By now, I’m assuming you’ve at least heard about the last Republican primary debate debacle if you didn’t get a chance to watch it.

Either way, in recent days, many headlines have centered around the campaigns of the Republican presidential candidates sitting down and listing their “demands” for upcoming debates. It sounds somewhat ridiculous at first glance.

But, if you did get a chance to catch the latest CNBC debate, I don’t care what side of the political aisle you’re on – you have to agree it was downright embarrassing. I mean, seriously, it was pretty telling the next day when their sister network (MSNBC) essentially made fun of the moderators for such a poor performance.

It makes sense, though. CNBC is a fledgling network with extremely poor ratings. Bringing the Republicans on stage and attempting to force them to turn on each other would have been a massive ratings boost that I’m sure would have paid their electric bill for a few months.

Instead, short of a few jabs among each other, a bulk of the major GOP candidates turned on the moderators and took almost complete control of the show. It was very well-received in several different voting demographics, especially when Sen. Ted Cruz blasted the moderators and informed them that they were the reason the voting public no longer trusts the media.

I think many would agree with that.

Who chose these second-rate moderators to host a Republican debate? Why aren’t primary debates moderated primarily by moderators who would likely vote for someone on the stage, instead of polar opposites who are only interested in throwing out “gotcha” questions in an attempt to make the candidates seem less desirable.

Did you catch the CNN Democratic debate? It went over well with Democrats because the questions were not the “gotcha” type. Some of them were ridiculous, but they weren’t evil-spirited.

Going back to Cruz – he suggested a GOP debate be hosted by the likes of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. That would be amazing – three guys who are sick and tired of establishment politics who would hammer the candidates, respectfully, on deeper policy issues instead of insulting them and trying to turn the debate stage into a wrestling match.

How about we let Democrats have their thing and Republicans have their thing? Independents — who’re obviously a critical block of voters with the power to swing elections one way or another — can watch them all and make much more informed decisions if candidates are allowed to elaborate on the policy issues that their demographic cares about.

You know, the part of their campaigns that actually matters and will likely affect the future direction of the United States of  America.

Enough with the fighting and insults — let’s get to the meat and potatoes and stop this desperate, pathetic attempt to jack up ratings for higher ad revenue.