candycorn
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #241
I read thru the 1st few pages and didn't see ANY discussion of WHY the RNC is concerned. Here's WHY they've negotiating with the CPD.
![]()
Republican National Committee threatens to opt out of CPD-sponsored presidential debates
The Republican National Committee announced it could move to prohibit its future nominees from participating in events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.www.washingtonexaminer.com
The RNC cited a number of concerns with the CPD. It highlighted the commission's selection of Steve Scully, who served as an intern to Joe Biden in college, to moderate one of the 2020 presidential debates. It said a majority of the commission's board members publicly disparaged the Republican presidential nominee. The RNC also criticized the nonprofit organization for hosting the first debate after early voting had already begun.
Republicans demanded a slew of changes in the letter, calling for term limits for the commission's board of directors, more transparent criteria for selecting debate moderators, and a stronger code of conduct for moderating debates. They also asked the CPD to commit to holding at least one debate before early voting takes place.
RNC officials have been meeting with CPD officials for months prior to Thursday's announcement. The party has long accused the debate commission of being unfair to its candidates. In 2012, debate moderator Candy Crowley took former President Barack Obama's side during an exchange about the 2012 Benghazi attack. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, subsequently criticized Crowley for that.
That all seems completely reasonable to me. What problems do YOU have with the RNC pointing all this OBVIOUS shit out to them?
You think that selection Steve Scully who was a Biden intern to MODERATE a Biden debate is "fair and balanced"???
And your comment about ALL past Republican Presidents are "honorary members" of the commission -- Does that make them decision makers on ANY important particular debate details? Nope.
I hate the whole concept of CPD. It's just another duopoly battleground. One that SHOULD include ANY CANDIDATE that has qualified for 50 state ballot position. OR EVEN -- ENOUGHT states to win an electoral majority. It's RIPE for partisanship. Even the concept of having ANY past presidents, politicians or media hacks as honorary or titular members.
So one group of Trump supporters doesn't think there are enough republicans on the committee, the other group of Trump supporters doesn't think there should be any on the committee...and a third group is okay with there being no debates at all.