GOP aims to ease bloodshed in 2016 primary debates
Finally, who conducts the debates? The last time around, some conservatives expressed anger about what they saw as liberal journalists subjecting GOP candidates to hostile questioning. “The Republicans have let this become the reality show of presidential politics,” said Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina GOP, during that state’s primary week in January 2012. “We’ve let it be driven it by people who don’t like us. … For that hour and a half of earned media, we have let the drive-by shooting of the liberal media come after our Republican candidates unfettered.”
Dawson wasn’t alone. Many Republicans scratched their heads during a New Hampshire debate in which ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton operative, grilled Romney on the topic of contraception. Where did that come from? Later, when Democrats sought to make contraception a campaign issue, Republicans saw Stephanopoulos’ questions as a partisan preview of what was to come.
So who should conduct the debates in 2016? “That’s a tricky question,” says Fleischer. “Putting on a proper live debate is no simple matter, and usually the people who are good at it are the networks or the cables. So it’s something we’ve got to work through and talk through, to figure out how the debates are going to be reflective of what a Republican primary voter thinks.” In the end, the party might decide to assign a few debates to organizations that did not conduct them in 2012.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Stoic Patriot on February 3, 2013 at 8:05 AM
the primary had nothing to do with Mitt’s lost. Mitt being a liberal had to do with Mitt’s lost.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 8:16 AM
D’oh!
you’re just recognizing it NOW!!!!
no more lsm moderating the debates….period
cmsinaz on February 3, 2013 at 8:21 AM
I thought 5,000 “debates” was a bit much. Familiarity breeds contempt, especially when lib moderators are setting up the memes.
Mimzey on February 3, 2013 at 8:27 AM
The GOP should not allow characters like Stephanopoulos to conduct the debate. That said, the real problem was the candidate. Romney was a horrible candidate. Yet that is the one message the GOP establishment seems to have NOT received from this election. First the big reason we lost was because of stance on immigration, now debates. Never is it acknowledged that Romney, their preferred Democrat-lite – WAS A TERRIBLE CANDIDATE.
D.L.Mc on February 3, 2013 at 8:28 AM
that’s not the narrative that the GOPe nor the MSM want out there. It doesn’t further thier careers nor their ideology. they want us to believe Mitt lost because he wasn’t liberal enough instead of the truth that he was too liberal.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 8:37 AM
But he was THE candidate vs the destruction of America candidate.
Wasn’t that the important issue?
Mimzey on February 3, 2013 at 8:37 AM
The problem is that self-financing vanity candidates like Cain or Huntsman can file and run a primary compaign on their own. Someone like Huckabee has enough of a following providing contributions to run in primaries for a while.
The networks also knew that the second string candidates would show up for any debate, just for the free air time. If the rest of them didn’t show, there would be the “empty chair’ and the assumption that the candidate didn’t dare come.
But the RNC should what muscle it has (if it has any) to veto the moderators. Starting with anyone who ever worked in Dem politics would keep out the like of Stephanopolous. And Gwen Ifill’s book on “politics” (really an ode to Obama) kept her out before and should again.
If they do end up with biased moderators they could at least learn form some of Newt’s questions. Like Breitbart, he didn’t necessarily accept the premise of the questions. Challenge that and the moderator’s bias. (“Of course, a liberal reporter like you would ask a questions like that.”) Mock them; it’s one thing lefty journalists, who take themselves so seriously, don’t want on TV.
Wethal on February 3, 2013 at 8:47 AM
The problem with the 2012 primaries were the candidates and their messages….
Romney: I’ll say whatever you want to hear.
Santorum: I hate personal freedom.
Cain: Libya?? Whoa, did you see that hot babe over there?
Perry: I forgot my position on that. Gimme more back pills.
Pawelenty: Zzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….
Gingrich: We should all hate rich people! Class warfare is good!
Bachmann: Vaccines are making kids retarded! Soylent Green is people!
Not to mention the Paul crazies.
What an awful field we had this eleciton that the guy with no solid positions was the best of the lot.
AngusMc on February 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM
I see you took some time out of your busy Sarah Palin-worshiping schedule to post about what a “liberal” Romney supposedly was. Sorry, but the truth is that Mitt was the strongest if the bunch running.
The whole primary process went on far too long. There needs to be a change.
bluegill on February 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM
That may have been enough for you to vote for him. It was obviously not enough for many others.
People want to like and believe in a candidate. Romney was a Stepford candidate who was wishy-washy on Obamacare while flipping and flopping over almost every other issue. He brings Ryan on board and then shuts him up. Ryan was a better candidate before joining team Romney. Every interview would consist of him saying “that was my position, but Romney is the top of the ticket and I support his policies”. I went out and voted for Romney, but not happily. I can understand why many stayed home. I would not have been surprised to see Romney leading the charge against guns as vigorously as Obama is. Israel was the only issue on which I truly believe Romney disagreed with Obama.
D.L.Mc on February 3, 2013 at 9:01 AM
GOP debates should only be moderated by people with solid GOP street cred.
The notion that we let the Obama propaganda networks run the debates because no one else can figure it out is ridiculous.
The issue is more likely the networks hold the debates hostage.
Use their left-wing shills or they won’t give the GOP the air time.
Is there some reason FOX News cannot be the carrier…?
NeoKong on February 3, 2013 at 9:02 AM
That does not make him a GOOD candidate. No one wants to eat the least rotten of a bad bunch of bananas. Usually you throw the whole bunch out. Which is what the voters did.
D.L.Mc on February 3, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Apparently not. Mitt lost.
Then how come he lost? Was Obama unbeatable? That’s a reasonable conclusion to draw from your pro-Romney chest thumping. Could we really have not gotten anyone better than Romney to run? Really?!
gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 9:10 AM
If they are thinking of running candidates who are in favor of minoritizing the white majority, then good luck on your kumbaya debates. Anyone who runs as an independent on the single issue of maintaining the white majority will garner more votes than the Republican nominee. The Republicans can join the Democrats and call the new movement “racist”, but you won’t convince most whites that they should become a scapegoated minority. This is their survival at stake.
Buddahpundit on February 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Agreed. However, the debates are something that need to be thought about even with the 2016 field. It is possible that a Gwen Ifil or a George Stephanopolis will try to bloody up the stronger candidates in the field. Candidates should have answers for gotcha questions from reporters.. (Rubio – I’m looking at you. That means figure out a one sentence answer about the age of the Earth.) However, I don’t want the candidates to have to debate legitimate rape during a primary debate, especially since there is likely to be a foot in the mouth answer from a vanity candidate.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM
But the bottom line is that 2016 will likely have fewer Republican debates, starting later, with perhaps some originating outside what Matt Drudge calls ABCCBSNBCFOXCNNMSNBC.
Yes. A hundred times yes.
They could put Heritage in charge, for openers. Clearly the GOP establishment can’t handle it.
petefrt on February 3, 2013 at 9:15 AM
If you want to minimize the bloodshed in the Republican primaries, just run a constitutionalist conservative who can make a solid majority of Americans believe that he or she is willing to put the constitution and ergo the welfare of the American people ahead of their own ambitions. That will go a long way in curing what ails Ye Grande Ole Party.
Not that I think it’s going to happen that way, but in order to have any hope of curing the disease you have to diagnose it correctly first.
gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM
I read what Ari said the same way. Yes, it’s ridiculous. I’m surprised at him. Usually he’s much smarter than that.
petefrt on February 3, 2013 at 9:22 AM
ROFL. Mitt was the worse of the bunch. Newt, Santurom even Perry would have done better against Obama. the only thing Mitt had going for him was the liberal polls telling the idiots he was the strongest of the bunch and they bought it hook line and sinker.
next time don’t let the liberal tell you who to vote for. The primary wasn’t too long it wasn’t long enough.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 9:42 AM
The poiticians want the exposure to a national audience. They can’t afford not to have national debates its free time with a willing listening audience. therefore they will agree to anything to get that exposure.
Now with the net and some conservative media there is less reason to have debates in liberal media enclaves. However the present politicians are still stuck in the old media world and unable to see the trees or the forest. Sometimes people do things for the simple reason that is how it’s always been done.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM
I see you took some time out of your busy Romney butt-kissing schedule to post about an “irrelevant” woman in a thread that’s not about her and where nobody else had brought her up. Pretty sad.
topdawg on February 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM
Ummm.. Let’s see – The guy with hypocritical moral and ethical problems including cheating on his cancer ridden wife, the guy who wants to have a national “conversation” on birth control (Barry would have had a grand old time connecting Santorum to Akin), or the guy who couldn’t remember his own positions on the issues. Yep, the Three Stooges would have done awesomely in a general election. I hope that you don’t get paid for your political analysis.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM
Unseen is a notorious.. Palin all day, every day poster. Bluegill was just pointing out the obvious.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Sorry, it’s either delusional of dishonest to think that any candidate who can’t even win the GOP primary is going to do “better against Obama”. That kind of insistence is just going to lead to the same defeat seen before where self-described real-cons wait in vain for the Great Conservative Pumpkin and denigrate everyone else. Reagan’s dead. Sorry to say, few current voters remember him. Constantly reminding everyone that no one measures up just keeps people out of touch with reality and trapped in the past.
rhombus on February 3, 2013 at 10:06 AM
the GOp primary was won not by Mitt but by the liberal media.New If you don’t understand that there is no hope of the GOP. As long as we allow the Liberal media to tell us who the “strongest” candidate is we will lose. Reagan won not because of the media but inspite of the media. And he won in a landslide.
Trapped in the past? those that fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. You want 50 years of liberal goverance simply ignore Reagan and what he accomplished. He was the exception to the rule. Since reagan the GOPe have return to the time of being the minority party. It took 30 years to wash away Reagan but the GOPe under Bush managed to do it and for that we have minority status once again. Heck of a job there George.
Newt, Perry and Santourum would have been much better candidates than Mitt when they had the full resources of a general election to work with. Mitt squandered those resources and failed to close the deal with the americian people. He refused to fight. They won’t have. So believe the liberal polls, let the GOpe tell you who can win and watch time after time when they fail to unseat the dems in election after election.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM
It’s the MSM that throws the debates into social issues with loaded questions that dominate the focus away from national and Constitutional concerns . When the economy and national security are not the primary discussion points of a federal election, then the Dems get their talkin points to steer the election where they choose.
onlineanalyst on February 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM
The irony is that, in their hearts, Romney supporters truly believe that he lost the GE because he was too bloodied by the primaries, and that it went on for too long. No amount of logic will displace those feelings and emotions. Lol
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 10:20 AM
They wouldn’t because of the things that I outlined above. There are reasons why they lost the primaries.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM
ROFL….for being a notorious (really?) supporter, I don’t see where I mention her at all in this thread.
In fact it was the mittbots who brought her up. imagine that. Infact it is telling that to this day the mittbots fail to see what an epic loser Mitt was and is. Instead they continue to name call conservatives. they should be doing a self inspection and really understand why their golden boy Mitt and his and their liberal policies failed to excite the masses in Nov. It afterall the main reason we lost in Nov. Not the primary schedule nor the primary debates. they never could understand and thought by tearing other people down they would build up Mitt the loser. It failed. They failed. Obama won a second term. So stop with the bashing of good conservatives like Palin and turn you hate to where it belongs to liberals like your golden boy Mitt
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 10:26 AM
I know. they were clueless then and clueless now.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Having a good street fight between two viable candidates isn’t a bad thing. Bush vs. McCain in 2000 probably ended up helping Bush in the GE when he was way down in September. A Ryan vs. Rubio vs. Jindal vs. ugh.. Krispy Kreme primary in 2016 may end up helping the eventual nominee (as long as it is not Krispy Kreme). What happened in 2012 was the only truly viable candidate was Romney and he had to fend off people like Herman Cain.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM
so? We know that going in. A smart man or woman would understand that is what is coming and have a plan to turn the loaded questions into a platform to push their ideas, beliefs and ideology. A good candidate does that in their sleep a terrible candidate like Mitt has the deer in the headlights look that we saw time after time after time.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 10:29 AM
So bring out your candidate. Where is she/he? You are doomed to repeat ’08, ’12.
rhombus on February 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM
The truth is, boldly proclaiming conservatism doesn’t sell, any more than boldly proclaiming liberalism. You have to crouch conservatism in moderate tones or we will be portrayed, unfairly, as prudes and heartless monsters. The president had the media on his side to hide his bold liberalism, now shown in full at the inauguration. We need to be smarter in our delivery and this is step one: working to prevent the MSM from defining us to the good people of America when their eyes turn to us during election season.
thebrokenrattle on February 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Who cares at this point? The left will cheat and employ every method in the book, legal and otherwise, to get the vote out on election day while the GOP again stands by and lets itself get beaten.
Insulated Beltway establishment types like Byron York don’t have to worry, like so many of us out here in Realville do, about how the hell we’re even going to get through the next 3 1/2 years. Two months after the last election, I lost my job. I couldn’t give a G*dda*n about how the GOP is going to run its 2016 primaries. I just want to still be living in my house by then.
Thanks Barack, and all you acolyte, parasitic morons who re-elected him for all the lives you’ve ruined.
Right Mover on February 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM
It just might have been, had Mitt (That’s the House I’m running for the Senate) Romney ever bothered to come out and say so!
jaydee_007 on February 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM
Romney was the only viable candidate? Talk about being delusional. The fact that he LOST makes him NOT a viable candidate. You don’t KNOW how the other primary opponents would do against Obama. You think that they’d have been worse. But thats your feelings and NOT fact. Romney used his money advantage to destroy his primary opponents. Thats eventually how he won. And then promptly lost to Obama. The Romney supporters are still going with feelings, and not with facts. Romney was the most viable. Lol
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM
The ultimate missed opportunity for Mitt came in the Foreign Policy debate when Brocky asked Candy to look up the “Transcripts” and tell Mitt he was wrong.
I can easily envision Ronald Reagan in that debate saying, “Candy, I’m glad you had the foresight to coordinate with my opponent here and bring along the material he requested. Since you have the materials that he asked you to bring, which apparently include the transcript of his speech, I was wondering if you’d be kind enough to read to all of us here the section of his speech where he specifically referred to the Benghazi Attack as the action of Terrorists. Not just some general nod to Terrorism in the course of the speech, but where he specifically referred to the Benghazi Attack as Terrorism.”
But Mitt?
He was cowed. And that’s when the Average Person (the low information voter) knew Mitt was speaking from a Script and not from the Heart.
jaydee_007 on February 3, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Yup. What’s funny about these people is that they claim that just because Romney lost, this is some sort of evidence that he wasn’t the most electable out of the bunch. It was an extremely weak field. Newt, Santorum, and Perry would have gotten absolutely destroyed. I remember a few pre-primary polls of Texas showing Romney beating Perry in his own state. Romney lost the women vote because the Obama campaign did a successful job portraying Romney as anti-woman, when, in fact, he had a pretty darn impressive record on women. Imagine how much easier that task would have been had it been Santorum or Newt.
Oh and just for good measure, a Republican pollster has Palin losing to Begich if she ran for Senate. And yet we hear from Palin supporters that she would have been presidential nominee, when she isn’t even capable of winning statewide in her own red state.
Harper Polling (R) Alaska 2014 Senate Poll
Sean Parnell (R) 45.93%
Mark Begich (D) 40.03%
Not sure 14.04%
Mark Begich (D) 46.64%
Sarah Palin (R) 40.37%
Not sure 12.99%
GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM
The one factor you do not calculate in, and you cannot, is the fact that Palin will not allow the MSM to define her as candidates like Romney will. Sarah will fight back. And that’s also why Palin supporters are pasionate about her.
George W. Bush’s strategy to let people ‘see’ who he really is and conclude the truth based on his actions was an EPIC FAIL!
Palin, like Reagan, will take it back at them, and that changes voters minds.
So your polling data is just that data, it is NOT information.
jaydee_007 on February 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Of course, the only problem with what you just said is that she’s already been defined (whether it’s by the media or Palin herself), and she’s doomed because of it. She’s a known quantity and people don’t want her anywhere near the White House. Look, I think Palin is tremendously talented, but she’s done in terms of electoral politics. I live in a red state now and just the mere mention of Palin’s name draws laughter and derision.
GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 11:27 AM
And anyone that compares Palin to Reagan needs to have their head examined. Reagan was a brilliant communicator, and not just when he had a script in front of him.
GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM
wow you are thick. which part of polling firms are controlled by liberals and liberals told you who to vote for did you miss? If you think for a minute Mitt could have beat Perry in texas you are an idiot.
Mitt the loser didn’t lose the women vote “because the obama campaign” blah blah. He lost the women vote because he was a sucko candidate that didn’t know nor care how to deflect the Obama attack. in other words Mitt was the worse candidate we could have. He took Obamacare off the table. Perry, Newt and Santourm would have run on Obamacare repeal full tilt. When Obama brought up his war on woman all three could have easily turned to Obamacare by nominating Mitt the liberals knew that what caused the wave election of 2010 was entirely off the table and Obama would not have to run on his record. Which part of this is hard to understand. Man, I knew the mitt supporters were idiots but I had no idea they were this big of ones.
then you use a “poll” after being told time andtime again and after seeing how well the liberal polls held up come election time to justify why Mitt was a good candidate or why someone would beat so and so in AK or MO or anywhere. Polls don’t tell you squat. they are used by the powers that be to shape the people into thinking the thoughts they want to think. They are skewed, use wrong fromula’s weighted etc to get the result the polling firms what they in no way measure for a second the reality on the ground. Elections open and fair are what matters not polls. And using polls lead by liberal and establishment people to decide your vote or who tos upport is the definition of being stupid.
Any doubts about what I have just said simply look at results for NOv 6th. And anyone that thinks the worse POTUs in our lifetimes was “unbeatable” is a complete moron.
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Ummm… For the reasons I pointed out above numerous times..
Let’s meet the cast of characters.
1. Perry- He couldn’t remember his own positions in a debate. Talk about being smart… Sarc off.
2. Gingrich – He is a smarmy arrogant jerk whose former colleagues hate him and who cheated on two wives, one of whom had cancer, and was fooling around when he was condemning Clinton for doing the same. (As a sidenote, the best part of the primaries when Gingrich had to apologize to Ryan, who was a 20-something staffer when Gingrich was Speaker.)
3. Santorum – Umm.. Obama and friends were salivating over his nomination. He was the perfect war on womenz candidate. And Santorum’s harsh tone on social issues doesn’t fly. I’d have voted for Gary Johnson instead of him.
Do I even have to go through the rest?
Yes, it was a weak field, but Romney was the best of the bad bunch.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM
@Illinidiva Yes, you already pointed that out earlier. Now you don’t KNOW how they would have fared against Obama. Thats where your feelings take over. Let me take your criticisms apart, shall I? Perry, yeah, he had a bad debate. And you condemn him with that? Oh yeah, you go by feelings. With a bit of coaching, he would have been a hundred times better at the GE. Newt, yeah, hes an adulterer and divorcee. So? The American people don’t care a damn bout that. An example: Clintons approval ratings while leaving after his second term. Santorum, I won’t comment on. Your boy Romney had lots of chinks in his armor, but I didn’t mention it. Need I go on? Stop going on your assumptions and feelings.
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Ah so many things to pick apart in your analysis, I’m not sure where to start. I’ll try anyway. Of course, it wasn’t just liberal pollsters showing Romney running strongly. There were conservative pollsters too. And I have no idea if Mitt could have beaten Perry in TX. However, the polls showing that Mitt could have won or would have run awfully close shows Perry’s weakness as a candidate. Being considered the dumber George W. Bush probably wouldn’t have helped all that much.
Once again, this falls flat on its face. The Obama campaign did an excellent job tying idiots like Akin and Mourdock to Romney, which resonated in many swing states. It should be noted that Romney actually ran better than Akin and Mourdock in MO and IN, respectively, because you know, he won those states whereas those two lost. Of course, you keep claiming he was the “worse” candidate we could have had, but you have nothing to back it up.
Once again, a weak argument. If Perry, Newt, and Santorum couldn’t have beaten Mitt in a Republican primary when they had Romneycare as ammunition, then what makes you think that they would have been any more effective against Obama in a general election?
Do me a favor and take off the tinfoil hat. You refer to it as a liberal poll, when of course it’s clear it’s a Republican poll. Are polls always accurate? No, but they can give you an indication of trends.
Your lack of willingness to accept reality is what’s stupid. Analysis of the polls in 2012 shows that they were actually, for the most part, pretty good, which is why Nate Silver was able to accurately call all 50 states. If you think all polls that show your candidate losing must be part of some larger conspiracy, then that says a lot about you.
The reality is a very good campaign can make up for a flawed candidate. You would be hardpressed to find anyone that doesn’t think that Obama’s campaign team was the greatest in history. They were just that damn good. And it also shows the weakness of the other candidates when they would have run much further behind.
GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Yes, it was a weak field, but Romney was the best of the bad bunch.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM
rofl….
1 perry…repeal obamacare
2. newt repeal obamacare
3. santourm repeal obamacare
4. mitt run obamacare better.
best of a bad bunch? LOL
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM
there are no conservative pollsters. None zero.
Mitt beat Perry in TX? ROFL… anyone with half a brain could tell you the answer to that. But Im sure you wll require a
poll……
so now it wasn’t just Obama but AKin and Mourdock. I notice you place no blame on Mitt. funny how that works out. I don’t think you understand what being a candidate means. You opponent will not just sit back and let you win, He will not allow oppurtunites to escape from him to paint you in a unfavorable light. A good candidate knowing this will be ready to throw the attacks back in their face, launch counter offensives. Mitt did none of that and refused to attack Obama.
Mitt was the worse candidate I have ever seen worse than a 90 year old McCain. Mitt did nothing to win the election. He simply allowed Obama to paint him as Obama wanted to. Istill can’t believe the mittbots don’t understand this basic fact. what you think a unicorn was going to fart on Obama and make people vote for Mitt or something?
tinfoil hat? LOL. Pollsters said Brown couldn’t win he won, said christie couldn’t win he won, polls said the dems would not win the house in 2010 they won, polls said Mitt would beat Obama he lost,
I do find it amazing that after seeing reality and seeing how the polls led you around by the nose in 2012 you still think polls should matter. I guess the guy that said there is a fool born every sec was right….
unseen on February 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »