This is downright sane compared to 2016.
The always-polite
New York Times has a bit of wry fun with the brewing fiasco that will be the
2016 Republican presidential debates. Oh the dilemmas for Republicans: logistical—how do you get all of them on one stage with enough time to talk; political—who gets to be there and how do you appease the crazy followers if someone is left out; the basics—who's in charge here, anyway? It really is delicious.
It is not entirely clear who will be in charge of devising or enforcing the debate criteria — that is, if there are criteria. One member of the national committee panel charged with overseeing the debates said its members had discussed ceding the decision entirely to Fox News.
At issue is how to stage a substantive discussion that is fair to viewers and the campaigns. The party has little appetite for a forum so thick with candidates that it allows for not much more than an extended “lightning round” of questions. One Republican involved in the process said a 90-minute forum with 10 candidates would offer each candidate only four to five minutes, after subtracting commercials and moderator time.
But as the 2012 primary demonstrated, televised debates can instantaneously reshape presidential races, and candidates who could face the possibility of being excluded argue that any attempt to winnow the participants so early in such a fluid primary contest would be wrongheaded.
Because God forbid professional presidential candidate Rick Santorum be left off the stage, even if he's polling in the basement. As is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, but his strategist Brad Todd is in there, too: "The challenge is how we get exposure to good candidates." Of which Jindal must be one? His allies, the
Times reports, have been particularly energetic in coming up with ideas to make sure he's included. One of their more brilliant ones: "back-to-back debates, with seven or eight candidates, chosen at random, in each." Which would make for endless entertainment for all of us. Please GOP, go with that one and turn Fox News into a 24-hour Republican debate show.
Then there's this: "Even thornier for the party is what to do about two high-profile contenders who have not previously been elected to office." While the Times won't say it out loud, it's what to do about the tokens: Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, who might be a total nut-job and absolute fraud (or either or both) but still have followers but more importantly make the party not look quite as old, white, and male in front of America. Jindal can't carry that burden all on his own. But if you allow in those two, what do you do about "such low-polling candidates as Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas or even Donald Trump?"
Here's the nut of the problem: "The fear, according to one party official, is that the excluded candidates could collectively use conservative websites and talk radio to foment anger at the so-called Republican establishment—an assault that could undermine the national committee’s hold on the debate process." Including the whole crazy bunch of them will demonstrate just how fractious the party can be. Leaving any people out will make the fight very public. Which brings us back to Fox News, and how the party might just turn the whole decision-making mess over to them. Because what Republican is going to attack Fox?
Now, all this angst might be a little premature. By the first debate in August, at least a few of these people might drop out. But don't count on it, because they all have very important, very crazy things to say.