Is it really a great idea for the GOP to have presidential debates moderated by a guy who's sworn to keep one candidate from getting their nod?

What? You think right-wing hate talker Mark Levin shouldn't moderate GOP presidential debates just 'cause he's said, "I will do everything I can, in my little way, to make sure [Chris Christie] is not the nominee"?

by Ken

So let's pretend that you're a large-ish political party and you occasionally like to run candidates for high political office, possibly including president of the United States. And let's say that your party tends to attract candidates who struggle to balance teh stupid and teh crazy. This isn't in and of itself a problem, because the people you are hoping will vote for your candidates are themselves longtime balancers of teh stupid and teh crazy.

No, the problem is that somebody in your party had the bright idea of having these so-called "candidates" egage in a whole bunch of "debates," which weren't really debates but that did involve the asking of questions by outside functionaries, questions that, while of the powder-puff nature, tended to bring forth "answers" that spotlighted said "candidates" as too stupid and crazy even for a party base that craves nothing more fervently than the old S&C.

Okay, you got me, I'm talking about your Republican Party, ladies and germs. And a lingering feeling among the party's powers-that-be that those 116 nondebates (or however many there were; I know it was at least 100) that the legendary 2012 Republican Presidential Field engaged in may have somehow contributed to the nonvictory of the eventual nominee, some guy named Willard. (No, not Willard from the movie about the rats. A different Willard. Don't worry about him. He's really of no importance whatsoever.) There may be a feeling that the 2012 debates somehow didn't showcase that year's RPF ideally -- although it seemed to me that, since the stuff that came out of their mouths was the stuff they had in their heads, they were perhaps all too appropriately showcased.

Be that as it may, in learning the Lessons of 2012, the Republicans seem to have got it in their head that what was wrong with their debates was everybody on the premises except their "candidates." So already they've taken steps to (a) alter those premises, by dealing with harshly with all broadcast outlets that don't have "Fox" in their name, and (b) trying to do something about those heinous debate moderators who -- so the GOP powers-that-be seem to think -- caused such stupid and crazy things to come out of the mouths of their "candidates."

And the solution? I swear, I'm not making this up. It comes from a "Washington Secrets" column by the Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard.

WASHINGTON SECRETS

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators

BY PAUL BEDARD | AUGUST 15, 2013 AT 9:00 AM

The Republican National Committee, already threatening to block CNN and NBC from hosting 2016 primary debates if they air planned features on Hillary Clinton, is also looking to scrap the old model of having reporters and news personalities ask the questions at candidate forums.

Miffed that their candidates were singled out for personal questions or CNN John King's "This or That," when he asked candidates quirky questions like "Elvis or Johnny Cash," GOP insiders tell Secrets that they are considering other choices, even a heavyweight panel of radio bigs Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

They told Secrets that they are eager to bring in questioners who understand Republican policies and beliefs and who have the ability to get candidates to differentiate their positions on core conservative values.

The move comes as several conservatives are pressuring the party to have Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin ask the debate questions. "It makes a lot of sense. We'd get a huge viewership, they'd make a lot of news and maybe have some fun too," said one of the advocates of the radio trio hosting debates.

The idea took on life when RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer was asked about debate hosting during a Sirius XM radio interview last week. "Mark Levin should ask the questions," Spicer said, according to Breitbart news. That way, he said, grassroots conservatives would have a debate questioner who thinks like them.

Party boss Reince Priebus earlier this month also told conservative radio's fast-rising star Andrea Tantaros that he would be open to a talk radio debate including her, Hannity and Levin. "I actually think that's a very good idea," Priebus said on the Andrea Tantaros Show. "I mean, there's a lot of good people out there that can actually understand the base of the Republican Party, the primary voters."

Potential candidates, however, might have a problem with the developing plan. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for example, is a target of Levin, who this week told Fox that he will urge voters to reject the moderate Republican. "I will do everything I can, in my little way, to make sure he is not the nominee," Levin told Neil Cavuto.

I see that there's already quite an online back-and-forth about the appropriateness of this idea. I would just suggest that the party powers-that-be aren't looking at the right group of inadequate performers.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."