The Republican National Committee has suspended planning for a Feb. 26 debate on NBC, part of the fallout from angry candidate protests over the way sister network CNBC handled the most recent debate.
During the Oct. 28 debate, Sen. Ted Cruz and others complained on-air about biased questioning and the way CNBC moderators were running the show, while aides raised a ruckus behind the scenes about some candidates not getting enough air time.
The candidates and the party want more control. Should network newspeople be participating at all?
Listening to these employees of the national media questioning a group of candidates is about as productive as Facebook in getting the real issues before an uneducated public on possible leaders.
We need professional leaders in the media and government, but, unfortunately, we have some elected officials who are just as uninformed on life as those who vote for them.
Wake up, America.
Jack O. Lewis,
Debates used to be about the candidates’ stances on issues that matter to the people who might vote for them.
And that’s how the Democratic debate was approached.
It’s not that way for the Republicans.
Fox set a low standard for debate moderation, and now CNBC has set a new record.
Ralph M. Gill,
Much of network news is too liberal and biased to fairly debate either party.
Voters deserve better.
The opening question of the last debate was very condescending, and it continued with over-the-top ridiculous foolishness!
The GOP candidates were correct to confront the questioners and expect more political relevance.
The questioners then looked bad, but they got what they deserved.
Note: No such ridiculous questions were asked during the Dems’ debate.
The candidates and the party should have more control and perhaps one network newsperson participating.
Many newspeople can be aggravating, asking the same question repeatedly in different ways or a gotcha question.
Many being interviewed will graciously reply: “That’s a good question.”
It probably will never happen, but one time I’d like to hear an interviewee say: “That’s a stupid question.”
George J. Anthony,
If I had just one question to ask at a presidential debate it would be:
Do you believe we should levy federal income tax on unemployment, Social Security and many retirement benefits, and at the same time allow some wealthy people to pay a lower income tax rate than their employees? (Because that is what we currently do.)
If not, how would you fix the problems?
Also, could you address these?
Corporations pay on average less than 13 percent tax after deductions, and the wealthy pay less than 20 percent.
In 2011, Mitt Romney paid 14.1 percent, and Warren Buffett said he pays a much lower rate than his secretary.
But a Realtor earning $100,000 will pay over 33 percent.
And yet most Republican tax reforms call for reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations and say almost nothing about helping the middle class.
In advance, have each participant submit a list of 12 subjects and then at the beginning provide a list of the top eight for all to see.
Each topic will be discussed with a goal of 10-12 minutes’ time for each.
That allows about a minute for each candidate, and if they choose to use more time, the moderator deducts that amount from their time on the other subjects.
To make it more entertaining, the candidates can choose any topic when it’s their time and, if they desire, they can discuss the same subject more than once.
But they only get eight opportunities.
While I want to have a better understanding of the major topic differences, the fun part is when the zingers and cat fights take place.
So certainly let that happen.
Network newspeople turn debates into a circus by asking questions they know are not related to the debate subject.
They are not neutral and hope to sell airtime by embarrassing participants with silly gotcha questions.
I have the perfect solution for the GOP’s debate dilemma.
Why not wire every candidate to a lie detector and then ask them the following questions?
Would you still say that a rape victim should be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term even if that woman was your daughter; that global warming is a hoax after 2014 was deemed the hottest year in history; that guns keep you safe in spite of guns killing 85 men, women and children every day in this country; that there’s no link between fracking and earthquakes in spite of a 5,000 percent increase in the last five years?
Not only would this new format be vastly entertaining to the American public, it would also allow them to judge for themselves which candidates were bald-faced liars and which were just plain stupid.
After the last Republican debate there was a hue and cry from the left that candidates should be able to answer “tough questions.”
Yet Democrats refuse to have a debate with Fox News moderators, which is obviously a double standard.
It’s well known that almost all the mainstream TV reporters are liberals and don’t ask tough questions of Democrats, yet their questions to Republicans are gotcha ones, thinly disguised to show Republicans in the worst light possible and to denigrate their beliefs.
Questions should be about policy, not personal attacks, and the moderators should not inject their own personal biases into the debate and argue with the candidates.
The Republican debates are a farce.
We need to focus on real issues like ISIS, unrest in America being enhanced by the current administration, the national debt, etc.
Instead, the moderators want to be the stars, constantly interrupting the candidates, pitting one candidate against another, asking ridiculous questions such as about sports gambling, etc.
Get to the issues that matter.
A commentator should be unbiased and not support one party or the other in the questioning, and I don’t see that happening.
Walter H. Delashmit,