RNC imposes new debate rules

[Lupo]

I love what Priebus is doing here.  I think the DNC should seriously consider similar action.

DNC is not a bunch of fascists like the GOP leadership apparently is. Democrats are tolerant, open-minded and love freedom and wouldn't welcome silly and unnatural restrictions who are just made up to make the party as a whole look even worse than it already does. Democrats would never even consider to think such thoughts as Priebus has repeatedly demonstrated he thinks is absolutely necessary in order for his party's candidates to have any bloody chance at all to survive (in the general election). Priebus is just scared to death (especially at the prospect of Hillary). However, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that some Republicans really have a love for autocratic rules.

It's really not much different from what the Democrats did with the McGovern-Fraser Commission, but judging by your response I can tell you're rather unhinged and don't care all that much. 

[IceSpear]

So is the RNC admitting that the more people see of the Republican candidates, the less they like them?

[King]

This is probably going to backfire in hilarious fashion.  An excluded teabag wins Iowa or a favored candidate breaks the rules and evades punishment.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/rnc-cap-on-2016-presidential-debates-could-give-ri/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The other interesting tidbit from that story is "The RNC has said it expects to announce the list of sanctioned debates before the end of the year."

The end of the year is coming up pretty soon.

[CountryClassSF]

I love what Priebus is doing here.  I think the DNC should seriously consider similar action.

DNC is not a bunch of fascists like the GOP leadership apparently is. Democrats are tolerant, open-minded and love freedom and wouldn't welcome silly and unnatural restrictions who are just made up to make the party as a whole look even worse than it already does. Democrats would never even consider to think such thoughts as Priebus has repeatedly demonstrated he thinks is absolutely necessary in order for his party's candidates to have any bloody chance at all to survive (in the general election). Priebus is just scared to death (especially at the prospect of Hillary). However, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that some Republicans really have a love for autocratic rules.

It's really not much different from what the Democrats did with the McGovern-Fraser Commission, but judging by your response I can tell you're rather unhinged and don't care all that much. 

Right? It's easy for them to be open-minded and tolerant of the press corps when the media is in the tank for them from day 1 haha

[IceSpear]

I love what Priebus is doing here.  I think the DNC should seriously consider similar action.

DNC is not a bunch of fascists like the GOP leadership apparently is. Democrats are tolerant, open-minded and love freedom and wouldn't welcome silly and unnatural restrictions who are just made up to make the party as a whole look even worse than it already does. Democrats would never even consider to think such thoughts as Priebus has repeatedly demonstrated he thinks is absolutely necessary in order for his party's candidates to have any bloody chance at all to survive (in the general election). Priebus is just scared to death (especially at the prospect of Hillary). However, it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that some Republicans really have a love for autocratic rules.

It's really not much different from what the Democrats did with the McGovern-Fraser Commission, but judging by your response I can tell you're rather unhinged and don't care all that much. 

Right? It's easy for them to be open-minded and tolerant of the press corps when the media is in the tank for them from day 1 haha

Yes, the media is completely in the tank for Democrats. That's why they let Romney get away with not releasing his tax returns, yet thought Hillary's "dead broke" gaffe made her Worse Than Hitler.

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/rnc-cap-on-2016-presidential-debates-could-give-ri/

The other interesting tidbit from that story is "The RNC has said it expects to announce the list of sanctioned debates before the end of the year."

*bump*

Well so much for that.  We're in 2015, and they haven't announced squat.

In any case, the RNC is now set to announce some more specifics on the new debate rules on Friday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-set-to-issue-rules-to-cut-regulate-presidential-debates/2015/01/15/6d381d72-9cf7-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the story also notes, there's also the sticky question of who qualifies to be included in the debates.  In 2012, for example, Gary Johnson was invited to just a few out of the ~20 debates, while Buddy Roemer wasn't invited to any of them.  How will inclusion be decided this time?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cory]

RNC officials also have been interested in having greater control over the format and moderators of the debates. A frequent complaint inside the RNC headquarters is that the 2012 primary moderators were more interested in talking about differences among candidates than helping voters rally behind a favored candidate.

If the RNC gets its way, moderators would agree to keep debates focused on topics Priebus prefers and avoid intraparty squabbling.

So they are literally saying that the moderators aren't biased enough in favor of the establishment pick? Wow.