Major political party refuses to debate on network that airs the other side's views

[adiosToreador]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Fox is the only network which consistently airs BOTH sides' views

[Kibby]

Actually - the Major news networks take this stuff very seriously.

Did anyone notice that Gwen Ifil (PBS) was not a Debate Moderator in 2012? There was considerable controversy about her position as a Moderator in 2008 when she had a book about to be published with a chapter devoted to Obama. I don't expect Candy Crowley to ever host a Presidential Debate again ..... Obama's "help me out Candy" cry for help (which she gave) for the 2012 Presidential Debate was both deplorable and embarrassing to her network.

The Republicans had waaaaay too many debates in 2012 - it certainly won't hurt to cut them back. The Primary debates are all about "gotcha" - not particularly valuable. This is true for both parties. Less "gotcha" and more substance will be good for everyone. If the Media that spend most of their time trashing any Republican want to be involved in the Presidential Debates - they have to clean up their act.

The thing is ...... there will be no Incumbent. Everyone of them are going to want a piece of the Action.
This is why Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell are so upset. It's just not the right year to bring out the obvious Partisan Reporting. Best to do that when you support an incumbent and want to protect him.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by Kibby

Actually - the Major news networks take this stuff very seriously.

Did anyone notice that Gwen Ifil (PBS) was not a Debate Moderator in 2012? There was considerable controversy about her position as a Moderator in 2008 when she had a book about to be published with a chapter devoted to Obama. I don't expect Candy Crowley to ever host a Presidential Debate again ..... Obama's "help me out Candy" cry for help (which she gave) for the 2012 Presidential Debate was both deplorable and embarrassing to her network.

The Republicans had waaaaay too many debates in 2012 - it certainly won't hurt to cut them back. The Primary debates are all about "gotcha" - not particularly valuable. This is true for both parties. Less "gotcha" and more substance will be good for everyone. If the Media that spend most of their time trashing any Republican want to be involved in the Presidential Debates - they have to clean up their act.

The thing is ...... there will be no Incumbent. Everyone of them are going to want a piece of the Action.
This is why Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell are so upset. It's just not the right year to bring out the obvious Partisan Reporting. Best to do that when you support an incumbent and want to protect him.

I actually think you made great points until your final paragraph.

There is an incumbent to run against, I am assuming. In 2008, Obama as the challenger ran against Bush. In 2012, Obama as the challenger ran against Bush. In 2012, why can't Hillary challenge Bush?

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

I actually think you made great points until your final paragraph.

There is an incumbent to run against, I am assuming. In 2008, Obama as the challenger ran against Bush. In 2012, Obama as the challenger ran against Bush. In 2012, why can't Hillary challenge Bush?

You know something ...... that might actually happen. It could well be that Democrats will "run against Bush" for decades. The reality is that every time they "run against Bush" or even "Blame Bush" .... they elevate him and give him an importance he doesn't necessarily deserve.

I read a while back that "George Bush is the most important Political person today, he has the most influence of anyone in the Democratic Party". They talk about him ALL the time.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

The only thing that isn't common knowledge about this development is....

...it's not Republicans that are refusing to debate on a network like CNN or NBC, which only airs views agreeing with the Democrat party.

Guess which party is refusing... thus continuing a long trend?

Yep, it's the Democrat candidates, who consistently refuse to come to a debate on Fox News - the only network which consistently airs BOTH sides' views in a debate and lets them argue it out on the air.

The Democrats just can't stand the opposition getting ANY air time.

Its one thing to call Democrats hypocrites(which is moronic because no one is saying there is anything wrong with the RNC doing it, we just think its a dumb idea) , it is another to outright lie to yourself and claim FOX is fair and balanced or that they let Dems actually get a word in edge wise. both CNN and MSNBC actually have conservative and moderate host on their channels and do indeed allow them to speak their minds.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Isn't this a hoot?

The Democrats, whose Dear Leader regularly goes back three, five, eight, and even ten years regularly to blame his problems on his predecessor, suddenly become very concerned over the AGE of an article that proves them far more guilty of they things they accues their opponents of, than their opponents ever were.

Amazing how quickly they drop the accusations that Republicans have blocked CNN and NBC from their debate schedule (which they haven't done), and become so worried over the age of an article instead.

Back to the subject:
It must be difficult for the Democrats to acknowledge the fact that they are the ones with the long record of refusing to debate on a network that doesn't 100% support their agenda, while Republicans have participated in debates with such networks every year.

So you are arguing that every single thing any president does is irrelevant the second they leave office ????

Both Hannity and O'reilly have written books attacking President Obama and anyone who is left of center and has promoted those books on the air. Your argument that dems are "more guilty" is a pipe dream.

We acknowledge that Democrats do not want a moderator from a network that routinely attacks anyone of left leaning ideology.

Republicans participate in debates on CNN and MSNBC because they know those networks will ask reasonable questions, where as Fox would not do the same for Dems.

[LauraC]

There are too many primary debates. Maybe C-Span should host them all with moderators of choice of the RNC and DNC from anywhere.

I'm going to talk from the GOP perspective only because I don't know Democrat personalities from non-traditional media.

I was surprised but I happen to think the best 2012 moderator of a debate-like scenario for the GOP candidates was Mike Huckabee. He didn't ask the same old questions and it was done in an informal setting. So, I'd like to see Mike Huckabee (if he doesn't run himself) chosen by the RNC to moderate a GOP debate on C-Span. I think he's way better than the traditional Fox News people chosen to moderate and he's waaaaay, waaaaay better than the big lib moderators who get the GOP candidates to beat each other up for the pleasure of the Democrats.

The GOP might also select a moderator from The Washington Times, RedState, The Daily Caller and hey, how about Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin or Herman Cain moderating one? Could you imagine the TV audience size if Rush moderated a debate? How about Newt Gingrich, moderator? But the common denominator would be C-Span hosting all of the GOP and Democrat primary debates. They could also be streamed to PCs.

It shouldn't be a showcase for network personalities.
The RNC and DNC should pick their own moderators for their primary debates.
There shouldn't be more than 3 or 4 debates.

[mb1547]

Originally Posted by Kibby

You know something ...... that might actually happen. It could well be that Democrats will "run against Bush" for decades. The reality is that every time they "run against Bush" or even "Blame Bush" .... they elevate him and give him an importance he doesn't necessarily deserve.

I read a while back that "George Bush is the most important Political person today, he has the most influence of anyone in the Democratic Party". They talk about him ALL the time.

I don't think the D's are going to be running against the Bush legacy in 2016, unless it's a literal Bush and Jeb gets the nomination. There's a pretty strong possibility that the D's are going to be running against the record of the TEAVANGELICALS. Although they haven't had the presidency, they'll have had an 8 year history in power in statehouses and Congress. If the GOP picks a hard right conservative as their nominee, that will absolutely be the case.