CNBC and Republican whining about debates is really too much

  Please. 
  Spare us all the wailing and moaning about that lousy CNBC debate.
  Everybody knew going in that Republicans never get a balanced chance at debates or anything else.
  Everybody knew that that idiot Reince Priebus caved last election when he set up the stupid debate schedule years ago.
  I specifically remember the controversy, particularly radio hosts, raging over the anointed hosts the LAST time around when the discussion went for THIS presidential election.
  And the CNBC angst over the public reaction to their clumsily clownish handling of the debate is really precious, particularly considering that the CNBC guy in charge of the debate is a former Clinton staffer.
  Idiot Priebus complained in 2013 that, "that our primary process is way too long. I think our calendar needs to be looked at. I think our debate calendar needs to be shrunk. I think we had way too many debates with our candidates slicing and dicing each other and I think they had to wait too long to get to the convention" and "I would have more say over the moderators, more say over the debate partners. I would limit the debate to a reasonable amount."
   Ed Morrissey wrote about the inequity and structural debate problems facing Republicans waaaay back in 2013:

Instead of beat-the-buzzer formats with as many as a dozen candidates on stage at once, the RNC chair should look into formats that have only two or three candidates discussing issues at a time, with a moderator chosen for either neutrality or statesmanship within the party rather than to promote a media outlet's own reporters. The candidates could rotate through the discussions over a series of events, and the RNC could invite broadcasters to air the debates themselves or have reporters attend them.

  I'm sure I could find articles predating 2013 by decades if I cared to waste the time, like this article by Byron York from 2013:

So who should conduct the debates in 2016? "That's a tricky question," says Fleischer. "Putting on a proper live debate is no simple matter, and usually the people who are good at it are the networks or the cables. So it's something we've got to work through and talk through, to figure out how the debates are going to be reflective of what a Republican primary voter thinks." In the end, the party might decide to assign a few debates to organizations that did not conduct them in 2012.

  They need to learn how to play the game, although not dirty like Democrats. One of their problems is that they want to be liked by the establishment. 
  There's never going to happen. 
  Another problem: establishment Republicans do not articulate the issues or make the case for their positions. Instead they simply Democrat Lite themselves into obscurity.
Suffice it to say that mainstream Republicans are getting what they deserve. 
  It's just pitiful to watch. I'd like to suggest they all--abusive newsmakers who call themselves journalists and fawning prancing Republicans--need to get their act together, but you know how that goes.