Posted on Oct 30, 2015
Is the GOP right to nix the next NBC run debate due to the poor execution of the CNBC debates?
2.66K
8
8
0
0
0
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/carson-on-board-with-rnc-nixing-nbc-debate/article/2575349
"The RNC's sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America's future," Priebus told NBC News chairman Andy Lack in the letter. "We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns."
"The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith," Priebus said. "We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC's journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance."
"The RNC's sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America's future," Priebus told NBC News chairman Andy Lack in the letter. "We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns."
"The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith," Priebus said. "We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC's journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance."
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Election 2016
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
SPC(P) (Join to see), I got this is my email. It's an interesting read about the GOP. Hope you don't mind.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campaigns-gop-debates-changes_5633f5e4e4b [login to see] 1aa?ir=Politics%253Fncid%253Dnewsltushpmg00000003
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campaigns-gop-debates-changes_5633f5e4e4b [login to see] 1aa?ir=Politics%253Fncid%253Dnewsltushpmg00000003
Campaigns Consider Dramatic Changes To The GOP Debates
Proposals include drawing straws and gaining veto power over who moderates.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think the divisive nature of today's politics is at play a little - The questions objected to were valid if inelegantly worded at times. Which side of the fence you're on will largely indicate how you felt about them.
That said, I'd be okay with going to an actual debate format where the candidates are given a particular policy topic and then expected to argue their specific position (with challenges to each other) rather than moderators asking questions based on things the candidates have said in the past.
That said, I'd be okay with going to an actual debate format where the candidates are given a particular policy topic and then expected to argue their specific position (with challenges to each other) rather than moderators asking questions based on things the candidates have said in the past.
(1)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
I have to disagree. The questions so far show a willful misunderstanding of the purpose of the debates.
The intent of the PARTY debates is to give the candidates a chance to expound on their views and their differences with the other candidates of the same party. It is to allow that's part's primary voters to figure out who THEY like.
It is not to elect someone, or to see how they respond to the opposition. That should come later.
When republicans are asked to defend against charges leveled by the democrats (or vice-versa) at this stage, it is counter to the deliberative process intended and becomes nothing more than a food fight.
The intent of the PARTY debates is to give the candidates a chance to expound on their views and their differences with the other candidates of the same party. It is to allow that's part's primary voters to figure out who THEY like.
It is not to elect someone, or to see how they respond to the opposition. That should come later.
When republicans are asked to defend against charges leveled by the democrats (or vice-versa) at this stage, it is counter to the deliberative process intended and becomes nothing more than a food fight.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I say it's about time. I never understood how the presidential debates ended up in the hands of the network news in the first place. Aren't new reporters supposed to observe and report on events rather than participate and guide them? FYI: The debates were ran by the League of Women voters who gave up their sponsorship in 2004 with the following statement: "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
Exactly my thoughts. I would much rather have a format similar to the less popular Voters First Forum that was held on C-Span before the first debate where the candidates were given a topic and 5-10 minutes, and it went down the line so that each candidate responded to the same questions.
Even the Fox debate was directly aimed at targeting their disliked candidates to prop up those the network supported. These three debates this season have been the worst three I have ever seen as far as ulterior motives of a biased panel.
Even the Fox debate was directly aimed at targeting their disliked candidates to prop up those the network supported. These three debates this season have been the worst three I have ever seen as far as ulterior motives of a biased panel.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Of course the problem is that by withdrawing, the RNC takes total control - No questions will get asked that aren't pre-approved by the party. LWV's objection will be in full effect.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google