Posted on 11/02/2015 6:42:31 AM PST by conservativejoy
Ben Carsons campaign is suggesting that future Republican presidential debates only be broadcast over the Internet, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The suggestion that the future debates not be televised is one of several calls for reforms from one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination after a debate last week on CNBC that was widely criticized by the candidates.
'We also think there are too many debates,; Carson spokesman Doug Watts told the Wall St. Journal on Saturday. 'They are all bunched up and they really do take a lot of time away from the campaign and they take a lot of financial resources for us to be able to work on them.' Carson is leading polls in Iowa, which hosts the first contest in the GOP primary in February. He also has surpassed Donald Trump in some national polls, giving him leverage in the loud debate over changing the debate process.
Carsons campaign manager, Barry Bennett, is holding a meeting with GOP campaign representatives on Sunday night to discuss changes to the remaining debates.
The retired neurosurgeons campaign says future debates could be carried on Facebook and YouTube, unnamed sources familiar with the situation told the Journal. They believe doing so will strip television networks of their power to control the formats of the debates.
The campaign also says the forums should prioritize lengthy statements from candidates rather than frequent moderator intervention.
'Hes throwing out suggestions,' Watts said of Carson. 'I dont think hes saying, ‘This is what we want.’ Hes giving some suggestions and some context. Hes saying, ‘This is what we have on our minds.’
There are eight debates left in the primary election cycle. The next one, hosted by Fox Business Network, will be Nov. 10 in Milwaukee.
The Republican National Committee pulled out of a scheduled debate early next year with NBC, CNBCs parent network, in response to the complaints about last weeks debate.
With it Cable only now, they are missing a lot of people.
I just said last night that I could go without cable and the bill that goes with it. Save on electric, too, without the TV on all day. We were visiting our adopted grandchildren and they announced they had cut the cable. They have three young children and no regrets.
And, frankly this is why Trump does fairly well. He knows how THAT game is played!
BUT, so does the rest of the entertainment educated voters. All the voting reality TV shows has solidified this arena format. Consider that idea for a moment. All the reality shows that allow viewers to vote for their favorite dancer, singer, etc. Also has an effect on the voter come election time. They are now experienced in voting for their 'favorite,' even if they are not the best choice. The judges equate to the GOP-e or Dem-e in making sure only the best get to the top.
The problem with that analogy is the elites are not picking the best either. So we're ending up with McCains or Romneys or worse the other party is playing to the rock star mentality of the ill-informed voter with the likes of 0bama.
The problem isn't just the media, it is the uneducated public who has fallen victim to these elite schemes. The educated public outcry, coupled with the real candidates who really care about our country is finally matriculating up to be heard.
Many here may disagree, but I'd take a debate hosted by Glenn Beck TV, The Blaze or whatever it is. Maybe not Glenn Beck as a moderator, more the host, but letting his network pick or invite moderators.
A move such as this would really put the MSM on notice and Beck could run one of his 'free' for the night campaigns over the internet. Why free? Because if Beck cares as much as he claims a debate hosted by him would/should produce valuable insights into the Republican party. Not just the conservative base.
It would also send the message to the MSM, We the People, aren't buying your propaganda anymore.
Agreed, could also be Glenn Beck as host, not moderator with his Blaze TV.
Mm, this could work. I don’t want the very elderly to not be able to watch them - but if family members and caregivers set it up, they could be on smart tv’s even at nursing homes. This might be a good fight against the media, who have become hostile to fairness.
I'd skip the moderators altogether. I've posted this several times, so forgive me if you've seen it:
The debates are a farce, anyway. It's nothing but a series of rehearsed statements.
My proposal:
Note: there's no moderator. The questions are recorded in advance, and all it takes is a technician to press the appropriate button.
The questions are submitted by the candidate. They are free to submit any policy questions they want to be asked (and presumably want to answer). However, you can't ask another candidate a direct question.
The questions are then chosen at random. To prevent abuse, the list of questions and their origin (which candidate submitted it) will be published after the debate. An accounting firm will be hired to select the questions at random from something like a bingo drum, and a technician simply plays the question identified by that number.
kidd subsequently suggested that each candidate should submit a single question for each of a pre-announced set of topics, and then during the debate one candidate's question would be chosen at random for each topic. I actually like that idea better than mine.
Why aren’t there debates just on Public Tv...same number debates for Dems As GOP...same amount of time...same questions??
Wow, only the same thing about 90% of posters here suggested.
Pathetic fail posting from you three again today.
That’s what we want, the networks look at the debates as a form of entertainment tonight. They learned long ago that the public generally wasn’t watching the debates because they were too boring.
Now that they have people watching, I mean really the entertainment value from the last debate was outstanding, Hollywood could not have written a better script! Why should they change back to the boring policy type format?
Then why have them?
Sorry Ben, you may be a brain surgeon, but if this is an example of how you'd tackle a problem, I'm a little taken back.
I would like to see one of the moderators be John Bolton, he would definitely test the candidates on foreign policy.
The broadcaster decides whether to host a debate, not the candidates or government.
Televise them, but do not let the networks provide the moderators.
This is not an idea I would expect from a keen intellect like Dr. Carson’s.
With 200+ cable/satellite channels, the Repubs should have little problem finding a channel to lease and set up their own debates the way they want them.
They do not have to depend on the broadcast or cable/satellite networks for time or mods or format, etc.
Force CSPAN to broadcast it, since they are a government subsity anyway.
I would like substance, and that can be done in few words.
Of course Carson, Bush, Rubio and the underlings don’t want to have televised debates...how else would we know about their flip flops and lies they tell...
Streaming takes it out of the politics of the MSM to the even more radical liberal shift of Facebook and YouTube. How are we always so effing stupid
My question is where are those fringe candidates getting the money to stay in the race.
If THAT were ever to be revealed, it would show just how much the left wing organizations are willing to invest in the defeat of Conservatism in ‘16.
Just saying, they are missing a lot of people. Since the candidates are making demands now, this should be brought up. Can't hurt.
Why not do both? The goal should be making it accessible to the largest number of voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.