I hope you like debates, because the Republican Party is going to stuff your debates with more debates, and before you can debate you’ll be presented with a side of steaming hot debates.
— Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) May 15, 2015
The GOP just released their tentative debate schedule, which includes 12 — count ’em, TWELVE debates over the course of the next year.
One per month, or perhaps one for every marginal candidate who decides to enter the race to sell a few more books at the Lubbock Costco.
even though all the cameras are on Joe, still struggling to select the right pound cake
You think the GOP would’ve learned in 2008 or 2012 that a glut of debates allows parody-worthy minor candidates a stage to spout off their nonsense in a public forum.
Remember the amount of air time and media attention Ron Paul received for his inane ramblings by playing half-microphone-grabber and half-victim when they didn’t allow him to grab the mike anymore? Get ready for that times twelve.
Don’t get me wrong — I appreciate good debate. It should be done skillfully, in strict format, with an adherence to fact. One person wins, ideas are spread, and everyone learns a little something.
But this is not an airing of ideas. We’re not debating policy. We’re debating personality. It’s not an intellectual exercise, it’s a firing squad formed in a circle. It’s the equivalent of the Human Centipede — a graphic spectacle that shouldn’t be possible but somehow inhumanly is.
Apparently 2008 and 2012 weren’t enough, and the GOP intends similarly to create another, even bigger sequel to this unholy franchise.
Remember GOP — you’re likely facing a candidate in 2016 that simply doesn’t do debates.
She thinks they’re beneath her and acts as such.
Hillary’s lost every debate she’s been in from a policy and idea standpoint, but won the Senate in 2000 by portraying herself as a victim of her young, dynamic Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, who walked across the stage and handed her a piece of paper.
Hillary will be avoiding debates like the plague.
Do you think she’s going to agree to allow real potential challengers like Martin O’Malley or phony potential challengers like Bernie Sanders dare question her in front of an audience?
Or if she gets the nomination, to speak improvisationally against her Republican challenger?
She will limit debates as much as possible much as she’s limiting media exposure as much as possible. Sure, she’ll say it’s because she wants to talk to “real people” and so forth. But she’s smart enough (unlike the GOP) to not open herself up to any kind of situation where she’ll have to talk off the cuff – she knows her weaknesses.
if you want to keep your membership, you’ll buy the book
I see that CNN is on the schedule not one, not two, but three times.
It’s as if the GOP suffers from a case of collective amnesia.
Have we forgotten the disastrous Candy Crowley spectacle last election where she stepped in as moderator to criticize Romney on behalf of Obama — to make a point that was later found out to be completely factually incorrect?
announcement: this whole spectacle is all about me!
Why has CNN not been banned from moderating any Republican debate for a full election cycle? Are those 7 viewers really that critical?
Speaking of networks being banned — why is ABC, a network who just piped up to defend their major political personality, George Stephanopoulos, who claimed to forget that he donated $75,000 to the Democratic candidate’s foundation, who employed Hillary’s campaign manager, not banned from this cycle as well?
the nepotism is strong with this one
Apparently, the GOP is comfortable letting every single major media network trot candidates out like show animals just to be baited with biased questions from moderators who have literally worked for and given money to the opposing party’s candidate.
The GOP apparently cares about one thing and one thing only — getting airtime. They’re turning into the Courtney Stodden of major political parties and it’s sad and sick to watch. You win by controlling your image, not leaving it wide open to public interpretation.
Hillary gets it.
Why don’t Republicans?