In the aftermath of Democrats boycotting presidential debates sponsored by Fox News, and the deplorable questions asked by liberal media members at Thursday’s GOP event, should Republican candidates consider refusing to attend any upcoming affairs involving obvious leftwing shills?
Before you answer, consider what a John Edwards campaign representative said in April when it was announced that the Democrat presidential candidate from North Carolina wouldn’t attend the September 23 debate sponsored by Fox News as reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added):
“We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.
Given what transpired Thursday evening, is there a reason why Republicans should give Democrat shills like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann a platform to advance their leftwing agenda while pretending they’re objective?
After all, it is the Democrats here that have drawn a line in the sand, and established this precedent. If it is now indeed acceptable for candidates to decide what media outlets are allowed to sponsor debates, shouldn’t candidates also be able to do decide what media representatives can participate?
This seems particularly reasonable given what the MRC’s Rich Noyes told FNC’s Neil Cavuto on Friday’s “Your World”:
Fox News had debates in the last cycle. A lot of the questioners brought in — they were not Fox employees — they were some liberal reporters like Gwen Ifill and Juan Williams, along with some of Fox's own people like Carl Cameron.
Exactly. As such, it’s not like the scheduled questioners for the debates the Democrats boycotted were Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck. Yet, they still backed out.
With that in mind, it seems logical in the next eighteen months before Election Day for the Republicans to not subject themselves to questions like “Is Karl Rove your friend,” “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House,” and “What do you dislike most about America?”
To accomplish this, they will have to make it clear to the sponsoring media outlet which press members are unacceptable.
Isn’t it sad that it’s come to this?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Don't do it, but threaten to and make a note of it
May 5, 2007 - 17:14 ET by exLibRepublicans need to make this a campaign issue.
As Leno said, and many here of course, If The Dems can't debate on Fox News how can they go after our real enemies.
Sadly Democrats have made Republicans their worst enemy instead of Iran, NK, etc.
I think the GOP leadership should go on all the talk shows and point out that their Canidates not only went on a liberal leaning network but that they let obviously liberal commentators host them.
Of course I have NEVER heard a Republican canidate call the news outlets biased, it appears only Dems are willing to accuse Fox of Conservative bias. No Conservative has come out and said MSNBC is carrying the DNCs water.
Sadly the Republicans are just tacitly agreeing with the Democrats that Fox is baised right and all other news outlets are un-biased.
However, I don't think, in the end it helps Republicans to boycott any media except maybe John Stewart, Bill Maher or anyone from Air America, and probably David Letterman - who after the Bil O'reilly debacle has proven where he stands.
Republicans and Conservatives should boycott MSM and NPR
May 5, 2007 - 20:27 ET by atlasragingI believe that Republicans and Conservatives should boycott the MSM and NPR. No purpose is served by being on these programs, their presence just gives them the facade of legitimacy. Republicans and Conservatives should only appear on conservative radio programs, FOX News, and give interviews only in conservative papers.
When the MSM and NPR start acting like professional journalists, then end the boycott, but until they do, ignore them, and point their lying liberal hypocrisy when it rears its ugly head.
I mentioned this the other da
May 5, 2007 - 23:15 ET by Gat New YorkI mentioned this the other day that this must be a campaign issue. At one point Romney looked like he was at a tipping point with yet another inane gotcha question from Matthews to which his initial response was "you got to be kidding."
What he should have followed that up with was to ignore the question and instead make a statement like:
Chris we’ve been standing here and all you’ve been doing is throwing the kind of gotcha questions that you didn’t throw at our Democrat counterparts. You have not asked us any question about healthcare, education, energy and instead you’ve been asking ridiculous tabloid questions about Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and now your wishful thinking about Clinton in the White House. We all knew what we were walking into with MSNBC and you, but we still chose to do it. Unlike our Democrat counterparts who chose not to do the same on FoxNews. Whomever the Democrat candidate is why should the American people have a shred of faith that they will have the courage to face any of our pressing challenges when they were too scared to debate on FoxNews?
As the light turn red and Matthews tries to forcibly interrupt Romney who then turns visibly angry and tells Matthews: No I will not stop. My Republican supporters paid for me to have this microphone. How much did Democrats pay you for yours?
One could only wish.
The Republican Party blew it on the MSNBC debates
May 5, 2007 - 17:32 ET by RJAm I wrong, but didn't debate arrangements in the past include vetting who the moderators would be and where the questions would come from? Both sides understood that what happened with MSNBC was a real possibility. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be "come to this" but a return to common sense.
Seems to me that the Republican Party blew it on this.
I don't think the republica
May 5, 2007 - 17:41 ET by charlietexasI don't think the republicans should boycott the lib debates. But when their asked stupid questions like the ones Chrissy Matthews asked, they should tell him it was a stupid question. What do you hate about America?? Would Billy Clinton be bad for the White House. What an idiot!!! Whats that got to do with the price of tea in China.....Liberals are so so so......ggggggggeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz
What do you hate about Americ
May 5, 2007 - 17:47 ET by KC MulvilleWhat do you hate about America? "Biased questions from the media ... like that one."
I think Republicans should pl
May 5, 2007 - 17:43 ET by KC MulvilleI think Republicans should play it straight, and not boycott anything. After all, that simply gives the Democrats an even answer: If Republicans can't defeat Keith Olbermann, how can they expect ... yada yada yada.
Most polls show that the public already knows that the media is biased. That's why conservative candidates ought to acknowledge bias when they face it, but never whine about it. The key is to know the difference between a challenging question (which they should answer) and a biased question (which they shouldn't). When the Democrats try to do the same thing, the public will see how often the Dems can't tell the difference. They'll whine over every question, and soon enough, the contrast will become obvious.
If the Democrats don't want t
May 5, 2007 - 17:53 ET by MRNIf the Democrats don't want to debate on FOX, fine, they will just miss out on the largest possible cable audience. More people watched FOX News discussing the debate than actually watched it on MSNBC.
The Democrats are cowardly to not debate on FOX. They fear the left wing websites. The Republicans have to put up with ridiculous questions in glorified episodes of Hardball, but at least they show they aren't afraid to answer questions from liberals.
Yes, no boycotts. I would h
May 5, 2007 - 17:58 ET by CrimsonfistedYes, no boycotts. I would have loved to have heard Rudy mutter something like, "what SIX year olds are submitting questions?" when asked "do you believe in evolution?"
I think they should reserve the right to make it clear that when a questions is stupid, then they should say so! AND remind the "moderator" that that is their job, to not ask DUMB questions.
WhatAMaroon
Perhaps the next Democrat d
May 5, 2007 - 18:00 ET by zhombrePerhaps the next Democrat debate should be held in Detroit, which has a large population of people from the ME, with a moderator recruited from Al Jazeera.
zhombre
May 5, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Noel SheppardZ,
How would that differ from what transpired Thursday evening...or was that your point? :-) ns
Lets see...The Dims won't deb
May 5, 2007 - 18:11 ET by gxa99Lets see...
The Dims won't debate on FOX...Highest rated cable news "network". But, Both parties debate on NBC/MSNBC.... Brian "shit-for-brains" Williams (left wing cookie cutter dumb ass) and Chris (he's not even worth describing) Mathews, are you ever going to do an even keel job of moderating....ARE YOU FRICKIN KIDDING ME!!!!!! There are no words that describe the "udder" one (left) sided "journalism" on this! Math-ewe's questions were no more than "Does Bush suck????" What a joke.
I need liquids (liquors) that alter my mind just to comprehend this non-sense....
It should be a campain issue
May 5, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Tidy Bowl ManWe, the Republicans, should not "back down" in the face of adversity. It shows the dem's to be cowards, (what aren't they afraid of) and it shows that our field of candidates are not afraid of the tough (or stupid) questions. From now on at every event like this it should be noted by our candidates where the dem heir apparents aren't showing up and where they are showing up. Safe havens with mushy softball questions.
My only wish is that the press would not be so blind as to not see this for the grandstanding to their nut base that it is.
Seems pretty petty, not som
May 5, 2007 - 18:55 ET by BondPlainBondSeems pretty petty, not something a Conservative would do, but, succumbing to this fantasy for a moment or two... hell yeah! What's good for the goose and all. If John Edwards believes FoxNews pretends to be objective in their reporting, let's adopt the same mantra about any non-Fox news organization. Because it's TRUE!
It has been proven, in study after study after study, the MSM IS bias, with NBC (and all it's little sisters) holding the highest level of bias. NOT FoxNews.
FoxNews was proven, in those very same studies, to be the least biased out of all researched. We know the Left and the Right are treated more fairly at Fox than on any other news channel. I'd rather the commercial advertisers' revenue be received through an outlet such as FoxNews. A demonstrably higher reward for advertising on FoxNews will be received. Huge viewership. I believe a member of NewsBusters.org posted the statistics (via Drudge) showing the vast majority of people watched the recap of the debate on FoxNews than watched the actual debate! That's saying something.
I also believe the journalists/reporters at Fox are head and shoulders above any of the competition when it comes to intelligent and reasoned analyses (with the exception of Alan Colmes, Neil Gabler, and Jane Hall).
I believe the Conservatives will maintain their even keel and not dispose of any outlet off-hand, demonstrating, once again, the Conservatives are a far more tolerant group than the Left believes itself to be. Putting up with, engagingly, the hobbled minds of Matthews and Olbermann was as gracious a display as any I've seen. *smirk*
With this long of an electi
May 5, 2007 - 19:09 ET by Right2thePointWith this long of an election cycle we can have thoughtful republican debates and go into the heart of the lions den.
I support this because the middle ground voters get a two for one of seeing the Reps can take the heat and also recognize how wacked out the questions are by the left and it will influence minds.
I also agree in swinging the cluebat at totally wacked questions which could be a plus.
After all ImADamNutJob ain't gonna make life easy on ya.
Suck it up , put the shoulder down and rush the tackleing dummy full bore.
If the left only wan'ts sof
May 5, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Right2thePointIf the left only wan'ts softball press conferences that don't mess with their hair or ruin their nails, then let them do it and watch the middle wonder if they are afraid of deathly paper cuts.
The independents will scope it out eventually and it will effect swing voters. Also hard questions to our guys will weed out the posers from the can do guys. I would much rather find it out before the election.
shame
May 5, 2007 - 19:34 ET by bulbasaurA comparable "debate" for the democrat party candidates would have Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky asking the questions, being treated as serious journalists.
And the questions would be along the lines of:
"YES or NO: do you find anything valuable in the Communist Manifesto?"
"YES or NO: was the USA founded on Christian principles?"
You really can't blame democrats for running away like little girls from any situation in which questions like these would be asked. Why? Because we already know the answers, and seeing them squirm would only confirm our suspicions.
bul...'Seeing them squirm' as
May 5, 2007 - 19:51 ET by bigtimerbul...
'Seeing them squirm' as you so deliciously put it...would be well worth it...nation-wide!
Prime-Time...
On Fox!
LMAO!
bulb,these questions would ne
May 5, 2007 - 19:56 ET by botgbulb,
these questions would never be accepted as they are not 'nuanced' enough
nuanced (adj): describes an ability to be on both sides of an issue while avoiding the recognition of cognative dissonance
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Taking the debate ... or not
May 5, 2007 - 20:28 ET by stanleygoodspeedTaking the debate ... or not coming armed with chapter and verse ... was Eve's first mistake. Considering the question, subtracting a word (freely), adding 5 words (neither shall ye touch it), and then changing a word (surely to lest) were her next 3 mistakes.
If she would've just quoted Genesis 2:16-17 and then walked away Man wouldn't have gone through more than 6000 years of sin and its consequences.
Genesis 3:1-7
(1) Now the serpent [the world's first liberal] was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, 'Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?' "
(2) And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may [freely should be here] eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
(3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [she added a phrase], lest [she changed surely to lest] ye die.' "
(4) [Here comes the liberal counterpoint] And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die:
(5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof [in the day that you come around to my point of view], then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
(6) And when the woman saw that the tree [the tree of knowledge of good and evil ... which is Satan - the Devil - and the lies he conceives and forwards through men of corrupt minds even to this day] was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat [she took his words and his point of view to heart], and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
(7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked [they knew they had been conned and spiritually stripped]; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Genesis 2:16-17
(16) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest FREELY eat:
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt SURELY die."
The same battle rages today ... whose words and whose point of view are you going to take to heart? Are you going to take the point of view of liberals and Democrats? Or are you going to put God's words and His point of view foremost in your thinking and believing?
Well, gosh, when you put it l
May 5, 2007 - 20:35 ET by balboaWell, gosh, when you put it like that...
From the mouths of the unknow
May 5, 2007 - 20:53 ET by RJFrom the mouths of the unknowing, balboa.
"Gosh" is a euphamism for God.......hence, "Well, God, when you put it like that..."
Wow. Don't stretch too much o
May 5, 2007 - 21:21 ET by balboaWow. Don't stretch too much on that one or anything. You're likely to pull a hammy.
Now, don't get all upset, balboa, just because your attempted sn
May 5, 2007 - 21:28 ET by RJNow, don't get all upset and embarrassed because you accidently said something good when you were clearly trying to be snide.
BTW, how is what I said a "stretch?" I quoted you exactly, substituting only the real word for your euphamism. Is it my fault you apparently didn't know what the word means?
ONE definition of the word. N
May 5, 2007 - 21:38 ET by balboaONE definition of the word. Not the only one.
Yeah I was being snide, because I don't think the Bible tells anyone to be a Republican instead of a Democrat.
Admit, it balboa....
May 5, 2007 - 21:47 ET by RJAh, but the source and the main meaning of the word is God (although you didn't know it).
Therefore, we can quite truthfully say that you attempted to be snide regarding religion and God embarrassed you.... ;^>
If God wanted to embarrass me
May 5, 2007 - 23:13 ET by balboaIf God wanted to embarrass me, he's gotta plenty better ammo than a supposed lack of knowledge of the origin of the word Gosh.
It was not "supposed" lack of
May 6, 2007 - 05:41 ET by old croIt was not "supposed" lack of knowledge. It "was" lack of knowledge! This may be His insideous way of embarrassment :-)
On a tombstone: "I TOLD YOU I WAS SICK"
(Anonymous) Note: Anonymous Dead Person
balboa got tagged but he can't admit it
May 6, 2007 - 11:18 ET by RJbalboa got tagged, but instead of admitting it and laughing about it, he just keeps digging his hole deeper. ;^>
Good grief, I know the "deepe
May 6, 2007 - 11:27 ET by balboaGood grief, I know the "deeper meaning" of the word Gosh. I'd admit it if I didn't.
Good grief, considering the way you've been sqawking
May 6, 2007 - 11:33 ET by RJGood grief, considering the way you've been sqawking over a small joke, it's doubtful that you did know.
For example, God is not the "deeper" meaning of Gosh, it is THE meaning of Gosh. You may use it as an interjection, but the meaning of the word remains.
Oh! A "small joke"! I thought
May 6, 2007 - 12:44 ET by balboaOh! A "small joke"! I thought you were mocking my godlessness.
Are you godless, balboa?
May 6, 2007 - 12:52 ET by RJAre you godless, balboa? If so, that could explain your extreme sensitivity on the subject. What else could have made you think I was "mocking" you?
Ohhh, wait. Because YOU were mocking, you assumed that any response must also be mocking....I get it.... ;^>
Well, you know, I for an I an
May 6, 2007 - 13:03 ET by balboaWell, you know, I for an I and all that. :-)
So you, who is godless, assu
May 6, 2007 - 13:12 ET by RJSo you, who is godless, assume that others use the Bible against you? O the incongruity...the irony...the paranoia....
I don't even get a snicker fo
May 6, 2007 - 13:34 ET by balboaI don't even get a snicker for substituting "I" for an "eye"?
And I assumed that the Bible is the greatest weapon against a godless heathen like myself.
Snicker? No, that's your territory, balboa
May 6, 2007 - 14:01 ET by RJSnicker? No, that's your territory, balboa. I'd say you have the right to proclaim yourself the king of that particular habit.
And as for automatically assuming that the Bible was used as a weapon against you, well, that's the paranoia I spoke of....which, I suppose is understandable, because you've placed yourself at the center of the universe (i.e. "an I for an I") and that makes you a target....right? ;^>
RJ
May 6, 2007 - 13:05 ET by shawn228Lol......come on RJ , picking on someone because they did not know Gosh came from the word God is nitpicky, even by your standards :)
shawn keeps a perfect record
May 6, 2007 - 13:16 ET by RJOnce again you miss the point, shawn, keeping your perfect record.
I'm teasing balboa because he's squawking about a fairly funny joke, not because he didn't know the meaning of Gosh. You should understand his feeling, since you've been caught wiggling on my hook several times. ;^>
RJ
May 6, 2007 - 13:29 ET by shawn228So many comedians out of work but everybody wants to be one huh? Remember Bob Saget on full house? Everybody thought he was very unfunny except for him.
LOl, I would not phrase it like a worm wiggling under your hook, more like a little mosquito in my ear ;^>
How do you do it, shawn?
May 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by RJHow do you do it, shawn? Most people settle for non-sequiturs of something another person said, but you manage to create one in your own sentence. ;^>
And did I say "worm" wiggling on my hook? Once again you assumed, and once again you were wrong. I was referring to your being caught like a fish going after the bait and trying to wiggle off the hook.
RJ
May 6, 2007 - 13:47 ET by shawn228How do you do it, shawn?
Lol, I dunno, guess I am just gifted like that. Anyways I'm on my way to see Spiderman 3. Have a good day RJ.
watch out for the ultra-US-pa
May 6, 2007 - 13:54 ET by botgwatch out for the ultra-US-patriot propaganda hiding in the film
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
You, too, shawn
May 6, 2007 - 14:03 ET by RJYou, too, shawn. Have fun.
Should Republicans Boycott D
May 5, 2007 - 20:37 ET by balboaShould Republicans Boycott Debates Involving Democrat Media Shills?
Only if they want to look as silly as Dems do for not debating on Fox.
Republicans should debate eve
May 5, 2007 - 22:25 ET by general companyRepublicans should debate every where. The people will see past the ridiculous question. Plus they will be exposed to the majority of the swing voters. Also when the Democrats are finally asked real question the folks will see just how hollow they are. Not to mention how poorly they will look after a debate with the Republican nominee. The folks want real answers for today's problems, the Democrats have none, other then run away, run away.I thought the Republican candidates did a great job, very powerful field. I for one feel much better after the debate then before, because if that is the best shot chrismat and orbman got, well then. Seems none of the moderators or Democrats have figured out that Bush isn't running, that is also a good thing I believe.
gc...I couldn't agree more.
May 5, 2007 - 22:27 ET by bigtimergc...
I couldn't agree more.
The Debate
May 6, 2007 - 00:01 ET by pbthinkerThis issue should be brought up to every Democrat during a debate. I firmly believe their aim is to deligitimize Fox News because they just can't handle any criticism. They're certainly not used to it, reading the NY Times and listening to CBS News, with Katie Couric, so the media should toughen them up a little.
Edwards started the ball rolling since, being low man on the totem poll he must have felt he'd surely lose points if he was asked a tough question. As for the others, you just have to believe it's a concerted effort, by the Democrats, to avoid anything that could screw up the '08 election. Needless to say the MSM will do their part so all they have to do is avoid Fox and they think they have it made.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Do the Dems really not know w
May 6, 2007 - 03:41 ET byDo the Dems really not know who owns Fox???
No way should the Republicans
May 6, 2007 - 05:08 ET by Jack BauerNo way should the Republicans act like the Democrat childish buffoons.
But they could act in concert during a debate to make the moderator slash democrat shill look stupid.
All the Republican presidential candidate need do, is agree prior to the "debate" that should any candidate who receives an inane pathetic question along the lines of
They should ALL stop the debate at that point and inform the moderators that none of them will even attempt to answer an irrelevant question.
If they all stand together and bounce it back to the likes of a Matthews, they win. And the partisan hacks lose, live, on air.
The reason I am a Republican/
May 6, 2007 - 05:55 ET by old croThe reason I am a Republican/conservative is that our candidates do not play "gotcha" politically, have tantrums, take their ball and leave, and exhibit general bias towards democrat candidates. We generally are the party of the "high road". Supporters on this site, me included, often vent their frustrations of these facts but that is OK. We expect more of our leaders and will not be pandered to. True consevatives see through the bias and compensate accordingly, while the rest of the world believes all that the MSM spews. This may not be the formula for winning elections, but I am OK with it and that is all that matters to me!
"Time is God's way to keep everything from happening at once."
James Brown
So What Is Newsbusters Doing?
May 6, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasObviously I am merely a reader and poster...my question is what is Newsbusters doing about this? Are they using their resources and connections to encourage the boycott? Have signifcant personalities with whom you have connections been contact and encouraged to contact the candidates to consider such a boycott?
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Guy
May 6, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Noel SheppardGuy,
First off, this piece represents my views and not those of the MRC or NewsBusters. Furthermore, I presented this idea as a question, not a suggestion. I agree with many here who don't want to see Republicans behave as poorly as Democrats.
On the other hand, there's no solace in having taken the "high road" while losing the White House and watching our nation move further and further towards socialism.
The left and their media minions are playing for keeps, and couldn't care less about propriety. I don't necessarily agree with an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality. However, since we don't get good press when we behave like gentlemen, is there any benefit in doing so?
As for what NB or MRC is doing, I'm sure you've noticed at both websites that unlike many on the left, this organization doesn't provide names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses to encourage boycotts. Frankly, I like this distinction...don't you? ns
Well...
May 6, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasYou can't be all things to all people so the focus of NB and MRC obviously isn't going to extend to some social or political action on all articles by all contributors so I certainly respect the position and distinction you mentioned.
As far as the boycotts, the GOP needs to do it and make it clear. It is for keeps as you said and having good manners while your wife gets molested isn't being a gentelman at all!
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
We didn’t see the “debate
May 7, 2007 - 01:22 ET by maggieqpublicWe didn’t see the “debate” here (Warriors Game 6), but I think the candidates should respond to the challenge. Re the Clinton question…as reported here, Mitt Romney said something to the effect, “You’ve got to be kidding.” Leave it at that and let Mr. Matthews fill the dead air which he so enjoys doing. (And I very much admired Matthew’s television programming about 10-15 years ago…. think the dramatic change has come from him rather than me?)
I wish there were no moderato
May 7, 2007 - 07:13 ET by BeanManI wish there were no moderator.
Why not let the candidates ask each other questions?
They can have one minute for question and two minutes for answer.
Let them go at each other, not a stupid and vapid partisan moderator who tries to insert himself into the national debate.
That sounds like a good idea.
May 7, 2007 - 07:19 ET by sarcasmoThat sounds like a good idea. I still want a poker-game. Hold'em, no-limit, force the Russert to deal a hand for every question he asks & otherwise STFU and let the candidates talk to eachother about whatever they want. They will win hands and lose them, and reactions to both will be revealing. Watching something like this would tell us a lot about each one. Involving the Democrats would make it even-better.
JMR