Read the new debate demands Ben Ginsberg has compiled from Republican campaigns

Washington Post ^ | 11/02/2015 | David Weigel and RObert Costa

[GIdget2004]

en Ginsberg, the Republican attorney who's become the pro bono debate negotiator for frustrated GOP candidates, has amended his initial letter of questions to TV networks. When Sunday night's meeting of Ginsberg and 13 campaigns concluded, Ginsberg said that he would incorporate their suggestions into a second draft. That draft is below, though a source cautions that no campaign has signed off on it so far.

[GIdget2004]

See text of draft letter at the link.

[MNJohnnie]

Radical concept. Real serious policy debates rather then journalists clowns posturing and mugging for their fellow journalists like we got for the 1st three GOP debates.

[Celtic Conservative]

Don't forget- NO blue M&M's, or the debate is off!

CC

[PlateOfShrimp]

I don’t understand why these guys are making this so complicated. As many here have already suggested, all they have to do is choose some good moderators, and have networks bid on hosting it. A debate moderated by Limbaugh and Levin would have ratings through the roof. As far as I am concerned, they don’t even have to limit it to “our” guys. I would be perfectly happy to have Levin balanced by Jonah Goldberg, for example.

Why are we Freepers so much better at this stuff than the (insert massive air quotes here) “professionals”?

[LS]

Actually, theses are awesome and sensible demands. GOP people should never do a debate without this kind of agreement.

[Ingtar]

Still looking below...

[vette6387]

And there needs to be a stated threat to the effect that if the “moderators” deviate from the agreed upon format and questions, that the all the candidates will walk off the platform en masse.
Personally, I think that since the networks are “regulated public utilities,” that they should not be able to commercialize the debates and that their involvement should be simply limited to providing the technical where with all to transmit the broadcast, and nothing else. Consider this “their contribution to democracy.”

[TomGuy]

Demands?

It reads more like a ‘will you do this and will you allow that and how long will x be’.

Sounds more like the attorney letter asking, rather than demanding.

[JudyinCanada]

Just glanced at the list. Too complicated. You’re correct - just get some good moderators, establish a format (opening and closing statements, time limits, rebuttals, etc.) and let the network know that if the stupid liberal attack dogs rise up, the candidates have the option of leaving the stage.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I agree. Trying to negotiate with the same old Leftard channels and their antagonistic mods is a waste of time.

[Balding_Eagle]

And there needs to be a stated threat to the effect that if the “moderators” deviate from the agreed upon format and questions, that the all the candidates will walk off the platform en masse.

The way they are doing it now is much more effective than walking off stage.

This is the way grownups do it, not as much drama, but far more lasting, a huge gut punch to the other side.

Walking off stage would allow the other side to get a lot of attention. This way they are sidelined right out of the box.

[Vigilanteman]

Even that old fossil Jim Lerher from NPR, while a big lib himself, does a reasonably fair and balanced job as a debate moderator.

I used to wonder why they couldn't find someone else other than that old dinosaur. Now, I understand the enemedia just doesn't have anyone that fair and balanced working for them anymore.

[ncpatriot]

You make a lot of sense. Logical. Rational.

[Balding_Eagle]

Demands?

It reads more like a ‘will you do this and will you allow that and how long will x be’.

Sounds more like the attorney letter asking, rather than demanding.

The letter shows how grownups do things when they are in charge, and there is no doubt that the writers of the letter are in charge.

They are being polite, but determined.

[marron]

I agree with you two. The list is silly.

Just agree among yourselves who the moderator should be. And thats it.

Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity for example would be good. You would get a good discussion. It would be fair, and we would be talking about the things Repubs want to talk about.

The problem isn’t the structure, its letting your enemies host your debate. Dems don’t do it, and neither should Repubs.

[Zarro]

This one doesn't work so well:

Will you commit to provide equal time/an equal number of questions of equal quality (substance as opposed to “gotcha” or frivolous) to each candidate?

I believe that CNBC could have answered "yes" to this one, as their questions were ALL of poor quality, and therefore equal.

[Ingtar]

Rush does not do interviewing well. While debates might be a different matter, he tends to leave the big questions unasked.

[wbarmy]

Why are we Freepers so much better at this stuff than the (insert massive air quotes here) "professionals"?

Because our hidden agenda is the truth, their hidden agenda is to make the Republicans look immature.

[SMARTY]

It means the moderators will have to be ‘real’ journalists... and will have to actually EARN their money for the gig.

Not a bunch of pseudo actors, pseudo journalists, painted Barbie Doll announcers and other uninformed, immature and shamelessly indoctrinated and dilettante Hollywood wannabe's