Apparently, it is not enough that the Republican Party wants to control what every American does either in their bedroom or in their doctor’s office. Now they want to control what we can watch on the television.
AP is reporting that the RNC has voted to block CNN and NBC from hosting debates, and the reason is because CNN and NBC are each planning programming about Hillary Clinton, and they were basically saying, either don’t show these programs about Hillary Clinton, or we are going to take our ball and go home, BOO HOO.
Apparently, the vote was unanimous. So much for demonstrating their concern about Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that are not equal to 2.
The money quote was from Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin who said:
Instead of modifying their policies to actually present smart solutions for middle class families, the only thing the GOP can unite behind is a plan to continue to limit the audiences — and voters — to whom they will communicate.
I think Preibus or someone also suggested that Limbaugh and Hannity should be the moderators for these debates. They would hate risking their candidates being asked tough questions. Of course if they use the Sarah Palin standard, “What newspapers do you read?” is considered a tough question.
The elephant/octopus image or the GOP Crybaby.
I’d gotten tired of the other two.
Didn’t Husband Of The Year John Edwards lead the charge of the Fox Boycott, followed by Fannie Mae Chris Dodd and Obama himself. Tell me, did the Dems debate on Fox that election cycle???????
choose not to participate, and I don’t recall, nor can I find anything via Google that indicates that the candidates were demanding control over what Fake News would air on its channel. It is the difference between BLACKMAIL and showing discretion.
ABC News
BlackMail (By Definition): the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone’s actions
Dean was complaining about the number of conservatives on the Fox lineup. You see, Dean wanted affirmitive action, trying to force Fox to have liberal hosts. Fox told Dean and the DNC to screw, since ratings are what is most important.
If Democratic candidates think Meghan Kelley is too biased and unable to conduct a fair debate, that’s fine. Just don’t get angry when Republicans return the favor.
The RNC is free to avoid CNN and NBC news as much as it wants. The RNC is not the government and the First Amendment only constrains the government.
In fact, it would be nice to encourage them only to appear on Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Let them, encourage them, entreat them to talk only to the already convinced. Two advantages: (1) They won’t broaden their base. (2) If only talking to Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, and similar “personalities”, they are more likely to say outrageously stupid things out of which Democrats can manufacture superb TV commercials.
Agreed.
It is an issue about the absolute flagrant stupidity of the GOP as a regressive spiteful group of people and toxic political entity. Shame.
It’s not as if the final chapter on her life has been written and that clearly now is the time. It has the appearance of priming the pump to me. I don’t necessarily think the RNC should have blocked CNN and NBC from hosting debates, but the appropriateness of the Hillary biopics should trouble not only Republicans but any possible Democratic primary challengers Hillary might have. Do any Warren supporters here see nothing wrong at all?
I find the programming that the RNC objects to completely innocuous in comparison to the flood of flagrantly partisan garbage broadcast daily by Fox. In fact, I have trouble identifying any programming on Fox that is NOT overtly partisan.
This is just more faux outrage coming from right-wing losers who have nothing positive to offer and know it.
If you can legitimately identify something as being an unfair situation then it makes a great deal of sense not to walk into it. That goes for either team.
There’s nothing “unfair” about broadcasting the biopic.
The delicious irony of this just gets better and better. I thought the GOP was about “freedom”. Like every bully everywhere, we learn that “freedom” to the GOP bullies means “freedom to fund slander against Democrats”. But when even the mildest response is proposed, then it’s “media bias”.
There’s no “unfair situation” here. Instead, there is the perfectly appropriate broadcast of material presented a range of views. There is also a bully in the room with a VERY thin skin.
As I said, it’s not as if the final chapter has been written on her life. At the present time Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. The timing make the biopics de facto political advertisements. This can be seen as unfair to other Democratic primary candidates and the eventual GOP nominee.
Even taking the biopics independently from everything else, does her life even rise to the level of being biopic worthy? When was the last biopic done on a living former First Lady? Senator? Secretary of State? Maybe it’s the sum of parts that validates it, but I still don’t think her life rises to such a level that it compels multiple biopics at the present time. Maybe in 15 years it will make sense for Meryl Streep to play her in a feature film.
By the standards you suggest, no debate should ever appear on Fox News — ever.