drivel that was litigated in the November election you lost. How many times do you people need to be smacked down? The American people didn’t buy the anti-American garbage you regressive creeps were selling and yet you still try. Your view is that the message was not properly sold or understood. You never consider for a moment that people didn’t like the message.
The GOP’s worst nightmare! Hillary is the most popular Politician in the USA. She will crush any GOP candidate.
@CW – If the American people truly want a communist state then they have to PAY for it. With all the associated taxes and fees that truly means. No more 47% free rides! You, me everybody has to give up around 80% of our salaries to pay for the bohemoth. No more property ownership. If someone needs your space more than you do – you move! The needs of the many outweigh yours.
And just know that whatever you are asked to do for the good of the state……..muslims with be exempt.
Hope you enjoy it!
Hahahaha… Oh Wow! Electing Hillary… no utter economic ruin in four years let alone sixteen…
You seem to have misspelled the credulous part in Credulous Wonder as c-y-n-i-c-a-l.
Mark Levine has just been discussing how Boehner has absolutely PURGED all the conservatives on ALL the House committees.
I’d say that’s a sign that the GOP is NOT on our side.
One of those purged was our congressman, David Schweikert, who served on the Financial Services Committee. He is very qualified, given his tenure as our (elected) Maricopa County Treasurer (includes Phoenix). Now there are 7 vacancies on this committee! What’s up with that? There should be a priority in getting great people contributing here. Schweikert was dropped from the Whip committee early in his term because he did his own thinking and stood on principle. He is being sent to the lowly Science, Space, and Technology committee for having integrity and actually representing the constituents who elected him.
To Cynical Wonder,
I appreciate your wise and learned discourse on the article. Not! “The GOP is in deep electoral doo doo, and all Roger and most of the posters here seem to propose is that the likes of Fox News and their brain dead cast have more of a role! Really?” That paragraph alone shows how little yor read or if you did, comprehended what you did read. Mr. Simon made it abundantly clear he wanted the moderators from outside Fox News, and gave a lengthy list of possibles. Blog fail, poster.
I do not know if anyone else who responds to you will do this, Cynical Wonder. It has a great deal to do with what you say, and how you carry yourself here at PJMedia.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Also,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
So, Cynical Wonder, I hope I am not the first and only person here to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy & Prosperous New Year.
After all , should this come to pass, let us not forget that a rising tide lifts all vessels, including the vessels of those who would have all the other vessels sink to the bottom with all hands on deck.
Right on cue. Acidic and stupid is no way to go through life son.
Aw shucks, wish the fool a Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year anyway.
After all, the rising tide lifts all vessels, even the vessels owned by people by people who openly wish that everyone else’s vessel was at the bottom of the sea with all hands lost.
And he should be happy his enemies aren’t these guys
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/04/while-al-qaeda-was-allegedly-on-the-run-it-was-beheading-and-crucifying-people-and-imposing-sharia-in-yemen/
Hang on, they are his enemies – and ours.
I’m not so sure. First, four years is a long time; who knows what the world or the U.S. will look like, or what events will have transpired? Second, after eight years of one party in the White House, the opposition usually does quite well. Third, Hillary will not be the fresh face of anything in four years; rather, she will be the old familiar symbol of an era that has passed. Finally, someone like Rubio–young, articulate, vibrant, new–could present a stark and welcome contrast. Hillary might be better advised to seek a college Presidency.
IF the RINOS’s are still at the helm (in 2016) one must expect more of the same – a complete lack of conservative ethos. And if they let weepy, often drunk Boehner to stay in place, then Repubs are truly toast.
And the fact of the matter is that most Repubs are too invested in being ‘go along get along’ kind of pols, as opposed to real alternative policy makers for the body politic.
And it is also the case, whenever one compromises on core issues one becomes that much weaker in the eyes of the public. For if one stands for a bit of everything, then one stands for nothing. And this does not obviate the need to compromise, when necessary. But one cannot allow the other side to gain the upper hand, in the dog eat dog world of politics.
A pinpoint example of the above is this – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/29/republican-national-convention-heralds-arab-spring-in-its-platform-oblivious-to-the-unfolding-arabmuslim-nightmare-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/…for their was no discernible difference between their embrace of the ‘Arab Spring’ nightmare, than what was proffered by the Dem’s leftists…and this was just one example out of too many others!
IF they do not reverse course they will be lucky to play dog catcher to the revolutionary left, a party which at least knows how to go for broke. You gotta hand it them, even though they are anti-American pyromaniacs!
“this does not obviate the need to compromise, when necessary”
The key point of compromise (real compromise not disguised capitulation) is that you gain something in the negotiation for what you have given up.
And “The Deal” is not something gained in the process.
But too many RINOs see getting a deal as progress, not realizing that telling a cannibal, “okay, you can have my arm if you don’t eat the rest of me” is a Deal that is really No Deal at all.
During my career in government I came to believe that the only things any Republican knew about bargaining/negotiations, those that knew anything at all, came from the “Getting to Yes” school of commercial bargaining. The factual predicate of “Getting to Yes” bargaining is that one party wants to sell and the other to buy so it is in both parties’ interests to “get to yes.” That is almost never the case in public policy debates or in collective bargaining; usually one party doesn’t want to do any thing at all or, indeed, would like concessions. In the government case, getting to yes means the moving party ALWAYS gets something. This goes far to explain why we have an out of control government.
Republicans in Washington and in all too many state capitals can’t seem to fathom that there is rarely anyone in those places who is going to vote for a Republican; show me a conservative capital city even in nominally conservative states. Once elected, Republicans spend far too much time in the capital and among people who either hate them or only want something from them and far too little time back in the district among the people who elected them. Changing that would go far in making the Republican Party far more relevant to its actual constituents but at the cost of far less attention from major media.
Unfortunately, compromise means giving in to the Democrat agenda by bits and pieces. The Dems never completely get what they want the first time around, but they get the sum total in successive compromises by the Republican party.
The Republicans now seem to think that tacking to the left, and becoming more moderate is going to garner more votes for them. Duh!!!! They lost the last two elections by running moderates as candidates. The only real victories for Republicans have been the elections of conservative, dare I use the term Tea Party, Constitution oriented candidates. Yet the Republican establishment runs away from such candidates, and seeks to neuter them if elected. Note to the Republican Party: A good part of the Republican base stayed home this election because they were unhappy with the moderate you ran for President. Why do you think that tacking to the left politically, is going to make those voters return to the polls in 2012 and beyond? And do you really think you are going to get significant numbers of Hispanic and Black voters by becoming Democrat lite?
2014 Mid term election of more conservatives may finally open Roves eyes (and the Bill Krystals of the world), but I would not count on it unless we really do well in 2014. We should look at who to primary NOW!
Upcoming elections are going to be tough for Republicans, whomever they run. The Democrat Party/Liberal MSM alliance, is going to run a ruthless campaign against any Republicans running, for the next four years, in an attempt to head off any potential Republican gains in the next two elections.
That’s assuming that the MSM has survived the Obama economy without a GOP funded bailout. /sarc
All the talk of conservative this and conservative that completely misses the obvious truth that merely putting NORMAL individuals in office would be an immense improvement over the current situation.
Obama is a MARXIST, which is profoundly ABNORMAL. Evil in fact. He believes in the enslavement of mankind to the state.
How about we work on simply trying to get NORMAL decent people elected?
I don’t give a rat’s ass about someone’s conservative bonafides anymore. I’ll take someone at random chosen from the phone book, anyone just as long as they’re not evil.
Reminds me of someone who once said that he’d rather trust the country to randomly selected names from the phonebook than to the Harvard faculty. Of course if you used a DC phonebook the result would probably be just as bad, better to pick a rural phonebook.
Yeah. Normal. That would be REAL conservatives, not Republicans. They are all about “conserving normalcy”.
Yes. The media-bias has never been that horrible. They seem to have lost sight of the individual. The individual is much better served by small government and the Republican Party.
I think it could be a guilt complex. It was probably difficult to go against the first coloured president. It might have been fear of racism which is ridiculous. But basically I don’t even know if I am right as the same media had no problem with Herman Cain or, in the past, with Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. They seem to have fewer problems with Republican blacks. So they moved too far to the left, in the end, and lost sight of a proper neutrality pointing out mistakes of the incumbent president or showing advantages of a Republican approach. Mitt Romney would have won if the MSM had backed him more or only been neutral with pros and cons. After what I read about tendencies in schools and universities it’s a difficult task to win them back. So finally, there is only one solution: Declare them enemy of the Party of Abe Lincoln. Congrats to the MSM. Enemy of Abe Lincoln’s Party? That’s un-American. Being biased to that degree? That’s utterly un-American. That’s out of Eden, I mean close to out of the most classical feature of the former US: American democracy, freedom of speech and thought.
Roger,
Your suggestions are great.
Have fair minded, well intentioned people moderate the Republican primaries, and for that matter, all Presidential debates. And, let me add that I would also want them to be patriotic Americans, not right wing zealot skin head types, mind you. They should be people who put their right hand over their hearts when the National Anthem is played before the Super Bowl. You get my drift.
If I were going to write a pamphlet on how to pick debate moderators designed for Republicans, I might call it, “Debate Moderator Picking for Dummies.”
It would consist of a TCQ scale. I’d be fine with any moderator who received a TCQ score of zero.
I’d fill the leaflet with names of real people, some of whom meet my rigid qualifications (Patriotic Americans). Others who don’t. Here goes.
page 1
Folks, you want your moderators of political debates to be fair. Not left wing- in-the-tank puke pundits like George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews. Or right wing freaks.
To make it easy, I’ve created the Traitor Compilation Quotient with 100 being the most traitorous one can be. Aaron Burr on steroids.
And zero being the rating for someone totally devoid of traitorous tendencies.
I’m including President Obama because, after another eight years, he’ll be out of government and may become the editor of an offshoot of the Daily Cos, probably called something catchy like The Daily Pus.
Anyhoots, here’s the list of acceptable moderators so the Republican Party doesn’t have to shoot themselves in the foot whenever debate time rolls around.
Included as you can see are the names of various sociopaths, pathological liars, socialists, Obamunists, full fledged communists and progressive Communists or as I like to call them: neo-coms. All fit nicely under the word, “traitors.”
TRAITOR COMPUTATION QUOTIENT
Victor Davis Hanson….0
Maria Bartimono……..0
Sandra Flucke……….100
Bill Kristol………..1
Ann Coulter…………0
Ben Shapiro…………0
George Will…………0
Jim Cramer………….0
Christiane Amanpour….100
Nancy Pelosi………..100
Laura Ingraham………0
Ron Radosh………….0
Nate Silver…………0
Barack Obama………..100
Paul Krugman………..88
George Stephanoupoulos.91
Roger Simon…………0
cfbleachers…………0
Hillary Clinton……..9
Bill Clinton………..0
Allen West………….0
Lindsay Graham………1
David Letterman……..99
Bob Costas………….83
Rush Limbaugh……….0
Tim Geithner………..100
Susan Rice………….100
Arianna Huffington…..89
J. Christian Adams…..0
Joe Biden…………..6
Leon Panetta………..11
Kathleen Sabellus……100
Candy Crowley……….92
Bill O’Reilly……….0
David Gregory……….98
Van Jones…………..100
Carol Browner……….100
Hugo Lingren………..76
Matthew Boyle……….0
Remember, the figure of 100 means they’re out and out, devout traitors who should be banished, shunned, chastised and demeaned in every possible way. They’re the most vile scum on the face of the earth.
The 0 figure is for patriotic Americans.
Glad to be of help.
To that list, I would add Michael Barrone. Although right of center, he brings intelligence, gravitas and even-handedness to the table. This man is a serious journalist. There are others that are NOT pop stars, nor right-wing loons with their own
agendas. What you’re looking for is someone that expresses the right’s concerns over fiscal and economic issues as well as cultural and societal points of view. Although to me abortion will ALWAYS be a tragedy of immense costs, it should not be the one issue we hang our hat and ourselves on. The educational agenda comes to mind. Unless and until we recapture the educational factories, we will ALWAYS be fighting rear guard actions. Always.
Unfortunately, this will take a long time. As it did the left. But without this, we have no hope of changing the country and leading it in another direction. School vouchers are a case in point. Tell me, what parent doesn’t want a better education for their children? Even the very people that today are considered the “47%” are aware that the world is changing around them and that their children are lagging behind.
Today, many people are saying that the TeaParty is dead and probably should be buried. Perhaps it is. But I sense that as long as the “media” is allowed to pick our champions for us, we will never, ever earn the right to climb back in the ring and give it another go. The issues that were important to us in 2008-9 will continue to burden us and unless we bring them front and center every day (not just during the election seasons), we are marking time until the next disaster.
Wonderful list! But what about Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and Kimberley Strassel? And was that score for Hillary a misprint–9, really? I’d put her at 90 myself; don’t think she’s to be trusted. “Not quite as bad as Obama” still leaves a lot of ground.
Excellent list. One important person, however, was not mentioned – the one voice in the media that speaks the truth – Michael Savage. Not to worry though, come 2016 the so-called “Loyal opposition,” the Republican Party, will fold (Again) like a cheap suit and accept the chosen “Moderators.” The stupid party will continue to be stupid. Moderators? Let’s see. How about this lineup for a gang-of-four? We know that Candybar Crawley killed off the so-called “Town Meeting” format. Here goes my selections…….Bob Costas, RuPaul, Roland Martin and a Jihadist of your choice. We now have “Diversity! We need three “Alternates” in case of illness, etc. Michael Vick and any professor of Women’s/queer studies at an Ivy League college would do nicely. Let’s add Mr. Strauss Kahn for even more diversity. Now we’re all set………………….but why bother with all this? The state run media has already elected Shrillery as President. Forget holding an election. Save the money and use it to buy Hillaryphones for everyone.
How does Hillary Clinton only merit a 9? Did you mean 99? She’s at least as scary as Obama in my opinion.
Roger Simon
Bill Whittle
Scott Ott
Mary Katherine Ham
Jake Tapper
Andrew McCarthy
David Horowitz
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
Hugh Hewitt
Dennis Miller
You can bet your last dollar they will!
Now,THAT’S an idea! Getting someone intelligent and well-versed in current events and history and what the Constitution actually SAYS, moderating a dialogue between candidates in the primaries, then the chosen presidential candidates is a GREAT concept. You’d actually be exposing the public to conservative people that have not been on TV much, if at all, and they’d get to see for themselves that conservatives are not the racist,heartless,greedy white boy pigs they have been stereotyped as for so long by the masses’ media. And the differences between the ideas of the “moderate” Republicans and the actual conservatives who want more freedoms and LOTS LESS government and taxes could be sharply highlighted by a conservative host who asks intelligent, probing questions. At the risk of hurting the feelings of the many conservative columnists and bloggers whom I so ardently admire, I nominate Glenn Reynolds and Deroy Murdock to be the first moderators for the first 2 debates, Heather McDonald and Michelle Malkin next.
And Candy Crowley can fill a heckuva big vacuum!
More seriously, Mr. Simon…the GOP Beltway leadership allows the MSM to run its debates for one simple reason. The leftist MSM is who the GOP leadership is comfortable with and likes because people like Crowley and Williams, etc. help that Beltway gang keep anyone who is not on the “approved” list from getting the nomination. That’s a feature not a bug to them.
The GOP leadership actually like having the liberal MSM running the Republican primary debates because they know that the MSM’s anti-conservative bias will result in numerous “gotcha” type questions that will put conservatives on the defensive and attempt to portray them in a bad light, thus helping the GOP leadership’s favored moderate candidates. Thus, the liberal MSM does much of the grim work of knocking off the conservative candidates one by one, without the GOP establishment having to get its too hands dirty. I fully expect the GOP to pull this same stunt in 2016 as they try to get Jeb Bush nominated.
I am not so sure.
The alphabet networks are the networks, and without them, no message can get to the mass of the electorate. It could well be that, in order to gain access to the “airwaves,” the RNC MUST accede to the networks’ demand to allow their people to moderate.
Perhaps by 2016 the new media will compensate. Perhaps.
Chris, the intended audience of Republican primary debates is Republicans. If all the debates were on the Fox News Channel there is very little downside. Why should we let Democrats help weaken their opponents?
I like the idea of selecting non-celebrity debate moderators from among video bloggers.
Not only that, but Republicans will tune into the Republican debates wherever they are broadcast. Even MSNBC got good ratings the night they broadcast a Republican debate. And even more people will be able to access the debate broadcasts online in 2015-2016 than could do so in 2011-2012. Let’s worry about getting good moderators for the Republican debates, then see who will broadcast them. If the moderator is, say, Fred Barnes, we will be fine whether the debate is on Fox News or the Weather Channel. But if the moderator is George Stephanopoulos, we will have a problem no matter what network is broadcasting the debate.
Just like that, huh? Will the GOP LET the MSM back in 2016? Is that the right question, in the first place? Isn’t the real question that CAN the GOP STOP them from running the narrative? Don’t forget the new media, most of whom were conservative and who were supposed to neutralise and many of whose big names forecast Romney would win by 300 EC votes or more. Can these guys displace, and not just replace, NYT, WaPo and the like?
And can ORCA or anyother computer program displace the simple cash-and-carry system the Dems have perfected?
Its not only the primary debates. We need to withdraw from the CPD as well.
Sounds like what Newt Gingrich was proposing. If he got the nomination he wanted to challenge Obama to one on one debates with no moderator and just have at it with no preset topic.
Until the RNC admits and accepts that the national MSM is the lefts most dangerous and effective weapon, the RNC will continue to whither away. The MSM is THE propoganda weapon of the left. They have swayed too many sheeple in this nation into believing the lies and deceit of the Democrat party. The MSM IS the enemy. Newt seems to be the only Republican that understands this and went after them. Other Republicans will give it lip service by meekly acknowledging their bias, but they’re too afraid and timid to confront them. The RNC needs to declare absolute war on the MSM. Obviously, the MSM as a whole is too big to tackle all at once. To win a battle and eventually to win a war, one must use strong tactics and strategy. Dismantle the MSM piece by piece. . Until the RNC aggressively goes to battle against the individuals and associations that are part of the MSM, the party will continue to diminish. As nasty and distasteful as it is, only an all out assault against the personalities, management and individuals of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc using the Rules for Radicals methods will be more effective than the current practice of weak Republicans whining about media bias. What skeletons do they have in their closets? Where are their investments? What about their divorce records? Treat them like they treat conservatives, without mercy or shame. They are destroying this country. They’re not afraid to go after and destroy private citizens simply because they contributed to a conservative campaign. Why should the lives and personal affairs of our enemy be exempt from scrutiny and exploit? Why does the RNC continue to play nice, while our nation is destroyed from within. The RNC LOST the election because they played nice. The MSM is the most powerful weapon of the left. They own the minds of the sheeple, there are just to many of them and they are now voting. Until the MSM is effectively neutered or destroyed, conservatism will continue to be overwhelmed more and more with liberal socialism. If the RNC doesn’t fight to win, we can kiss our nation goodbye.
Amen, brother.
Absolutely. And might I suggest a long term strategy would be to get a couple moles into that whole cabal. Journolist was a private progressive-media only discussion group that ran from sometime around 2007 to when it was finally shut down in 2010 after being exposed. Just look up “journolist” on wikipedia for a sampling of some of the absolutely vile things they were saying about conservatives. Not only that, but they were actively conspiring to bury the Rev. Wright story during the 2008 election by falsely accusing people of racism. (is anybody surprised?)
Leftists in general are like roaches, they thrive in darkness feeding on the decay of society, but when a light is shined on them they scurry out of sight for just long enough for the attention to pass, then come crawling back. I would bet almost anything they have a new group/forum for discussing such things, or at least that they openly discuss them in private. The full logs of the journolist group never did get released, but the little that made it out was pretty damning. We need a mole to infiltrate their world, pretend to be a good little apparatchik in their reporting duties so as to gain the trust of the others, while secretly leaking the information needed for the new media to shine a light on the leftist filth.
I’ll step out on a limb right and make a prediction for the 2016 election cycle. Write it down, archive it, pin it to your fridge.
– The GOP will not only let the MSM dictate the terms of the engagement, it will actively seek cooperation with them. –
The GOP leadership is not “stupid”; it knows exactly what it is doing. The upper levels of the GOP do not care about the Tea Party, limited government, lower spending, etc. They care only about what they can get from the system. If mouthing some words that keep the little people in line will get them ahead, they will do it.
Only wholesale change will help. Throw out people like Reince Preibus and his ilk.
If the movers and shakers of the GOP had any sense at all, they would decide NOT TO HAVE those debates.
The extraordinary thing is that the GOP leadership allowed this to happen when a reasonable person could see it coming so far off he could have read War and Peace twice.
Exactly, and even more remarkable is how many R’s now rationalize failure after their disgraceful defeat.
The central issue remains untouched: party ‘leadership’ repeatedly fields anodyne candidates, bland beyond measure and appealing only to committees and focus groups — expensively assembled and exhaustively analysed using OPM, naturally. The late Cal Worthington and his dog Spot would have done better. How absurd to think (yet again) that those who caused the problem are the ones to fix it!
Meanwhile, a big herd of invisible elephants still stinks-up the living room. Again.
And nothing happens. Again.
So, past is likely prologue. Again.
This is very close to a well-known definition of madness — terminal at last, let’s hope.
What the Squire of Simon Pajama — an ¡World’s Leadin YaleoDrama™ist! — ought to come out for here seems plain enough: next time round, let all redstate-bloody Republicanines swear by the blessèd Name of St. Norquistius never, ever, to debate anybooby anywhere except chez Rupert.
Most likely, their freelordships will thus be spared ever bein within barkin distance of a decent political grown-up — which will be perfectly OK, of course, because Party Neocomrade (third grade) C. X. Eastwood, an/or an empty chair, will do just as well. Better, maybe.
Paddy McTammany, who happens to have been reading dear old Kruggie just before slumming with The Squire, thinks the following pretty pertinent:
¡Bow-wow! ¡¡Arf, arf!! ¡¡¡Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!
___
[*] A little NPD, “narcissism of petty differences,” probably won’t hurt.
Though dear Kruggie does not expressly say so, it sounds as if he thinks quite a lot of Lieberals and Demoncrats not only admit that Dr. Limbaugh is non-marginal, but admit it on the basis of having heard the Big Bozoe perform themselves personally.
Actually, they haven’t. In over twenty years since the first stout neopilgrims washed up on the beach at Rio Limbaugh, Paddy McTammany has encountered only one really well-informed hostile account — and that one was from Comrade Fallows in 1992 or 1993.
Where the other 99.9706% of good guys get their CliffsNotes™ version of the Witch Doctor of Democracy from is an interesting question, one to which Soros Matters may or may not be the whight answer.
I dom’t recall any of the mentioned “conservative” blogs raising hell over the Stalin like purge at the RNC Convention where Speaker Boneheag reversed the voice votes in order to exclude grassroots conservatives with new rulrs to empower the GOP Politboro. Only the Washington Examiner even covered it. Yet the whole fiasco was taped with Bonehead reading a teleprompter that already showed the official outbome contrary to the actual votes. Sarah Palin objected from exile in AZ and Fox quickly cut her off from appearing. Also ignored was CNN’s questions about Paul Ryan’s dubious earmark requests–long before Bite Me nailed him on it in the debate. Let Cato and Heritage run the debates, they still have some integrity.
The Convention Day of the Long Knives was fobbed off as a dispute with those pesky Ron Paul supporters, nothing to see here. But Rules Committee mebers were denied entry, buses arrived late and at least one bus with members circled the conventuon site several times as the voting went on. This was a major scandal covered up. The foot soldiers of 2010 who awarded Bonehead his unearned position were treated as pariahs. The elites own the election fiasco. It’s hgh time conservatives walked.
Roger, Roger, Roger, you poor deluded fool… the GOP is the “Brilliant Party”.
Liberalism cannot withstand an ideological debate. Having the liberal media “manage” the debate ensures that no real debate takes places. Thus, the left-lurching GOP Establishment can rest easy, knowing that their candidate will win. The only times in the past 40 years that the GOP Establishment has been riled up was when Reagan won and when the “Contract with American” allowed uppity Conservatives to take control of the House. Fortunately, enlightened leadership was able to re-establish the proper order.
Ali had the “rope-a-dope”, the GOP has the “rob-a-dupe”. We’re allowing the GOP to steal the country to prevent the leftists from stealing it. The second greatest trick the Devil played was getting people to believe that the Republican Party was materially different from the Democratic Party.
I support raising taxes on the rich by the following simple method: cap all tax deductions at one million dollars. This will not screw over ANY middle class businesses. It WILL screw over both Democrat and Republican billionaires who use various tax deductions to avoid paying their fair shares [snort].
Roger, I’ve mentioned this before… and I’ll say it again.
Simply put, unless a conservative group or a consortium actually BUYS one of the alphabet networks (ABC, CBS or NBC) we are never ever effectively going to reach a large and an increasingly important part of our electorate.
Owning one of these networks will kill 2 birds with 1 stone, solve the debate problem, and give a fair and balanced news option to network vievers who don’t subscribe to cable.
Are you listening, conservative money…???
I often wondered why we need “moderators” at debates at all? Why not just have a time keeper that makes sure each candidate gets the exact same amount of time to talk about whatever he or she wants. For example, candidate “X” has 10 minutes to make some points, then candidate “Y” has 10 minutes to respond. Do NOT let the “moderator” ask ANY questions. As far as I know, Lincoln and Douglas didn’t have a Candy Crowly around to pester them, and they were talking about a lot more important issues than gay rights. Actually, it would have been grand asking Lincoln what he thought about “gay rights” when facing the Civil War. To be a fly on the wall to hear THAT response.
But I digress. Just have a time keeper that makes sure each candidate has the exact amount of time and THAT’S IT. Trust me, even in a primary debate, these candidates will have absolutely no problems in filling the time up with their ideas. And if another candidate chooses to use up his time answering a charge another candidate made, rather than promoting his own views and platform, then that is his choice. Time is time, and how you decide to use it should be up to the candidate, NOT the moderator.
Will this ever happen? Not a chance. Why? Because Republicans, in always thinking that they have to act noble and “above the fray,” end up being kicked to death by a bunch of street-fighter thugs from Chicago. And THAT is the point. Stop bringing a knife to a gunfight. Play on their terms if you want to win. The days of Ronald Reagan are over. There is a reason people lowlifes like Clinton and Obama win, hardly poster boys for fair play and honest discourse. They play to win. It’s about time we do the same.
Interesting question, Libertyship.
Technically, I suppose a “time-keeper” could do just fine. The candidates could then bring up whatever subjects they would want to talk about and whatever questions they would want answered. The Sarkozy/Royal debate in France comes to mind.
But there remains a problem – access. It is not just about reaching the largest possible audience, but also reaching specific electoral groups. Suppose you wanted to, for example, reach and target network viewers. The network pubahs could then tell you, “No maderators, no network.”
Of course as mentioned by yours truly, conservatives actually owning one of the networks could solve a lot of problems… including maybe saving a country in the process. Cheers.
Great Idea Roger.
Let the bloggers mod the debates.
I wouldn’t object to Rush doing one, or maybe one of his fill ins like Walter Williams.
Until we can hold journalists personally responsible for their own bias, nothing will change. There has to be a way to make the media completely accountable for their political bias left and right. If America can hold baseball statistics in their head we can keep track of our news anchor’s Political Lean Average and put a simple graphic together that shows in the corner of the screen, and displays an average assemble according to established rules. People disagree on NFL rules every day, but most believe it’s a fair game. Make Anderson Cooper move his own needle back to center if he wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, or eligible to moderate a presidential debate. Same for Hannity and Maddow.
Not so much the stupid party as the cowardly party. They fought with pillows while the Democrats swung clubs. It was disgusting to watch considering what was at stake.
The Marxists used cluster bombs, the Gyps, water pistols. The class war propaganda was never even challenged. Has there ever been an easier target than Obama? Live your principles and dump the GOP. Let them split the liberal vote with the Marxist-Leninists.
“I nominate me for that job.”
Good choice, Sachem. You would at least not force them through an ideological sieve. And that may be why they’ve chosen the opposition in the MSM to ostensibly friendly interrogators.
Debates don’t matter if they don’t fix the primaries.
I’ve said this before. 4 super primaries over 4 months. Campaign for one month, have a debate on a Friday and then the vote the following Tuesday. Loosely based on time zones with almost even number of electoral votes in each primary, so that a candidate will have to win 3 primaries in order to win.
The benefits would be more focus on each state, a shorter primary season and more focus on defeating the other party.
GOP Primary Debates in 2016? That is the question.
Roger, you were spot-on several weeks ago with your piece about the incremental subversion of our democracy by the leftist media. That is the fundamental threat and one that is the most difficult to rectify given the elitist liberal education of contemporary “journalists”.
The indie media is our only salvation.
“Will the GOP Let the MSM Back for the Primary Debates of 2016?”
Hey Roger; that is a really stupid question !!
Well, of course they will. Do bears poop in the woods?
The GOP will also allow the dems to frame all the issues, lie, deceive, misrepresent and the GOP response will be either silence or get on the defensive.
Look at the budget debates now going on re: the fiscal cliff. I bet that 75% of all voters believe that it is the republicans that are the cause of the problem.
Why?
Well Obama and his water-boys/girls are going around the nation claiming that he, Obama, has put forth a reasonable plan. Of course, this is a total lie and in conformance with one of Joseph Goebbels most famous remarks “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” the Republican response is ???????
While Obama frames the issue such that it literally wraps itself around the emotions of the people (and it is EMOTIONS !!!!!!, not facts or data that incite people to action – voting, revolting, etc) , the republicans talk data, facts and use other means GUARANTEED to make them looking like a bunch of total idiots.
Frankly, we need a totally different party to oppose the democrats (i.e., socialists, communists) because the republicans are totally useless.
And we best find a way to defeat and destroy the democrats before it is really too late.
They have already bankrupted the USA and it is only a matter of time before the FED’s buying of US debt no longer is enough to continue the charade, the fraud, that the USA is solvent.
At that point, the only solution will be for individual states to secede from the union, because, frankly, we no longer live in a constitutional republic.
The GOP will learn from the 2012 fiasco that they lost because they weren’t diverse enough and also that the social conservatives were out of touch with the enlightened populace so here is a proposed debate moderator list for the 2016 primary debates:
1) Snoop Dawg- “Yo Romney, y’all a Mormon, hows come y’all only got one ho?”
2) Sandra Fluke, Lena Dunham and Snooki Polizzi, topic: the positions of the candidates on the positions in the Kama Sutra
3) Cheech and Chong on marijuana legalization “Candidate Dave my question is: ..
“Dave’s not here, man….”
4)Juan Valdez- “Senor que es mas mejor, chile verde o chile colorado”?
5)David Brock and Andrew Sullivan on the candidate positions on Obamacare and dental dams and butt plugs
The list of potential moderators is endless, the topics provocative and far more important than trivialities like looming financial ruin and a nuclear apocalypse in the Middle East. That stuff is so not cool.
Maybe Sniff Doggie DooDoo and Juan Williams could co-host a debate. And shouldn’t there be some role for cute former child star Lindsay Lohan? You’ve opened up a whole erw box of Pandora’s Animal Crackers.
“Sniff Doggie DooDoo…”
I just about spewed my tea all over my monitor; that moniker fits the character all too well.
I stole it from a politically incorrect movie.
First and foremost the Republicans have to understand that there is or was or will be impartial media. Since the invention of writing, people wrote what they believe is the truth. Before radio every newspaper was a mouth piece of one ideology/politician or another. As it is in England today. Once you understand that the MSM moderators are not there to moderate but to undermined your position, you don’t let them get away with it. You have to treat them as Hostile witness. Beside why on earth you want to give ammunition to your enemy in the first place. You want a real debate get CSPAN televise it with a time keeper and let the candidates question each other. They are the ones who should inform the people of their position not the other way around.
Exactly. After the utter insanity of reelecting a truly awful president the next worse was the RNC allowing MSM flaks to ‘moderate’ all but one of the debates. Perhaps some genius decided that the MSM’s extreme partisanship was something Republicans needed to overcome for the good of their soul. Or, maybe they felt it was an inviolable tradition that couldn’t be messed with. I agree with the author when he says that the dems’ most faithful advocacy group did another hatchet job on the Republican Party and that it might have cost them the election. Anyone in the RNC that allows MSM scabs anywhere near the next debates should be viewed as a mole.
It has been said that the Republican leadership should have the words “Do Not Take Advice From Your Enemies” tattooed on their foreheads because they have such short memories. The sad thing is, there’s no guarantee they will read those words. The Republican Party is as full of progressives as the Democrats and to them it does not matter who wins, as long as it is another progressive. I watched Boehner on Fox News Sunday and all he really did was whine about Obama not being serious about this negotiating. Obama will never be serious until the Republicans grow a backbone and not worry about offending the media or any other same minded bunch of idiots.
If the GOP is stupid enough to allow liberal moderators to run roughshod over any future primary debates, they deserve what they get. I’m through apologizing for stupidity.
Be the party of decentralized federalism. Use local newscasters in local studios and feed out through the internet. The networks can carry the feed if they wish.
Here is my list for primary “debate” moderators:
George Will (learned conservative who is very preceptive, Charles Krauthammer (a conservative who knows the modern Beltway better than most), PJ O’Rourke (a very witty and intelligent Libertarian). Ann Coulter as well as Thomas Sowell should also be considered.
Let’s go for broke: Allen West. I mean, he can’t possibly be any more aggressive for the GOP candidate than Candy Crowley was for the donk.
I think for the primaries, we should branch out from the concept of a debate and embrace some more modern forms. Why are we trying to have a debate between eight candidates? Especially when what we are selecting is not so much who can lead the country, but who can make the case against their democrat opponent?
If we keep having traditional debates, then we will lose. We will lose because the questions will be designed to trip up our candidates and set the stage for the next round of Democrat talking points. The national dialog will not be about the economy, job creation, military policy or entitlement reform. It will be about abortion, prayer in schools, environmental protection and home foreclosures.
I think we should have at least one primary event structured more like Shark Tank. Make each candidate give a ten minute pitch about how they are the right person for the job. Encourage them to use props. Once their pitch is complete, every other candidate gets to ask one question and the moderator’s only power is to rule if an answer is inadequate to the question. Repeat for every candidate.
Get the candidates to make a positive pitch instead of reacting to a never ending stream of negative questions.
Why exactly do we need a moderator?
Just allow each candidate a two minute opening statement, and then go around in two minute blocks until the time is exhausted. If you go over, you forfeit a minute from your next response. Simple.
Will the GOP Let the MSM Back for the Primary Debates of 2016?
Yes.
Next question?
(they’re not called the Stupid Party for nothing, ya know)
Can we please stop calling what takes place during the primaries ‘debates’? They’re little more than joint press conferences. In any case, they’re next to useless for anyone who doesn’t live in an early primary state. What’s the point of watching six or eight people at podiums when you will never see more than three of them on your ballot? It’s an exercise in futility and it’s a total waste of time.
Why not just skip the whole thing? Leave it to those ‘retail politics’ states like NH and Iowa. They want the attention, make them do the heavy lifting. Unless and until we take away from a few small states the power to decide who should run, we will just be wasting a lot of time and money.
As Dean said, debates don’t matter if the primary system isn’t changed. If the current nominating process isn’t fixed, I see no reason to watch a single debate, ever again.
Mr. Simon, you would make a good GOP chairman. You seem to know how to say NO and why we need to say it.
Why are Republicans (as opposed to smart conservatives) as dumb as doorknobs? Is it from false politeness, fatalism, no imagination, or fear of demonization (I think this will always occur no matter what.) or all of the above? The Party without a spine. You know, contrary to the MSM narrative, they really could use some old time religious fervor coupled with strategic and tactical smarts.
What are the alternatives? They are the ones who need exposure. The Dems will be glad to forgo the debates, they are shielded and assissted by the MSM, their propaganda machine.
If Romney were in the White House, then the Republicans …
Stupid or not, the Republicans are stuck.
The GOP should heed #34 Mrs. Davis’s advice. Concentrate on local events in toss up states. Believe the majority of voters are as dumb as the Democrats make them out to be. They are. Most women prefer free condoms than freedom, prefer free child care than a decent job, they believe in equality in which every man is irresponsible, every woman needs Big Govt to level the playing field.
Please dump those Republicans who want to force a raped victim to carry a
rapist’s baby. It’s easy for them to “protect lives” if it’s not their lives and their family’s lives that are ruined. Lose the extreme pro-lifers, they are irrational ideologue, there are not enough of them to win anything other than a House district.
With the kind of money the campaigns spent, I was amazed the pros didn’t just buy time on the alphabets and cable to get our candidates story out. Heck, they could have easily afforded it AND the non battleground states would have felt included.
What were these guys thinking?
Sure weren’t concerned enough about the total picture, were they? Were we?
The conservatives did not have the courage to go with Sarah Palin and the rest is history.
Palin chose not to run, a fortunate fact that saved a lot of down-ticket losses for the Republican Party. I can’t think of anything that would do more for Democrat turnout than a Palin candidacy. At least Romney’s loss didn’t cost much down-ticket. You’ll have to console yourself but Palin isn’t going to run for anything again or put herself in a forum where anyone can ask her a tough question or mention Glenn Rice.
Pure garbage
Just how is it “pure garbage,” genius? Did or did not she choose not to run? Has or has not she put herself in any place where she could be asked a tough question? Did or did not she ever deny the Glenn Rice allegations? I’m waiting, genius.
More Garbage.
@Gary – Typical Palin sycophant; clueless but convinced. Gary, she ain’t going to sleep with you no matter how much you profess your love for her.
it’s nothing but garbage, Garbage, and more GARBAGE from this guy
The reality is that anyone who’d watch a debate on CSPAN or FOX isn’t likely to be persuaded by anything that takes place in such a debate unless it involves some truly major gaffe. What you’re looking for in debates is the low information/no information voter and the only way to get that voter is the major media. To get them, you get their “moderators” and their rules.
I really don’t see the moderators’ biases as nearly the problem that the lack of basic skills and knowlege on the candidates’ part is. In the last round all of them but Gingrich were just plain inept if anything moved them off their talking points or caught them by surprise. I wasn’t old enough to observe and form a conclusion about Eisenhower but since then the ONLY facile and articulate Republican Presidents and Presidential candidates I’ve seen were Nixon, Goldwater, and Reagan; the rest mumbled and bumbled on their good days and got worse from there especially if speaking impromtu. Really for anyone but especially for the low/no information voter, how you speak makes more of an impression than what you say. Whatever other virtues he had, a man as inarticulate as GWB simply doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. On the other hand, both Slick Willie and Comrade Obama are so full of sh*t that ther eyes are brown – no intelligent person would believe a word coming from their mouths – yet both are VERY articulate and and Slick is even very facile off the cuff. The one time that Romney was somewhat agressive with BHO and got him off message, BHO had a come-apart. What idiot decided to have Romney back off in the following debates? Romney was fairly articulate with his scriped and rehearsed statements but unfortunately tended to wander way into stupid when he got off message.
Something about our candidate selection process gives us the “hail fellow well met” Rotary Club sorts who really can’t deal with argument or argumentation. I don’t really know how we fix that since we are in the main the Party of tradespeople, small business, and the self-made man or woman sorts with a sprinkling of lawyers and other professionals who don’t really eat and sleep politics and policy debate. Since I don’t see that dynamic changing, as a Party we need to do something about candidate preparation not just for debates but for any contact with media.
Anyone who has served as an advocate has had to deal with witnesses who have never in their lives spoken in public and who are scared to death of even being questioned by their own proponent and literally terrified of cross-examination by the opponent. A few minutes of basic “witness preparation” instruction is enough to put most well enough at ease to function reasonably well with an advocate there to protect them from improper questioning. Presumably someone poised to run for high office would have at least some decent speaking skills and not freeze up, but unless s/he has had some training in advocacy wouldn’t really be prepared for unfair questioning, at least not on his/her feet. This is what the Party should develop some candidate training for. Since a large percentage of major media reporters are either former lawyers or wannabe lawyers most are fairly skilled in the tricks of scumbag lawyers: questions that assume facts not in evidence, leading questions, etc. In an adversarial proceeding practically any question David Gregory, for example, askes would be greeted by an objection; his specialty is the question that assumes a fact not in evidence or which mischaracterizes a fact and expects the object to agree with his mischaracterization. I used to just cringe any time poor old mumble-mouthed GWB just charged into one of Gregory’s gotcha questions. In any event a hours concentrated instruction by a decent advocate would prepare anyone smart enough to be pretending to high office to deal with even the worst of the biased media. It would, however, have the result of some reporters really not liking our candidates, but at least they’d have a good reason not to like them.
I have been saying the same thing since the Primary Debates began.
They need to start closer to the Primaries themselves. Like in January 2016, not September 2015. We need a pledge that the important candidates do not also attend the MSM/DNC Sponsored debates. They should be on Fox or the Internet via the GOP web site or the GOP Debate website. In 3 more years watching TV off the Internet will be far more commonplace. And we can put the debates on YouTube so people can watch them at their leisure.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, Allowing the MSM to participate in the GOP debates.. What? are we the
party of censorship , come on guys get real.
Roger, as to your final comment about the presidential debates – and the primaries – we should simply refuse to participate unless under OUR terms. Otherwise, participating in such debates is akin to going to a bullfight as the bull.
These televised debates are big business for the networks. They will capitulate if we show some backbone.
One way I’ll know when the GOP is ready to receive the credibility it craves, when folks other than the MSM are moderating debates.
Otherwise, forget it!
I never could figure out why the GOP let itself get rolledlike that in 2012.
GOP should,itself, sponsor about 4-6 debates, starting around Nov. 2016, then one a month more or less until someone has won or the primaries are over.
Moderators? How about Bill Whittle, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Stephen Hayes, maybe one more who’s specialty is economics.
90 minutes each, topics but not questions specified in advance. After the caucuses and priaries start, participation limited to, say, no more than 5 or 6 candidates who have finished second or better somewhere.
Live stream it, put it up afterward, Fox will carry it, other networks will if they’re smart, if they don’t they don’t get press credentials from any candidates or the party at the next round of primaries, they can get together and name one pool person and that’s it. Better no coverage at all than what the media did in 2012, I’d take my chances.
Back in 2009 I was screaming from the proverbial rooftops for a media plan against the media. Now we are talking about Stephanopoulos? Now?
He should have been front and center the target of a coordinated Alinsky style PR campaign to get him off the air. Hell, even Pat Caddell knows how bad he is. And we, the stupid party—- go on his Sunday shows like clockwork.
How about no one going on his show from Republican Party? After a couple of weeks people wonder why.
During that time we start simply stating that based on his years of Democrat advocacy, we will no longer be on camera with him until an objective journalist is his replacement.
Name names—- this is Tylenol/cyanide PR strategy territory. They, the Lying Treasonous Media just threw the second presidential election in a row with a coordinated $5 billion dollar FREE PR campaign. and we are talking base? Our base was demoralized and told to stay home—- they did because the media told them to. And low info voters belived it.
This is a freaking crisis!!!!!!
Treat it like a crisis. End careers, boycott, run ads, get Guiliani and his crisis-centric company. Get Ari Fleischer— start somewhere.
Matt Lauer, George Stepphie and Brian Williams should be on Current or MSLSD. Kill their careers, save America.
Get one—1—1–just one billboard up with George, Matt and Brian and call them LIARS. You Lie!
” if you watched them today, you are dumber today than you were yesterday”.
” They want you uninformed. Don’t watch them”.
They call out Plumbers for Gods sake, by name and we let them.
Enough!
Offense, Alinsky, offense, Alinsky— pick it, name it, freeze it, polarize it!!!!
ABC employs George Will, I would trust him to be a reasonble moderator, he isn’t always a complete conservative, but he is a fair man. Some of the other MSM types have reasonable people as well. But definitely no Stephonopolis or Crowley types, you may as well have The DNC chairman asking questions. Most of PBS is bad, as is CNN, but they both have 1 or 2 conservative commentators that might be OK. As well as Fox, I would trust CSPAN to run a fair debate. I also would like the see Glenn Reynolds (instapundit) for the new media. For Fox, how about Kruatheimer, Britt Hume, or Brian Williams.
One thing about gotcha questions though, its not always bad to get them in the primaries. Since the MSM will hit us wth them in the general anyway, it is helpful to find out in the primary if a candidate cant handle MSM bias, so we find out before they are nominated, and dont get stuck with people like Akin or Mourdock. The main problem is with people like Stephonopolis you get nothing BUT gotcha question, and the debate has no substance. The best way might be to have one MSM type, to ask idiotic gotcha questions, so the candidates get practice deflecting them, and one real conservative, to ask substance questions where the GOP base might have real differences with the candidates.
Even more important is to get fair people in the general election debates, or better yet just a timekeeper, with the candidates asking each other the questions.
Brian Williams? Surely you can come up with someone with more journalistic credibility than Brian Williams. I know Ted Baxter is dead, but Ron Burgundy’s still around.
One small objection, Mr. Simon. For thirty-six years I lived, and suffered, in a town with a town hall system of government. Ah, the joy of standing up and making one’s opinions known. Oh, the agony of hearing the asinine opinions of others. It is a magnificent way to govern, if, and I say if, every citizen has an IQ of 140 or over.
We live in a society in which we somehow submitted to the idea that media types are ‘experts’ of something and thus, we let them control our lives. The media in all its forms have ‘never’ been anything more than propagandist operatives for special interests in the political governance of the nation. Back many decades I was laughed at when I proclaimed that abuses of the First Amendment would be a principal cause in our fall. The media in large part has brout my claim to fruition — so it seems.
People are mentally lazy and seek any shortcut available to circumvent their having to exercise individual and independent analytical skills. Now we reap the consequences!
Okay fine, we don’t allow the Lamestream media to take part in the Republican debates. How does that help?
It’s one small fix for a much bigger problem. It’d be like taking a Tylenol to treat the headache caused by the blood clot in your brain. The people that need to be reached, DON’T WATCH DEBATES! They might watch the Presidential debates, once it’s been narrowed down to just two or three finalists but they don’t watch the early debates.
They instead, listen to what the lamestream media SAYS happened at those debates and we all know the media will pick and choose the absolute worst moments to show because “that’s what people want to hear” “that’s what sells” “those were the Big news moments” or whatever. If there are no worst moments, the media will create them with a little creative editing and since the people who watch these news shows get all of their news from that one source, they will probably NEVER hear about the controversy over the creative editing, they will never hear the real question or the real answer the candidate gave to whatever question they screwed up. Hell, just dropping the last word or two from a sentence can change the whole intent of a statement.
Yes, I admit we need to fix the process, and yes, changing the style of the debates would be one small fix on that road but there are MUCH bigger questions we need to solve like how do we get the bored, pessimistic, apathetic, kool-aid drinking, robotic lifelong democrats to consider listening to the other side? Their grandparents were democrats, their parents are democrats, their brothers and sisters are all democrats, all their friends are democrats, we have to convince them that they are being lied to. How do we reach them?
It’d be like taking a Tylenol to treat the headache caused by the blood clot in your brain. The people that need to be reached, DON’T WATCH DEBATES! They might watch the Presidential debates, once it’s been narrowed down to just two or three finalists but they don’t watch the early debates.
The people who don’t watch debates don’t vote in the primaries, either. Sure, we can have one debate hosted by the MSM. Any Republican is going to have to face a hostile press, so you might as well let them get their licks in. Additionally, the Democrats have to agree to the presidential debates as well, so at least one debate is going to be on their turf, as it were.
But letting ALL of the debates be run by liberals? There’s no logical reason why the GOP should put up with it that I can see.
“The people who don’t watch debates don’t vote in the primaries…”
That simply is not true in the cases of either the primary or the general elections. Thousands upon thousands vote having never followed any kinds of political debates. They are simply and ‘repeatedly promted’ by ground and support organizations to register and then vote on the approriate elections schedule date and locations. The dems get-out-the-vote machine since 2007 is huge and very effective. Few outside the ‘political junkies’ know the issues much less understand them or mostly likely don’t even know who the VP candidate is.
Yes Sir! You are absolutely correct in all you points – but those Republicans want to loved by all constituents and the Ruling Class that runs the party will ignore common sense.
Not only should these pitiful debates be limited to Lincoln-Douglas-style encounters as championed by Newt, they should voluntarily be staged by competing candidates and stored in the new media for review by the voting public. The effect will be the immediate disclosure of principled stands on election issues that cannot be rolled back later. The candidates without principles will be exposed on their very first flip-flop.
As a practical matter is would be difficult to get air time on major networks if the RNC didn’t allow the “journalists” at those networks to participate. So the question becomes how do you reach a wide, mainstream audience without the liberal networks? Buying the time would be prohibitively expensive.
Showing them on CSPAN would work but the number of viewers would be far less. I would say reduce the number of debates and air them on Fox. Most of the debates should occur after the field has narrowed. As much as I like Bachman and a few other house reps it is pretty much a waste of time to run them.
“The first thing the GOP has to do to win in 2016 is put an absolute, dead stop, end to this.”
No. Respectfully, (and I would love to see you as the moderator in at least one of the debates, Mr. Simon), the first thing the GOP must do, if they are to remain a viable party, is to become a different party than the democratic party.
That said, I abhor parties and a nation of virtuous people would refute them altogether. Conservatives cannot win an election unless/until we become, again, a nation of virtuous people. I say this with some trepidation, as I know there are those who would dispute my characterization of this nation as lacking in virtue. I will grant that there are still many who would qualify as virtuous citizens, but look at what we have allowed over the last four years alone.
We have allowed a blatant violation of our Constitution in seating Mr. obama to the presidency when he is clearly ineligible. By: his parentage; by Vattel’s law of nations; by the accounts of contemporary-with-the-founders historian Dave Ramsey; by US immigration law which recognizes native born and natural born as two distinct classes of citizenship; and by non-binding SR 511.
Nor have we demanded the impeachment of the usurper over blatant acts of treason while sitting in that office, nor violations of the US Constitution or US law by Mr. obama or his administration. Violations which have cost American and foreign lives.
We have allowed the undercutting of the safety of our troops by allowing the standards of military service to be relaxed for political reasons rather than respecting the fact that our military is comprised of citizens who willing forfeit some of their rights, while they serve, to protect us. We have also allowed the usurper to cede the primary duty of the presidency-that of Commander in Chief-to a foreign entity(NATO) in a clear breach of the implied contract under which our fellow citizens agreed to serve.
We have allowed Ms. rodham-clinton to serve as secretary of State when she is Constitutionally forbidden to do so. As SoS, she has committed to work towards the removal of the God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights of the American citizenry. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion with regard to islam’s demand for blasphemy laws to be enforced world wide as well as her continued work to advance the UN small arms treaty in an effort to effect gun control in blatant violation of the second amendment.
We have allowed the passage of eugenics and it’s codification into law in the form of the egregiously and erroneously named patient protection and affordable care act.
Clearly, we are no longer a virtuous nation and we have the government we currently deserve.
I think the first thing we must do is encourage virtue, and select leaders that can be trusted to be virtuous.
Comes the revolution…
…A week before the forum, the candidates themselves will submit a set number of questions for all candidates at the forum to answer. The questions will be drawn randomly out of a hat by an industrial robot, which will also read the drawn questions in a clear monotone. Each candidate will get precisely the same number of minutes to respond to a question, plus ten minutes free time to wrap up at the end of the forum. If a candidate exceeds his time allotment by more than 15 seconds or interrupts another candidate’s answer, he/she will be carried out of the forum by armed guards to a detention cell where a tape loop of Al Gore speeches will run loudly, nonstop. Audience members who clap or applaud will go to similar cells in a similar manner. News media personalities may attend the event bound and gagged, sitting in a special section.
The GOP needs to have non biased moderators and each side needs to have fact checkers that can immmediately refute any lies that arise in live time. Bet the Dim one will have little to dispute but the GOP one will have plenty. We sure could have used this as joke biden and barack morsi obummer told repeated lies that were reinforced by the moderators.+
Well let us just cut to the chase.
1. Mark Steyn
2. Charles Krauthammer
3. Thomas Sowell
Do we need more than three?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/dream-team-the-10-best-conservative-columnists/
Surely any of those could moderate a debate for the GOP
Tell you this: If it’s primary season 2016 a
– there?
Sorry, try again. If it’s primary season 2016 and the GOP debates are being moderated by the usual MSM types,I will not contribute a nickle to the party. Perhaps if the powers-that-be in the upper echelons of the party heard that message often enough, it would give them some backbone to resist being snookered.
The problem isn’t the venues or the questioners, it’s the slow-witted ineloquent candidates. Conservatives know what they believe and why they believe it, so the candidates can just echo back in broad terms that which most conservatives already understand. But, they are easily knocked off of their point with surprise questions that require a little more elaboration or, horror of horrors, demand a truly eloquent explanation of the fundamental sovereignty of individuals. Instead, we get overly stiff and earnest speaking mannequins from whom the greatest highlight was when Gingrich told the media that they suck. He said it much more elegantly, but that shouldn’t be the highlight of the entire primary because we already know that. Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed in the incompetence of our last great hope of saving our republic from slipping completely away. For one thing, one has to actually believe in freedom to extol the virtues of it.
They don’t call them The Stupid Party for nothing.
After this year, as long as Boehner keeps acting as a bully to Constitutionalists, and an abused spouse of the left and Goebbels media, I won’t vote for them anymore. I don’t want to be tied to doormats, aka Republicans who have no self respect.
Oh please: by all means avoid the corporate media next time. After all, you wouldn’t want the corporate party looking any less ridiculous than they did during THIS cycle now, would you? I mean, were it not for the MSM Obama would have run away with the polls long before the election which would have not been nearly so close.
What’s the problem?? Having the MSM moderate the GOP debates is like going door to door in Iran handing out Catholic church bulletins.. no problem..
Where to begin…… The House of Representatives should be holding Idea Sessions with all kinds of “ordinary” citizens to get New Ideas on all kinds of topics. Yes, the conservatives should be looking at ways to not bend over and let the democrats have their way beginning NOW! (This includes not agreeing to their “balanced” debates with their people controlling the debates, how stupid). No debates, fine!!! Perhaps it’s time for the House to push for a reward system for people that get up and go to work every day! If you have worked 10, or 20 years with one employer you receive a monetary reward!!! There should be a large tax break for being married and providing a two parent household for children of said marriage. Why do we reward bad behavior in this country? People that sit on their asses and lay around all day get the spoils and hardworking people get a kick in the gut every congressional session!! Every person receiving welfare should be reevaluated. If someone has a child they should not be given welfare unless the father is identified; if a paternity test is neede, so be it. Then the father should be held financially accountable or face jail time. I could go on for days!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also we need to bring our military home and let the chips fall where they may.
hopelessly stupid, and cowardly besides
but the American voter is much more seriously so in every respect
and the stupidest of them all are the Jewish voters by far
they voted for Hitler and they worship him
their rabbis, who are just as stupid, have failed them
Why have journalists as moderators at all? Why not use judges?
I do not think it is stupidity that puts the GOP in this position…the truth is the MSM has a monopoly. I know there is internet etc…but when it comes to nationally televised debates the networks and the cable news stations are still the only real game in town. Univision probably gave Obama his toughest interview, but how many people saw it? That is the problem.
In 2016 will they have the MSM back as moderators, of course they will. If political courage were liquid there wouldn’t enough in the whole of the Republican Party to fill a coffee cup.
Isn’t it time for Repubs to acknowledge that Fox News is part of the MSM? The “Us vs. Them” mentality and the “Poor little us” approach jsut doesn’t ring true and exacerbates the dichotomy and dialog, especially when O’Reilly and Hannity spend half their shows trumpeting their ratings. And isn’t it time for conservative voters to realize that Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et al. are more interested in their ratings, ad revenue and book sales than simply in their philosophies? The anchors, commentators, columnists, pundits, bloggers and strategists (whatever the hell that means) are out for themselves and their careers first; sure it would be swell if the Party ran the executive branch, but as long as their air time continues and their appearance fees go up, does it really matter to them? Enjoy the act, but think for yourselves.