Republicans in Disarray!

The campaigns and their consiglieres put together a list of demands to which future debate hosts must agree to ensure the candidates’ participation. The finalized version, as obtained by the Washington Post, is hilarious in its granularity. Not once but twice does the document inveigh against “lightening [sic] rounds,” which must be banned “because of their frivolousness or ‘gotcha’ nature, or in some cases both.” The letter also implores networks to agree not to “ask the candidates to raise their hands to answer a question,” “allow candidate-to-candidate questioning,” “allow props or pledges by the candidates,” “show an empty podium after a break (describe how far away the bathrooms are),” or “leaves microphones on after breaks.” What about allowing hot mics in the distant bathrooms? There’s no clear rule on that, though it would certainly violate the spirit of the letter…

What was the point of having the RNC serve as middleman in the first place? To navigate the party through the primary process in a way that didn’t damage the eventual nominee too much before the general election. Priebus was able to cut the number of debates roughly in half, and he ensured that no mischievous entity like MSNBC was granted hosting duties. The candidates have found his efforts lacking, though, and are using the leverage that’s available to them as a group to run the show themselves. So far, it looks like they’ll use that power to ensure that they don’t, for even a hot second, have to factor general-election considerations into their primary strategies…

Letting the RNC pick the moderators and the format while letting the networks keep the ad profits seems like a good win-win to me.

— Joseph Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) November 2, 2015

Good test of which networks really see themselves as news orgs, & which just want broadcast rights to a big fight https://t.co/G2aW2tgD9e

— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) November 2, 2015

Candidates remember they're competing against one another! Trump liaison of convenience w Carson not so convenient! https://t.co/5kg9dH0qYh

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 3, 2015

The Post, again:

… The consternation marked the latest turn in a debate process that has grown more problematic by the day. Officials with the Republican National Committee took control of the process for the 2016 presidential election after a long and eventful debate season that many in the party thought hurt its chances in 2012.

But the campaigns have been quietly irritated by the rigid process all year and broke into open revolt last week. The RNC responded by suspending NBC from hosting its Feb. 26 event, and it put a new staffer in charge of managing the debates.

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer, who had been overseeing the deliberations before being replaced last week, said he supports Trump and others as they negotiate directly with television executives. “These debates have always been about the candidates,” Spicer said. “The candidates will be and always should be determining the best format for them.”…

My emphasis. Dear ex-bosses: Fvck you very much, you fvcking bunch of fvckers. Luv, S. Spicer.
.

So, really, the GOP candidates just unionized and are presenting their contract demands, right?

— OKnox (@OKnox) November 2, 2015

too bad the Scott Walker campaign couldn't get in on the GOP 2016 collective petition for better working conditions

— Simon Maloy (@SimonMaloy) November 2, 2015

IDEA: Apply the Laffer curve to debates. Cut overall time to 90 minutes, and all 14 candidates will get 15 minutes to talk.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) November 2, 2015

There's something so delicious about the GOP's collective demand for a "safe space" for debates.

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) November 2, 2015

Simon Maloy, at Salon, “Why These Clowns Should Be Laughed Out of the Room“:

… To be clear about what’s going on here: the candidates have precisely zero intention of fostering “substantive” discussion at the debates. The CNBC debate was a travesty largely because the moderators completely lost control of the forum and allowed the candidates to reframe their substantive questions as inappropriate expressions of “liberal bias.” They allowed themselves to be cowed by the bullying of self-interested actors whose chief concerns are protecting their own images and controlling the flow of information. The RNC’s letter to NBC and this list of demands from the candidates are just an escalation of what was already a pretty flagrant attempt at intimidation.

There is no good reason why any media outlet should consent to aid the candidates in executing their public relations strategy. And there is absolutely no justification for ceding any degree of editorial control to the candidates – even if it’s over something as annoying and reviled as “show of hands” questions, you’re still letting a politician dictate how you do journalism, which sets a horrible precedent. Such requests should be squelched as violently as possible. Moderators asking bad questions is a problem, but the solution is not to empower the campaigns to determine which questions are permissible.

If the candidates threaten to boycott, fine, let them. It’s doubtful that many would follow through on that threat given the exposure they’d be sacrificing and the mockery they’d be opening themselves up to. If they do boycott, invite the JV debate participants to take their place. Leave an empty lectern on stage with the name on it. Explain that they declined to attend because they were uncomfortable with certain types of questions that might be asked. The candidates already view the media as the enemy, so the media should be highly reluctant to give them any quarter…

Amazing how campaigns will freak out on RNC but are worried about making Ailes mad. That's power. https://t.co/3J5IfFH3ly

— Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) November 2, 2015

Debates shouldn't be interviews, they should be about "revealing the differences between candidates" —@RonBrownstein https://t.co/oVTY5gCS5e

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) November 2, 2015

And back to the WaPo, for the closer:

… Most Republican aides who came to Sunday’s conclave were not especially hopeful about finding consensus. Ginsberg, who oversaw the two-hour conversation, also made clear in his remarks to the group that his goal was to give them advice about how to deal with the networks, not necessarily urge them to work together.

Mark Levin, a talk-radio host and author suggested by some Republicans as a possible moderator, told Breitbart News on Monday that the RNC had lost control of the debates. “Reince Priebus should be fired or should resign,” Levin said of the RNC’s chair…

Yeah! Reince and all GOP candidates should only go on Fox News, period. But only the loyal Fox News people!!! https://t.co/Un3BAXVwlY

— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) November 2, 2015

Time for Paul Ryan to step up and moderate all the GOP debates.

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) November 2, 2015

Item: Fiorina floats Glenn Beck as a possible GOP debate moderator. pic.twitter.com/vGL8wlVOXK

— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) November 2, 2015

Glenn Beck, Alex Jones and Karl Rove would be great moderators. https://t.co/aBQ6n9parO

— Bob Schooley (@Rschooley) November 3, 2015

I can't wait for the Animal Planet debate. "Gov Bush, first question. Well, less a question and more 'there's a bear behind you'"

— OKnox (@OKnox) November 2, 2015