Image 01 Image 03

Trump Goes Full Trump on MSM Debate Organizers

Trump Goes Full Trump on MSM Debate Organizers

Fighting bias—or fighting for the top spot?

October’s CNBC-hosted Republican debate threw into full relief the bias inherent in the mainstream media’s handling of electoral politics. In the wake of the broadcast, both the MSM and RNC leadership fielded comments and accusations from candidates (and conservative bloggers…) rendered beyond frustrated at the CNBC moderators’ questions, tone, and approach to a slate of candidates they treated like a lineup of hostile witnesses.

Donald Trump has spent a great deal of time since that debate lashing out at the media over its treatment of conservatives, and his latest move is one that his supporters hope will set him further apart from the pack.

Republican campaign reps gathered together this weekend in a meeting organized by GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg to craft a list of demands the entire slate of GOP candidates could present to network executives before the next debate. Representatives from Trump’s campaign attended this meeting—then promptly announced their intention to independently negotiate with the networks apart from Ginsberg’s efforts.

Team Trump is on its own again—but the Donald’s main competitor doesn’t seem to be too worried about it. More via WaPo:

“If they want to send their own letter, that’s fine – a letter’s a letter,” said Bennett. “The Trump folks were clear about what they wanted, and the Carson campaign agrees with them 90 percent of the time. We’re getting opening and closing statements. We’re going to get some parity in questions. We’re going to actually get formats announced to the campaigns. Trump’s basically asking for the same thing, he’s just going to do with his own letterhead.”

The only disagreement between the Trump and Carson camps, as Bennett saw it, was that Trump opposed letting more candidates onstage. “They don’t want more people onstage, because they think that would mean more people taking shots at him,” said Bennett. “I’d argue that putting more people onstage actually helps Trump the most, as everyone’s going to want to divide the time evenly.”

This is clearly an effort to protect Trump’s status as the top candidate. The latest polling numbers show Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio all nipping at Trump’s heels; Trump’s support however, dipped two points, which is a small change but not an insignificant one in an important state like Iowa.

It’ll be interesting to see how far Trump chooses to deviate from the narratives pushed by an allegedly more united GOP field—and how much influence he will be able to leverage if he ends up the odd man out when future debate format and content negotiations come to a close.

He’s powerful, and loud, but he’s not unbeatable—and this could end up being a riskier move than the Trump campaign counted on.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ginsburg did not organize the meeting he was inited by and thrust upkn the meeting by Barney Fife (lindsey graham). You need to correct your statements in this regard.

Trump is unlikely unhappy with the weak kneed effect barney’s boy had on the meeting. It is about negotiating the best deal and not satisfying barney’s attempts to get on the big stage so he can attack carson and trump on behalf of the GOPe.

What if Trump strikes a really good deal and refuses to attend unless the network caves. For example he could insist on six participants…opening and closing statements….and conservative talk show personalities on the panel. He could demand that Rush or Levin or Laura Ingraham be moderators or panel members.

How would that go over?

If Trump has to pull out of a debate and do an hour long gang interview on a competing network I know which program and 8 million others will be watching. Trump has a lot of leverage because wihthout Trump commercials go for 30 to 50 thousand. With Trump 250 thousand per 30 second spot. People aren going to tune in to see what graham pataki santorum and others have to say.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | November 2, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    I’ll make you a bet…

    If T-rump does an hour-long “interview”, and it draws less that 8 million, you have to vote Cruz in the Texas primary.

    If he draws 8 million or more, I have to vote Cruz in the Texas primary.


    cantor4massat4 in reply to Gary Britt. | November 2, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    Trump was boring this past debate. I think viewers will be tuning in for Cruz next debate.

No more than 5 candidates per event. If necessary split up the polling front-runners then add others randomly.

Add a disinterested timekeeper to direct traffic.

Each candidate has an opportunity to question the 4 others one-on-one. 30-second questions and up-to-2-minute answers. Timers fully visible and only one microphone open at a time. Unused time may be used for follow-ups.

Follow-question time additional 15 seconds, 1 minute for addl. reply. (I suppose “You didn’t answer the question, ya’ jerk, ya’!” counts as a follow-up.)

Then move on to a different pairing.

Forces each of them to prepare in advance to use their limited time wisely when grilling each opponent. (Don’t mind if the skills of Ted Cruz gives him an advantage; those are deserving skills.)

Wastes less of our time, and removes MSM liberal advocacy from the event.

The rest of the field owes Trump & Cruz a debt of gratitude for showing the way, and an honorable mention of Dr Carson.

In a way, it reminds me of a scene from Iron Man introducing the Jericho.

“Is it better to be feared or respected? I say… Is it too much to ask for both?”

Poor old thang, you really have trouble reading.

The meeting was…from the git-go…going to be chaired by Ginsberg.

“The email, headed “’Sunday meeting,’” makes clear that Ginsberg is running the show at Graham’s campaign’s direction.” (This is what we call in the law “pure speculation” or “bullshit”.)

Than everybody who sent their people was a wall-eyed idiot. But MOST especially that maven of American politics, blessed with the all-seeing eye, Duh Donald.

Ginsberg appeared on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday morning to discuss his role in the meeting.

“I’m going to tell them you need to figure out what to do,” Ginsberg said.

“There have been problems with the first three debates,” Ginsberg added, then saying: “It’s their meeting and their agenda and their debates.”

Which sounds like it ought to, and if it deviated from that, everyone there had the option to get up and leave.

Funny thing; I haven’t heard ONE peep that anyone did.

    Isn’t National Review Your Favorite Establishment Trump Basher, Rags?

    Cruz Trump Carson – The Outsider Three Musketeers

    Ben Carson: It’s “Obvious” Opponents Are Using National Review “As Their Political Tool” to Attack Me

    Top GOP contender and retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson tells Breitbart News Daily that “critics” used conservative magazine National Review to attack him for his relationship with the supplement company, Mannatech.

    Executive chairman and host Stephen K. Bannon asked Carson about his reaction to a scathing post published at National Review, calling Carson’s statement’s “bald-faced lies.”

    “Does it strike you that they’re not going after — you know, here you’ve got Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)… that has had a job as a pitchman for the Gang of Eight, of which we’ve had eight hours of debates. I do not believe Sen. Rubio has been asked one question about his marketing of the Gang of Eight bill, and all the gross representations he made about that at the time. Yet this magazine calls you a ‘bald-faced liar’ — do you think they single you out for special, brutal treatment?”

    “Well, they’re concerned about — that obviously comes from someone on that debate stage,” Carson said. “That’s a submarine that’s sent by them. They’re very concerned about me, and they’re using National Review as their political tool. That’s pretty obvious.”

    “So you believe that information that leaked or used, or was somehow put in by another campaign and given to National Review to be weaponized,” Bannon said.

    “Absolutely,” Carson replied.

This is just preposterous anti-Trump nonsense.

It was Trump and Carson who led the charge before the debate, and Cruz who most effectively picked up on the bias during the debate. Amnesty Queen Graham, polling at 0%, then horns in and pushes some GOPe consultant in to “steer” the response.

Now Trump is the arch-villain for not throwing in with the “group”, like this is some sort of sentimental Kumbaya chorus. Kasich and Christie also didn’t throw in with the group, mentioned in the WaPo article but not here. Kind of fouls the Evil Trump the Loner narrative.

Note that his double digit leads over most opponents are described as “nipping at his heels” while a two point slippage in Iowa is inflated as “not insignificant”. Especially in Iowa which is “important” — as opposed to where? NH? Florida? Texas? This biased presentation is just a sign of falling in love with your own propaganda.

Time will tell, but the “one big happy family except Trump” narrative is ridiculous.

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | November 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    “This biased presentation is just a sign of falling in love with your own propaganda.”

    Which you, with your paid hackery, give lessons in here, much to everyone’s disgust.

Guess we’ll see if the primary voters react in horror to Trump’s refusal to be a team player and meekly accept the debate negotiations conducted by Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jindal with the networks.

Well it now appears that the “agreement” is dead, and Trump was wise to kill it given its contents.