Posted on 05/10/2014 8:55:09 AM PDT by UnwashedPeasant
Edited on 05/10/2014 9:06:25 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Republican National Committee moved Friday to seize control of the presidential primary debates in 2016, another step in a coordinated effort by the party establishment to reshape the nominating process.
Committee members overwhelmingly passed a measure that would penalize any presidential candidate who participated in a debate not sanctioned by the national party, by limiting their participation in subsequent committee-sanctioned forums.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The conservatives should do their own debates, with moderators like Dennis Prager, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn.
We got plenty of GOOD Governors_executive types. Leave out the others. Some good ‘others’ but a good idea. Plus leave out the book writers-Cain-Carson-Trump.
C’mon. We all complained about the never-ending debates moderated by undisguised liberals. Stephie planing the War - On - Women meme etc.
If the lying media is being collared that’s a good thing.
“Some party leaders say they believe that the number of debates pushed Mitt Romney to the right in a way that contributed to his loss to President Obama. “
The GOPe meme finally comes out.
The coming blizzard of demands for Republican donations hasn’t quite hit here.
However, I will send back each & every one with a nasty message.....
Not a dime until you find some CONSERVATIVE candidates & quit attacking the Tea Party.
The Gop want to be what its always been accused of being. .the cold party of business interest. .they want to be the stereotype niche interest party.
“Republican left...” I like that. I think I’ll borrow it from you. Thanks!
How much more control do they need? They nominated a mealy-mouth surrender monkeys in 88, 92, 96, 2000, 04, 08, and 12. Sounds like they’re already pretty firmly in control What do they stand to achieve with MORE control?? Nominate extra mealy-mouth POTUS candidates in non-election years??
The Republicans are actually MORE of my enemy than the Democrats.
I have said that we need to work hard to get a conservative the nomination in 2016. But if that doesn't work, if they give us Jeb or something similar, it's time to go. Yes, they'll lose. But WE lose no matter what, and the only difference between Dems and Republicans is the date of the day of reckoning. Better to have it sooner.
The problem is 2012 was not the number of debates. It was the Leftist moderators.
The more time a politician spends in a debate, the more you see who he really is and what he really believes.
No, this is aimed at Libertarian candidates, not conservatives.
Its also to take more control of the number of debates and who the moderators are. They need to refuse to debate with these left wing loons like Candy Crowley.
If we can rein the presidency in to its constitutional limits it won’t make a lot of difference who the president is if we have control of the house and senate.
I agree with your analysis. The GOP has let the MSM choose the debate moderators without any approval by the GOP. The result was predictable: Liberal moderators masquerading as neutrals.
If the GOP insists on input and can back up their demands by preventing candidates from jumping into the MSM’s ambush debates, this can seriously raise the standards for the better.
Exactly. I don’t need anymore lefty moderators and their gotcha questions about abortion or gay marriage. The nation’s economy and foreign affairs are going to dominate the 2016 presidential race.
Here in WA state, we never have much input on who the nominee will be. BUT I really do not want the R elites to have the power to determine who the nominee ends up being.
I would rather hear and see all the candidates, multiple times and let party voters make their choices. KEY to me is ‘party’ voters.
Re the moderators...I guess I’m in the minority. If you can’t handle Candy Crowley...I don’t want you in charge of the U.S.A. I really do believe that a candidate won’t/can’t get tripped up if they articulate their ideas based on what the candidate really believes...not based on how ‘it will play’ w/ voters.
Pardon my bluntness..but the candidate who moves to the right for primary season...then moves to the middle for the general...can go to hell. I’m not voting for a candidate that doesn’t hold firm beliefs and sticks w/ their beliefs the entire time.
I constrained myself for several months on these emails wanting money.
I wanted to send them back with a nice little note, but didn’t...until the last one from ‘muckcain’. Told him where to go in no uncertain terms...and I mailed it this time.
I agree. The last gasp of this country is that there be a true conservative elected President, and that he have a majority in the House and Senate. There will still be RINOs and quislings in the Republican party, but as Reagan showed, a strong conservative leader can bend them to his wishes, especially if the people are vocal. It starts this fall by getting the Senate and electing as many conservatives to Congress as possible. Then we need to take on the GOPe in a fight to the death. If their crony capitalism and fixing the process result in a Jeb Bush or some such getting the nomination, it is over. I will not go along with that party any more. I almost didn’t the last time. But we will need a spark, like the one Perot lit in 1992, but with someone sane this time. Rush, Hannity, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, some big money backers, joining together and announcing that they are going their separate way. In 2 days, they would be at 30 percent in the polls. In 2 weeks, 40 percent. And the GOPe would be at 10 or 15, fading to oblivion. Firestorm.
The only things the RINOs want are our money and our votes. Maybe when they get neither, they’ll wake up.
New party time; let the Whigs die.
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.