Why Does GOP Let Libtards Run The Debates?

Free Republic ^ | 9/17/2015 | Mr. K

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Rush opened his show by saying that he wouldn’t want to do it, and wouldn’t be good at it on that account.

[E20erer]

That is an excellent idea. Why is the RNC so behind the times in protecting/controlling their brand? Hillary doesn't have to do a debate, yet Republicans have to stand before registered democrat moderators in a debate with the front runner in their cross hairs? It's insane.

It's ludicrous to be expect nonpartisan treatment from known leftie journalists. Trump needs to start speaking about this now and offer up a debate on One America News Network, OANN.

Make it happen Trump!

[E20erer]

Fine. Rush doesn't need to do it… But Hannity and Mark Levin could do it.

Ann Coulter….or someone who is Conservative. Do it on One America News Network, OANN, there is still time.

RECORD RATINGS on One America News Network, OANN, if they could get it organized, which they could. Trump got 20,000 in Dallas in record time. He could help facilitate a debate on One America News Network, OANN. And any candidate that didn't show up could have their picture with the words “No Show” on an easel board for good measure. Let's get it done. Even if only Trump and Cruz showed up… Rating would be through the roof.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Fine. Rush doesn't need to do it… But Hannity and Mark Levin could do it.
Ann Coulter….or someone who is Conservative. Do it on One America News Network, OANN, there is still time.

AFAIK Comcast doesn’t carry OANN. Is there an online access to it?

IMHO the Republican Party should abandon moderated debates entirely. Stage a joint appearance of all candidates, give each candidate a microphone controlled by a chess timer, and let them have at it. Whenever no timer is turned on, all of them run - each at a rate proportional to its own time remaining. Therefore, anyone who hoarded time could be put under pressure to equalize the time nearing the end. The other device which might be employed would be to assign candidates differing initial time allotments according to the number of individual contributors of $5 each one attracted. Thus, vanity campaigns would be disadvantaged . . .

The idea of a moderator, who is “positioned” above the future POTUS, is creepy. The position should be abolished. Trying to identify a good one is IMHO a fool’s errand.