Posted on 03/18/2013 2:30:59 PM PDT by Kaslin
In a new report released today, the Republican National Committee owned up to a number of mistakes made during the 2012 election cycle. While the central party admitted there were too many presidential debates, it only barely touched on the role that unfair media moderators played in both the nominating process and in the general election.
Despite its reluctance to criticize media impartiality, the RNC report did open the door to the creation of a new organization that would be assigned to create and host the debates apart from the media.
“We are intrigued with the suggestion some have made for an organization to be formed that can host robust, vigorous, tough, and professional debates,” the document says. Such an organization would have to receive cooperation with the media in order to have such debates actually be viewable by the public, the report stated.
“[I]t will remain important to work closely with the media so they agree to broadcast them. After all, there is no point in putting on a debate that almost no one watches. It makes no sense to take back the debates so we can keep them to ourselves.”
Toward the end of its section dealing with presidential debates, the report does very obliquely touch on the topic of moderator fairness arguing that a person given that job should be someone who has “an outstanding reputation for independence, diligence, and toughness.”
While the report is not considered binding on party officials, the fact that RNC chairman Reince Priebus commissioned it and it was written by Republican luminaries Ari Fleischer, Henry Barbour (nephew of former RNC chief Haley Barbour), Sally Bradshaw, Zori Fonalledas, and Glenn McCall suggests it will carry a significant amount of weight in future decisions.
The bulk of the report’s section which deals with primary debates focused more on the sheer number of the candidate face-offs.
The past two cycles, 2008 and 2012, featured 21 and 20 debates compared to 1980 and 1988 which featured only 6 and 7 respectively. The report’s authors recommend hosting only about 10 debates, calling the recent number of candidate face-offs “ridiculous,” particularly considering that so many of them have happened extremely early in the nominating process.
While this particular report did not focus too heavily on moderator selection, the topic is surely on the minds of high-ranking Republicans given that the GOP half of the presidential debate commission admitted earlier this year that choosing CNN host Candy Crowley was a “mistake.”
You can download a copy of the full report here.
I hear the RNC gets its advise from Peggy Noonan and Joe Scarborough!
yeah I heard that too........
Heck, I’d like to put democrats up there on stage with them.
Boehner trusts Obama, so the GOP wannabes should trust the media moderators.
There’s no bias there. Candy, get the transcript and show them.
Having read much of the RNC report, I find it lacks in two critical ways. First, it ignores the origins of the opinions of those who were surveyed/interviewed (hint: The left owns a vast propaganda system). Second, many recommendations are about what not to do but when suggesting what SHOULD be done, suggest things that have already been done for decades. There is also no mention of the magnitude of potential gains if the recommendations are followed (hint: the Dem party already has a stranglehold on their voters).
Although I have to speculate, I get the impression from the report that the RNC envisions a future two-party system similar to the English Labor/Conservative system in which the parties trade power back and forth rather uninterestingly in a largely homogenous, socialist political system. The politicians will have social status commensurate with that of the noble families depicted in “Downton Abbey”. The peasants will be, well, peasants.
I have a suggestion that doesn’t seem to appear in the RNC report. How about “reforming” immigration to advantage people who are thrilled with the idea of American individual freedom and and clear understanding of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Throw into the trash heap a system that attracts people who seek the meager scraps of low wages and gov’t support for a system that showcases ambition, love of freedom, and championing of the individual pursuit of dreams and that educates newcomers in how freedom leads to prosperity and dignity.
At the least, how about recommending immigration reform that favors Republican voters? Did anyone even think of that? If not, then those who did the work reported by the RNC have a fundamentally flawed perspective.
Fewer debates? NONE
They serve no purpose. They're just used to wait for any pickup lines or gaffs from the Repubs to be used during the campaign. I say NO DEBATES.
I'd rather have a president who can think quickly and clearly rather than one who practices for a week. Insane. Look what we have right now: a helpless sock puppet who can't think without a script, a teleprompter, and dozens of puppet handlers in the background.
When politicial candidates start reintroducing and re-branding themselves, their campaign is over.
The same goes with the RNC. The brand is not the problem that needs to be rebranded. The problem is the policies and people the party puts forth to be their standard bearers.
Dole, McCain, Romney, JBush(?).
That exemplifies the problem. The RNC is just doesn’t want to see it.
Becoming more Dem-like is not the solution. Why go with a Dem-lite when the full Dem is available?
Who allowed the Moderator? You did GOP!
Now go cry in your soup!
Romney GUTTED Obama in the first debate. Romney’s handlers prevented him from ripping out the remaining guts in #2 and #3 - they fell to playing weak defense, while Obama’s handlers taught him to play no-holds barred.
I disagree they serve no purpose. The first debate made Romney look electable and almost inevitable. But the damn consultants screwed him over for fear of alienating “moderates.”
I’m ultra-PO’d about the crappy moderators. Get somebody like Hanson, Sowell, Arne, or DeMint (Heritage) to moderate and ask tough but fair questions. Why in the world do we need “journalists” to moderate debates? What qualifies them for the job? Most of them are rather stupid people, like anybody who parades in front of a camera for a living.
I didn’t think Romney or Obama were so great when they were supposed to have been great. I didn’t really think anything substantive was said by anyone at any point.
Romney is an elitist rich guy.
Obama is an elitist socialist.
As far as I’m concerned, their kids would go to the same schools, and they’d belong to the same clubs.
Wonderful time to turn off TV and enjoy the silence. I’m not listening to these whacko birds anymore. MUTE BUTTON!
So be selective in a free country? I understand the frustration but this invites the problem you are trying to fix.
The immigration reform movement, from the Dem perspective, is a political tactic intended to give them overwhelming numerical superiority. In that, it is a simple and traditional military strategy. If the R party tailored the “reform” to advantage future numbers of R voters, the reform effort would quickly change to a political battle that could not be hidden from the public with flowerly language and would probably freeze the effort.
That is my take on it. Yes, I share frustration with many people but I am looking at this from the perspective of winning the battle tactically.
Thanks for your comment—I appreciate your insight.
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.