Letter From the Editor 

The real reason behind the RNC's decision to limit presidential primary debates.

click to enlarge 101512_of_bernie_640.jpg

The Republican National Committee (RNC) met in Memphis last week. Committee members heard talking-point speeches from GOP presidential aspirants Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and an address from Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam.

More important, as Jackson Baker reported on our website — and expounds upon in this week's paper — there were some significant moves made by the RNC's rules committee. At the top of the list was a decision, approved by the membership, to "take control" of the GOP's presidential primary debates by creating a committee to sanction a list of "approved" presidential-candidate debates. Any GOP presidential candidate who participated in an unsanctioned debate would be prohibited from taking part in any further sanctioned debates.

"All details of the sanctioned debates," Baker reported, "would be overseen by the 13-member RNC committee — the rules, the questions, the choice of moderators, the length of answer time permitted to the candidate ... everything and anything, in short." Five of those members would be appointed by the RNC chairman.

Control, indeed.

The stated rationale for this decision was that "93 percent" of the media are hostile to the GOP. As one RNC member said: "Somebody has to say no to Candy Crowley." Aside from the fact that I suspect many, many people have said no to Candy Crowley, this is subterfuge — creating a "hostile media" strawman to justify limiting the candidates' exposure and making it tougher for fringe candidates to play by the RNC rules.

An Indiana University study reports that 7 percent of journalists (of all stripes) are registered Republicans, hence, I suppose, the 93 percent "hostile" media justification used by the RNC. The study further reports that 28 percent of the media are Democrats, 50 percent have no party affiliation, and 14 percent are "other."

It's clear the real reason for this move is that the Republicans don't really want debates; they want showcases that create friendly sound-bites, and they want to remove the possibility of candidates having to face tough questions and maybe saying something stupid. (Rick Perry, come back. All is forgiven!)

Which raises the question: Who exactly is going to televise these "sanctioned" debates? Fox News might go along with such provisos, since most of their on-air personalities would be more than happy to toss underhand softballs at the GOP candidates. But I can't believe any other legitimate TV network would accept such an arrangement.

But maybe that's the point, after all. It's like the RNC version of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS): When it comes to the "national championship," the RNC, like the BCS, wants to keep the little guys from having a shot.

Bruce VanWyngarden

brucev@memphisflyer.com

Comments (8)

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Blogs

Film/TV/Etc. Blog

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

News Blog

15 Covers for our 1,500th issue

Tiger Blue

21 Thoughts on Tiger Football

Tiger Blue

Tigers 63, New Orleans 52

Beyond the Arc

Blazers 100, Grizzlies 92: Five Thoughts

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Bruce VanWyngarden

Readers also liked…

ADVERTISEMENT
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation