Editors of National Review: The Debate Mistake

Finally a national conservative publication gets it -- our debates were a nightmare including when Fox News put on the crooked debate in Orlando.  It is ludicrous that our debates for the most part were moderated by liberal media types who are in the tank for Obama.  Then you had the moderators that not only enjoyed the candidates getting almost vicious toward fellow Republicans but egged them on at times.  Michelle Bachmann comes to mind as being the pit bull of the debates.  Who was pulling her strings.  Would almost be willing to bet it was Ron Paul for Romney.  If she is like that in real life in the House, she must be despised by fellow Republicans.  Never saw a candidate get so vicious and repeat lies even when she knew they were lies.

What a campaign season so far -- not one the Republicans should be proud.  The RNC with the large number of the debates and allowing liberal moderators in the debates IMHO shows they were in the tank for Romney who fared well in the debates until Gingrich and Santorum got backbones and went after him.  Now Romney is not sure he wants to be in any more debates.

Tonight could be the last debate.  There should be more debates as the primary winds through the states instead of all the front loaded ones that were too far out from the primary voting.  Did the RNC Chair on behalf of the Rockefeller wing of the Party want the nomination all sewed up by Romney before the voting even started. If that was the case, it has failed miserably because they forgot the grassroots still have a say when they vote.  RNC and State Chairs have not been honest brokers this time around as we have been witnessing in some of the early primary/caucus states.  The black mark the RNC and some of these state chairs have given the Republican Party could hurt Republicans in Congressional races this fall is we are not careful.

February 22, 2012 4:00 A.M.The Debate MistakeBy The Editors

The semiotic search for the racism beneath Newt’s food-stamp line. The dismissal of “the Constitution” in haughty air quotes. The wasting of primetime minutes pondering which wife would make the best first lady. The obsessive deposing of Romney on the legality of condoms. The condescending identity politics of carting out a token Latino to ask an immigration question. The dings. The bells. The buzzers. The Google Chat notification tones. The frightful specter of Donald Trump’s coiffure lurking around the next corner.

These are just some of the lowlights of the umpteen Republican debates thus far. And with the exception of The Donald’s ill-fated quest to moderate, they were all brought to us by the mainstream media. That’s the same media that daily carry water for the Obama administration, approach the tea parties as anthropological curiosities, and persistently skew the public discourse leftward in ways large and small, conscious and unconscious. So why on earth should conservatives trust them to play any substantial role in the selection of our presidential standard-bearer? 

The answer, of course, is that we should not. Not again. 

(snip) 

Therefore, Republicans should work to improve the quality of the debates by building on the model of the AEI/Heritage debate. To this end, we favor the plan recently floated by Hugh Hewitt. Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions. For broadcasting purposes, the participation of mainstream media may still be necessary, but they should be relegated to the status of junior partners. There can be no more George Stephanopouli asking sideshow questions premised on making conservatives look weird and driving up ratings. 

Primaries are, in the best sense of the word, parochial affairs. So it is only right and reasonable that they be organized in the best interests of the party. The alternative is to hope MSNBC and CNN come into the flock between now and 2016. Don’t hold your breath.

Excerpt:  Read More at The National Review