Viguerie has it exactly right

Republican candidates should STOP submitting to liberal inquisitors. And the "party of stupid" is a wonderfully accurate title for a political party that allows the liberal media to eviscerate it every 2 years in so-called debates:

If conservative moderators are not to be allowed on network TV, then Republican candidates should simply stop participating in these liberal-moderator, so called, "debates". Just say "no".

And, make no mistake, liberal pundits are already discussing this. The discussion I heard most recently went something like this: Republican candidates (2014 AND 2016) will be much more careful to have far FEWER debates, after what happened in 2012. [The liberal pundits here were admitting that liberal moderators and endless numbers of "debates" made Republican candidates look ridiculous.] So liberals ARE worried about this - that Republicans may not bow to liberal questioners, nor have numerous debates. But, ah, one liberal pundit had a "solution" to this dilemma. He said that while top-tier candidates might follow that plan, "SECOND TIER CANDIDATES" (his exact wording) would be pushing for numerous debates. (the liberals HOPE so). We shall see. But it proves to me that Dems and other liberals are worried about this very topic.

No votes yet

On the other hand, some voters -- conservatives and liberal alike -- might conclude that a Republican candidate too fearful of facing CNN's Candy Crowley probably would be absolutely frightened by the likes of Vladimar Putin. While he had some strange proposals (colonizing Mars comes to mind), Newt Gingrich not only wasn't apprehensive about participating in debates sponsored by left-leaning networks, he relished the opportunity to joust with liberal debate panelists on live TV .He got points in my book for that.
Anyone running for president has to make himself or herself as accessible as possible and be willing to answer all questions on all issues. A Republican who refuses to appear on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN and instead opts to be coddled by sycophants on Fox News and talk radio won't have a chance of making it to the November finals.

Patience is a great virtue.

from falling down laughing... knees a little creaky at my age. There I'm up - but still laughing. "... conservatives... might conclude..." bleahbitty bleahbitty??

Nah. Conservatives - all conservatives got SICK a LONG LONG time ago of listening to liberal pundits pretend to be "debate" moderators, as opposed to the show-off jerks and jerkettes they actually are.

And since your (fake) concern is about candidates being "fearful" of facing liberal moderators - wouldn't the fact that there are NEVER, nor ever have been, ANY CONSERVATIVE moderators present at so-called national debates, indicate - by YOUR OWN reasoning - that Democrat and other Liberal candidates are TERRIFIED of facing even ONE harmless little conservative moderator.

Would it not? [Rhetorical question.... of COURSE the Dems are afraid to face conservative questioners.]

That worked our quite well for him!

Should current conservatives only select conservative forums?

If they do, the ultra-righties will say it's because they wouldn't get a fair shake on "liberal" (BAHAHAHHAHA) CNN and MSNBC and so on.

If they don't, the ultra-righties will just wave off anything negative as "liberal mainstream MSM media bias".

See how the right-wing narrative construction works to their favor regardless?

You're a smart guy. You have good reading comprehension. You know full well that the question at hand is whether an EQUAL number of CONSERVATIVE moderators will be "allowed" there alongside the until-now, ubiquitous liberal moderators.

Don't you Dems (& other liberals) claim to be for fairness and equality? Huh?

And yet, you are attempting to make some kind of back-door case for ONLY liberal moderators at national "debates". This has nothing to do with Reagan (seriously, give me a break here). The time has come for conservative moderators to have EQUAL access to (fearful) Democratic candidates during national debates.

Naturally liberals are only comfortable hearing liberal questioners. (Duuuhhhh)

But I do think we are going to see some changes this year.

"liberal" and "conservative." And the fact that you paint every commentator as one extreme or the other. Ever hear of moderates? Sheesh!

(a moderate debate moderator). You can't, because there haven't been any.

Nice try, by the way.... switching strategies from "fight-liberals-like-a-man" like Reagan to pretending that there are moderate moderators at national presidential "debates"...

AND ignoring completely my point that fairness should prevail in having equal numbers of conservative moderators. Viguerie, in the above linked article is precisely correct - Jim Lehrer, who almost always lets his liberal bias show - you gotta laugh if you recall the "uncommitted" questioners ole Jimmie had at that one debate. I was asking out loud (to the tv) at the time - "Where oh where are these "uncommitted" voters???" The liberal bias in the questioners chosen by Lehrer was screamingly obvious, and I didn't notice ANY uncommitted voter-questioners in that fake "town hall" or whatever it was called.

Quote from above article:

"“The result in the general election debates is that Republican presidential candidates are always outnumbered two or three to one in a fight that pits them against a liberal debate moderator and their liberal Democratic opponent.”

Bottom line - if you or any liberal are opposed to even one Conservative moderator at ALL national political debates - then you are against fairness. You oppose fair play. You want the deck stacked so that your candidate doesn't have to answer any hard questions. The underlying fear being, apparently, that liberal candidates are unable to field hard questions from conservatives.

YOUR definition of "liberal" and "conservative," nor that of an extremist right-wing source.

You simply can't admit that some news commentators, (and many Americans), are moderates, can you?

And what have been the election results since 1980?
Bush 41
Bush 43
Bush 43
6 elections of Democrats and 5 elections of Republicans. Seems quite balanced to me!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.