What stops conservative media from sponsoring their own debates?

vanity post | 1/29/12 | UnwashedPeasant

[UnwashedPeasant]

What keeps Rush, Levin, Prager, Hannity, etc -- or a combination of them -- from calling a debate for any candidates willing to show up? Then we could get some meaningful questions for inspecting the candidates' philosophies. They could not decline a Rush/Hannity/Levin cosponsored debate. The candidates have plenty of open days on their schedules.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Currently, conservatives are trying to choose the best anti-Romney candidate between Newt and Santorum, so these are the two who should face off in a long, meaningful debate to show their positions on all the main subjects."

In early December Santorum challenged Gingrich to a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The Gingrich campaign has yet to respond...

[wildbill]

Or they could hold out for an even distribution of moderators between conservative and liberal reporters.

[iowamark]

Rush and the others work for different radio stations. Rush’s loyalty is to his stations. He is not going to promote hosts on other stations.

[iowamark]

Newt isn’t running against Santorum. He’s running against Romney and Obama. You should ask yourself and Santorum if he is running against Gingrich or Romney/Obama.

[hoosiermama]

Look into who owns Clear Channel and who Clear Channel owns....That’s all I’m saying

You’ll want to double your contribution to FreeRepublic.

[UnwashedPeasant]

"Newt isn’t running against Santorum. He’s running against Romney and Obama. You should ask yourself and Santorum if he is running against Gingrich or Romney/Obama."

In my opinion, Newt IS running against Santorum to determine which of them will unite the Conservative vote to defeat Romney. A series of one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas debates between those two--hosted by conservatives--is exactly what we need.

I am surprised we have not heard more about Santorum challenging Newt to a one-on-one.

[iowamark]

Santorum isn’t going anywhere. No organization, no money, no leadership cred. The pro-life message is doubtless genuine but that alone cannot win the nomination.

[darrellmaurina]

13 posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:59:58 PM by Salvey: “Along the same lines, I've always wondered why wealthy conservatives don't band together to purchase controlling interests in major newspapers, TV networks, radio stations, magazines and the like. That would really result in a “fair and balanced” mass media.”

The media landscape today is in such chaos that it's not a good business investment. Even with the massive shareholder losses of the last half-decade, prices are still in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a major newspaper, and people with that kind of money tend to be motivated by short-to-medium term investment returns, not long-term ideological issues.

One of my former newspaper companies, a chain which is fairly conservative, is in bankruptcy. Another had seen its stock price drop from the mid-$20 per share range down to 3 cents per share in a period of two years, and it's now hovering in the dime-to-quarter range. The Washington Times is in major economic trouble and would be in even worse shape if it were not for private dollars coming from Sun Myung Moon's church connections.

Put another way — Newt Gingrich has lots of money (I read his tax return online after he released it) but it takes someone with the money of Mitt Romney to buy even a failing newspaper like the Boston Globe, and if you've got that kind of money you usually didn't get it by putting ideology above profitability.