GOP warns CNN/NBC: drop Hillary documentary/miniseries or be shut out of GOP Debates.

[Bowfinger]

CNN and NBC should call the GOP's bluff. The debates in their current form are a farce anyway (on both sides). The candidates ignore the questions, droning on instead with whatever canned talking points they want to push. Half of their statements are blatant lies, left unchallenged because of the rigid rules imposed by the Republicrats.

Does anyone else watch HBO's The Newsroom? I loved their proposed debate format. Those would be debates worth watching, and might actually get America some decent candidates. Certainly the current crop of clowns would never survive such direct challenges to their fluff.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not sure what fox news has to do with anything. How were they involved in this story again? Oh wait, they weren't.

Not that I think fox is in any way fair and balanced anyway, it's a load of garbage much like the other channels, just on the other side of the coin, but that's besides the point.

Yes, we know that's how you (collectively) feel. The facts disagree with you, however. The mainstream media have consistently been shown to be relatively nonpartisan, with Fox and MSNBC being the notable exceptions.

 

[K1052]

One has to wonder if this is actually a strategy to get even fewer people to watch the republican debates so as to mitigate the freak shows that the 2012 ones ended up being.

Every one of those debates turned off independents and moderates in droves....driving them into the arms of the incumbent who just basically had to not look like a total crazy in order to win.

 

[justoh]

Yes, we know that's how you (collectively) feel. The facts disagree with you, however. The mainstream media have consistently been shown to be relatively nonpartisan, with Fox and MSNBC being the notable exceptions.

Fox's threat seems to support this point. Makes sense that they would feel threatened by, and be overly sensitive to, a non-objective documentary about clinton, since they specialize in mindless, biased rhetoric. But what they don't realize that it's not nearly as effective with Democrats as it is with Republicans.

 

[Bowfinger]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. I just heard on the morning news that Clinton herself opposes these two programs. I don't have time to grab a link, but she said something to the effect that even though she and the RNC can't agree that the sun rose this morning, they are in agreement in opposing these documentaries. (That should make a few heads explode.)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. I just heard on the morning news that Clinton herself opposes these two programs. I don't have time to grab a link, but she said something to the effect that even though she and the RNC can't agree that the sun rose this morning, they are in agreement in opposing these documentaries. (That should make a few heads explode.)

I wish Hillary had won the 2008 nomination. I feel that she would have offered much better leadership than Obama.

 

[berzerker60]

You'd have to be very dumb to actually give any credence to that drivel. If anything is said that can be used as ammunition during those debates, I'm sure it will be picked up and aired as part of commercials or news everywhere anyway.

The idea that they want to keep the debates "under wraps" is just laughably stupid, something concocted by the kind of moron that writes for dailykos or huffpo.

Or moderately well-informed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343260/gop-plans-primary-overhaul-robert-costa

Fleischer says RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who coordinated the report, hopes to limit the number of initial primary debates, and have those debates managed by or affiliated with the national party.
“There is a growing consensus that there were too many debates last year,” he explains. “It’s going to take time to figure out the specifics, but the party wants to limit the debates” and select the hosts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ghing-fewer-debates-in-post-loss-changes.html

Taking a less-hostile tone on abortion and gay rights and reducing the number of primary debates are among the steps the Republican Party could make to become more competitive in national elections, said Henry Barbour, a party leader.

http://townhall.com/columnists/byro...ed-in-2016-primary-debates-n1505547/page/full

The last campaign, many Republican insiders said during a recent RNC meeting, had too many debates, the result of which was a GOP arguing with itself while Democrats prepared the way for Barack Obama's victory. There's no doubt the Republican debates produced many damaging moments for the party. There was Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet offer, which helped cement his image as an out-of-touch rich guy. There were any number of gaffes from Rick Perry, culminating in Perry's painful-to-watch "Oops" moment. There was Michele Bachmann's HPV vaccine blunder. There were bare-knuckle fights over immigration. And there was warfare between Romney and Newt Gingrich, in which Gingrich prevailed in South Carolina only to be flattened by Romney in Florida. By the end, there was a lot of blood on the floor.

 

[PokerGuy]

I feel that she would have offered much better leadership than Obama.

That's not a very high bar, your average pet rock would have offered much better leadership......

 

[PokerGuy]

Or moderately well-informed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343260/gop-plans-primary-overhaul-robert-costa

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ghing-fewer-debates-in-post-loss-changes.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/byro...ed-in-2016-primary-debates-n1505547/page/full

Apparently reading and comprehending is not your strong suit. There's a difference between limiting the number of debates and wanting to keep the debates "under wraps". When there are too many debates the public gets tired of them, hence the drive to limit the number. The notion that there's a debate but they want to keep it "under wraps" is patently stupid. Like I said, it's something only idiots who would write for dailykos and other drivel like that would believe.

 

[brycejones]

Notice how everyone ignored this elephant in the room...

The elephant is already in the room.

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently reading and comprehending is not your strong suit. There's a difference between limiting the number of debates and wanting to keep the debates "under wraps". When there are too many debates the public gets tired of them, hence the drive to limit the number. The notion that there's a debate but they want to keep it "under wraps" is patently stupid. Like I said, it's something only idiots who would write for dailykos and other drivel like that would believe.

Are you kidding? Nobody was getting tired of the GOP debates last time, I wish they had gone on forever. Literally every single one was those candidates trying to one-up each other by saying the stupidest or most insane things possible in a vain attempt to please the crazies that make up their primary electorate.

It was awesome. I vote for GOP debates year round, every year.

 

[thraashman]

That's not a very high bar, your average pet rock would have offered much better leadership......

Yet his leadership is still better than any Republican President since before Richard Nixon.

 

[Atreus21]

Lol, I guess you've never watched a heated bill oreilly interview. I guess you haven't been on this forum enough to see the endless parade of straw man arguments the righties use.

Please. Visit an abortion thread for example after textbook example of the left's use of straw men. "You just want to force women not to have sex. You just want to control women's bodies. Anti-abortion is anti-woman."

The entire "war on women" nonsense that the left took every opportunity to propagate was a straw man from the start.

Or race. I forget the thread that suggested conservatives like Stand Your Ground laws because it enables them to kill more black people.

 

[Exterous]

When opponents of Fox News say that it shouldn't be taken seriously as a news outlet in part because of the constant, brazen partisan propagandizing of people like Sean Hannity -- hours and hours of it every week -- the response is usually along the lines that "the news shows and opinion shows are separate".

But if NBC runs one thingie on Hillary Clinton, they're damned to hell for all eternity.

Makes perfect sense.

Some of the statements about Fox doing it are awfully close to lowering the standards of NBC and CNN to the same level of Fox news which strikes me as a bit odd. It is entirely possible to be skeptical about this idea without being a Fox News watcher - but far be it for us to get between the D vs R circle jerk.

The GOP here is trying to kill it before anyone sees it. Maybe they should take the stance that they'll pull the debates if they find the documentary to be too pro-Hilary biased rather than making a presumption about its content before it airs.

I could see that backfiring though. Now they can do it on the grounds of political fairness 'It shouldn't be shown regardless of how it portrays her'. If they wait until it is seen as pro-Hilary then they will be seen to just not want it because it's pro Hilary.

Personally I don't have enough trust in either side or the American public to be able to separate the fictionalized NBC miniseries with the CNN documentary so the whole thing makes me leery. Maybe they could do some advanced screenings for certain groups of people before deciding on a general release and passing judgement?

 

[HomerJS]

Fleischer says RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who coordinated the report, hopes to limit the number of initial primary debates, and have those debates managed by or affiliated with the national party.
“There is a growing consensus that there were too many debates last year,” he explains. “It’s going to take time to figure out the specifics, but the party wants to limit the debates” and select the hosts.

Means they want to limit saying out loud what they really think

 

[PokerGuy]

Yet his leadership is still better than any Republican President since before Richard Nixon.

Again, not a very high bar. I'd say Raygun for all his failures did offer leadership, but hey, to each his own. Either way, saying someone has more leadership qualities than obummer is not saying much.

 

[PokerGuy]

Means they want to limit saying out loud what they really think

Another failure in the "reading and comprehension" class

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Again, not a very high bar. I'd say Raygun for all his failures did offer leadership, but hey, to each his own. Either way, saying someone has more leadership qualities than obummer is not saying much.

I thought Reagan and Clinton were excellent leaders. Bush 2 was really bad...and the sad part is that Obama can't hold a candle to him.

 

[palehorse]

They sure are scared of Hillary.

Everyone should be scared of Hillary.

 

[Patranus]

Not possible, and not feasible. Outside of that, CNN was one of the networks that refused to have press conferences at the White House when they decided to refuse Fox News entrance. What the GOP does at their convention is one thing, to try to interfere with CNN being at the debates is a different story. I would agree that the GOP should refuse to participate in a debate with a CNN moderator however.

Its not like people watch CNN (or MSNBC) to being with.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Apparently reading and comprehending is not your strong suit. There's a difference between limiting the number of debates and wanting to keep the debates "under wraps". When there are too many debates the public gets tired of them, hence the drive to limit the number. The notion that there's a debate but they want to keep it "under wraps" is patently stupid. Like I said, it's something only idiots who would write for dailykos and other drivel like that would believe.

Romney started out strong after the first debate but generally got weaker and weaker as he did more of them. Obama got stronger as the debates wore on. Same thing happened with McCain/Palin. The more that dumb bitch from Alaska talked the more they dropped in the poles.

Not surprising the GOP wants fewer debates. It keeps the public from really getting to know their candidates.

 

[gloom111]

Fox's threat seems to support this point.

Who did Fox threaten and when?

This is an irrelevant argument anyway. It's there club, they can invite who they want as their guests to their party. Flip it around an ask yourself if you want the GOP dictating the policy for the Democrats? Yeah, that's what I thought. Get over yourselves and get your noses out of business that has nothing to do with you. If you aren't a member of the party, you don't get a say. Just like if you aren't a member of any other private group in which you have to establish a membership. If MSNBC or CNN made a movie glorifying your enemy, then showed up at the door and asked for an interview, would you really let them in? Knowing exactly how they viewed your enemy and by comparison you? Please don't answer the question, I'd rather like to imagine you're smarter than that. Again, no more stupid remarks about what light they intend to paint Hillary in either. You're making yourself look extremely naive to even questions it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not surprising the GOP wants fewer debates. It keeps the public from really getting to know their candidates.

You seem to be confused. They're not talking about the debates with the dems, they're talking about GOP primaries.

 

[ivwshane]

Please. Visit an abortion thread for example after textbook example of the left's use of straw men. "You just want to force women not to have sex. You just want to control women's bodies. Anti-abortion is anti-woman."

The entire "war on women" nonsense that the left took every opportunity to propagate was a straw man from the start.

Or race. I forget the thread that suggested conservatives like Stand Your Ground laws because it enables them to kill more black people.

Yes those are good examples of what I was talking about. Thanks for helping me to prove my point

 

[OverVolt]

MSNBC and CNN are just as biased as FOX. It just depends what how your bias leans if you can see it or not. There are people who watch FOX and don't notice the bias.

There are people who watch CNN/MSNBC and don't notice the bias. Probably most of the people on this board actually. I'm not a fan of either but I'm sure I have some kind of bias.

OP is like hurrrrrr durrrrrr making fun of other peoples biases while he is neck deep in his own.