Thursday, August 15, 2013

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin may be called upon to moderate 2016 GOP debates


I think this is a fantastic idea. In fact, the party should completely shut the MSM out of the process. There are plenty of quality conservative members of the media besides those mentioned in the article that would likely be more than happy to participate - Krauthammer, York, Steyn, Barone, Cavuto, Malkin, Gigot, etc. 
The Republican National Committee, already threatening to block CNN and NBC from hosting 2016 primary debates if they air planned features on Hillary Clinton, is also looking to scrap the old model of having reporters and news personalities ask the questions at candidate forums. 
Miffed that their candidates were singled out for personal questions or CNN John King's "This or That," when he asked candidates quirky questions like "Elvis or Johnny Cash," GOP insiders tell Secrets that they are considering other choices, even a heavyweight panel of radio bigs Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. 
They told Secrets that they are eager to bring in questioners who understand Republican policies and beliefs and who have the ability to get candidates to differentiate their positions on core conservative values. 
The move comes as several conservatives are pressuring the party to have Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin ask the debate questions......
Read the entire article here

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.


34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh my heavens, if the GOP turns to the clowns of the Rush or Levin variety, we deserve what we get.

RW, yes, there are plenty of people like some that you mentioned which would do a fantastic job.

Just the talk of Rush or Levin, though, is damaging to the GOP's credibility. If Priebus is on board with that, he's toast.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Hannity just isn't up to the task, IMO. He's such a lightweight.

-Martha

RomneyMan said...

1) Agree about shutting the MSM out, so it avoids stupid gotcha debate questions like violence against women, banning contraception etc- but they still need some MSM to get viewing figures up (not everyone has cable either)

2) Disagree with the likes of Rush, Levin etc. Too far out and pandering to them has created 1/2 of the mess that the party is in. Could be interesting as long as the questions were not too far right. But recall that that pair have got their favourites. Could Levin honestly be unbiased with the likes of Christie, say, given that he has stated that he will do everything he can to ensure that he isn't the nom?

3) Think Hannity would be good IMO.

RomneyMan said...

Note also that the article says: " "Mark Levin should ask the questions," Spicer said, according to Breitbart news. That way, he said, grassroots conservatives would have a debate questioner who thinks like them.""

But don't think like THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY lol

Right Wingnut said...

RomneyMan, the CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC mods are the ones asking the questions that are "too far out." Those mentioned in the article are not going to frame questions to make conservatives look bad. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Levin is the most distasteful man I can think of on our side, by leaps and bounds. Who in their right mind would choose him. Rush wouldn't be able to shut up long enough to actually ask a question.

Do you all remember when he spoke at CPAC a few years back. What a disaster that was! The man is so self-absorbed he can't see straight.

The perception that these men are only in it for the piles of money they make off suckers would only increase.

Even the idea of asking someone like them just makes me angry. We have a country to set straight, here folks. Let's be serious about it.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

Martha,

Most conservatives I know lived Rush's CPAC speech. If you'd rather have John King or Brian Williams moderate a GOP than any of those three, I really have to question whether you're actually conservative. Do all Oregon Republicans think like you?

Right Wingnut said...

*loved, not lived

RomneyMan said...

"I really have to question whether you're actually conservative"

lol this is from the fool who says he's an independent

Right Wingnut said...

Why would you assume all Independents are moderates? Some of us just don't want to call ourselves Republicans. I don't care for the party much, but usually vote Republican to oppose the Democrats. If there was a viable conservative option, I'd give it a long hard look.

Romneyman said...

" but usually vote Republican"

lol, and 'sometimes' vote Dem

Anonymous said...

I can see Hannity. But not Levine. I can't stand him or his whiney voice.

Anonymous said...

RW, read my first comment. I said you mentioned some very good people who could do it. No, I don't want Brian Williams or John King or Candy Crowley, or Diane Sawyer. I just don't want clowns.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

RW, I remember being exited to see Rush at CPAC. That was when I still liked him a lot. But I sat there stunned as he droned on and on repeating himself over and over talking Rush, Rush, Rush. It was simply awful.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

RomneyMan,

No, no, no........

I'm 44 years old, and am very proud to say I've never voted for a Dem. my first vote cast in a presidential election was for George H.W. Bush. I can't tell you how satisfying that was coming from a family of conservatives who vote for Democrats for some reason.

Right Wingnut said...

Rush would generate much more interest from conservatives, which could have a positive effect on turnout. Remember, they're lucky to draw more than a few million viewers for these awful debates. Rush has an audience of 15-20 million per day. It's time to start thinking outside the box, because the recent strategies have failed miserably.

RomneyMan said...

Exactly:

"This could be an interesting play though, because many of these hosts have expressed opinions about potential candidates. For example, just this week Mark Levin told Fox that he will try and get voters to reject the moderate Republican, Chris Christie. He said, “I will do everything I can, in my little way, to make sure he is not the nominee”. Expressing these opinions would obviously be fine if they were kept to his radio show, but it is hard to keep the debates impartial when someone like Levin has already made his thoughts public."

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

I have a much better idea.

How about NO MODERATORS whatsoever?

Instead, have a series of single-issue debates where each candidate - the more the merrier - is given 5 minutes to present his position on the topic at hand.

At the end of the individual presentations, each candidate would be given another 5 minutes to comment on the other candidates' presentations or defend his/her own.

This highly structured format would COMPLETELY REMOVE MEDIA BIAS from the debate, allowing the viewers/voters to decide for themselves which candidate(s) they like or don't like without interference from highly trained, highly skilled, highly manipulative media propagandists.

cimbri said...

Rush Limbaugh, the guy who said, "Romney isn't a conservative, folks, he just isn't". Idiots like that cost us the last election, and caused many people to stay home. I can see we have already lost the 2016 election, unless something dramatic happens to alter this jughead mentality.

Right Wingnut said...

NH,

That would definitely work better than what they do now. The only concern I have is that nobody would watch. Sounds like a snore fest, with all due respect. I want more people engaged in the process. Im sure the RNC does as well. A larger debate audience would go a long way toward that goal.

Right Wingnut said...

Cimbri,

Can you show us the evidence that Rush caused voters to stay home? No you can't.

Anonymous said...

Newark, excellent idea. We need the moderators to be just that. Sit there and do or say pretty much nothing.

RW, on the contrary! MORE people would watch an open style debate like that! I would LOVE it, when nothing was scripted or controlled. Just let the guys have at it.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

RW, Cimbri might not be able to prove Rush caused voters to stay home, but it stands to reason after Rush spent about 2 years dissing Romney and foolishly promoting Palin.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

I absolutely HATE the way these debates are set up. Let the candidates ask each other the questions and get real rather than allow the candidates to just memorize their one-line answers for every problem.

-Martha

cimbri said...

Be careful what you wish for. All of the American people are going to be watching these debates. If the conservative moderators cleverly slip in some anti-Obama points, without it being too obvious, that would be good, but if they have candidates pledging to end abortion even for rape or incest, we're doomed.

The Republican debates went fine last time. Romney was able to shut down Stephanopoulos and make him look like a fool. Newt, of course, squashed the moderators every chance he got. Cain did fine. Michelle B did fine. Ron Paul was a little out there, but that's on him. I'm not sure what everyone is complaining about.

Right Wingnut said...

The average voter does not have the attention span to follow one if these debates as it is. If you remove the game show aspects, they will change the channel even sooner.

Pablo said...

A few comments:

1) Nobody who runs the Republicans Party and wishes it to win is going to consent to having these talk radio hosts do a debate. Certainly the candiates in the "moderate" wing of the GOP are going to stay clear. So, no, this is not going to happen.

2) I actually have no probably with most of the debate moderators that Republicans debate have had before. Don´t see what the problem.

3) Should Limbaugh or his brainless friends be chosen to form and ask questions for the debates, then obviously I am in the wrong party.

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

RW -

Most Americans, IMHO, are turned off by biased moderators with biased questions, and would WELCOME the chance to see presidential debates without a media filter.

Sure, there are some who wouldn't watch unless their favorite media blowhard is the moderator, but they would be outnumbered by those who tuned in because the debates were moderator free.

But even more importantly, it's NOT in the best interests of the GOP or the nation to have celebrity moderators picking and choosing OUR PRESIDENTS - AND OUR ISSUES - for us.

And make no mistake about it, moderators have a huge influence ON BOTH by the nature of the questions asked, who they are directed at, follow-up questions, etc.

We The People, NOT We The Media, should be selecting our presidents and the issues that matter to us most.

Right Wingnut said...

NH,

I'm trying to think outside of the box here. IMO, Romney lost due to lack of participation by the base in the process. I'm more concerned about that, than I am about biased debate questions.

Going forward, it won't get any easier for the GOP to win a national election. Having a highly motivated base gives them the best chance. 3-5 million debate viewers doesn't contribute much to the cause.

By the way, did anyone else watch the New Hampshire debate between Gingrich and Huntsman (nobody else showed up)? They had a limited moderation format, and it was actually quite good. Unfortunately, nobody watched it aside from political junkies. We need to give the low information crowd a reason to watch, because unfortunately, the sorry state of affairs we now have isn't enough.

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

RW -

Just because people watch a primary debate on TV doesn't mean they're going to vote in November, much less vote for the GOP in November.

Huntsman & Gingrich could've debated fully naked in the middle of Times Square during rush hour and nobody would've watched it.

I seriously doubt that the moderator format had much to do with the public's lack of interest in their 2012 debate.

Right Wingnut said...

The low info crowd gets their debate coverage from the biased press. That is assuming they even watch the news. Many of them are more likely to vote for the Republican, but they need a reason to get off their fat asses, and to the polls. Watching the debates equates to greater involvement, which makes them more likely to vote, donate to campaigns, volunteer, etc. Rush would attract millions of eyeballs to a debate that would otherwise have been glued to America's Got Talent. I realize they would probably never have the balls to bring Rush in for this, but the GOP should expect to keep losing as long as they keep doing what they've been doing. As long as they highly paid consultants are still getting paid, I guess it's OK.....

Right Wingnut said...

3) Should Limbaugh or his brainless friends be chosen to form and ask questions for the debates, then obviously I am in the wrong party. - Pablo

With all due respect, I've been thinking you're in the wrong party ever since we first crossed paths on ROS.

cimbri said...

I hope Priebus and the gang are focused on the right things. My #1 complaint of the campaign season, was Democrats and "Independents" voting for the weakest Republican in various state primaries, and thereby dragging out the primaries. You had this unholy alliance of Democrats, Sarah Palin and others trying to drag out the nomination fight. The primaries should be Republican only. That bites us every 4 years and my guess is, it will bite us again.

Anonymous said...

Crimbi, we have those in our party who fell they are more 'pure' than other's when it comes to being conservative. They will cost us the next election, and 16 unless they put on their thinking caps and stfu.