×

In August 2013, the RNC said it was considering having its 2016 presidential primary debates moderated not by some blow-dried, vacuous, allegedly-objective-but-actually-liberal TV news personalities, but by its own blow-dried, vacuous, openly conservative personalities. At the time, many liberals ridiculed the idea as yet another example of the closed right-wing information bubble. Well, now they've followed through:

The Republican National Committee on Tuesday announced that CNN is partnering with Salem Media Group to host three GOP 2016 presidential primary debates sanctioned by the RNC. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt will moderate the first debate, which is scheduled to air Sept. 16 on CNN, according to a release. "I am delighted to be included with journalists posing questions as part of one of America's finest political traditions-the presidential debate," Hewitt said in a statement. "These debates come at a critical time, and good questions will allow Republican primary voters the opportunity to see and hear their would-be nominees provide answers to issues that genuinely concern them. Any reporter who is also a political junkie welcomes the chance to be on such a panel, which of course I do." CNN anchor Jake Tapper, who previously served as as White House correspondent for ABC News, will co-moderate, according to a source familiar with the partnership.

I actually think it's a much better idea to have conservatives moderate Republican primary debates than the kind of journalists who have been doing them up until now, for two reasons. First, they couldn't do any worse. With only a few exceptions, when your Blitzers and Coopers and Kings moderate primary debates, the result is usually a parade of inane questions that are meant to elicit something revealing or compelling but actually produce nothing of the sort. What's your favorite Bible verse? Do you prefer the Yankees or the Red Sox? What costume are you going to wear for Halloween? Those are all questions candidates actually got asked in debates in 2008. And in 2012, we got this scintillating discussion of vital issues facing America:

I love how seriously Newt takes the "Dancing With the Stars, or America Idol?" question, like he's thinking, "I have to show strength and resolve here..."

The second reason I think it would be good to have conservatives moderate debates among Republicans (and liberals do the same for Democrats) is that they're more likely to explore the things that actually differentiate the candidates. They'll be more familiar with conservative ideology, where the important rifts are, and what's animating primary voters. Sure, it's possible they might just throw softballs ("Barack Obama: terrible president, or the terriblest president?"), but I doubt it. A committed conservative will have an interest in pushing the GOP candidates to clarify things for voters and get rid of the chaff.

So the Republicans should do more of this, and so should Democrats.