• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RNC Votes to Block CNN, NBC from Hosting Debates.....

Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

A preemptive strike against a network for planning to run a documentary two years before the election takes place projects a certain level of insecurity and weakness. A poor PR decision in my opinion.

It's politics. They're scared to death of Hillary. And justifiably so. Plus, given the field they had up there last time, the MSM had a field day with them. Even Fox laid waste to a number of them.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Based on Candy Crowley's performance in 2012, I'm OK with this.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Because they are hilarious. An example is Rick Perry. Re-watching some of his debates is like re-watching the Jet's ass fumble. You know you shouldn't because it is so bad, but at the time it is so funny.

True enough! :doh

I would rather watch stand-up comedy on CC.

Or paint dry. ;)
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

A preemptive strike against a network for planning to run a documentary two years before the election takes place projects a certain level of insecurity and weakness. A poor PR decision in my opinion.

isn't faux also planning on presenting a documentary on hillary?
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

‘‘Our party should not be involved in setting up a system that encourages the slicing and dicing of candidates over a long period of time with moderators that are not in the business of being at all concerned about the future of our party,’’ Priebus told reporters.
Not the same thing. What he was talking about is something they complained about during and since the last primary season. That there were way too many debates and that weakened their final nominee because of all the political infighting which takes place during the primary season. They ate their own.



I can't stand her and I won't be voting for her.
Not me. Depending on the Republican nominee this time around, if she's the Democratic nominee, and the Repubs put up a dumba&&, I may very well vote for her.



Eh? You mean the equal time law? Wasn't that repealed in the 80's? Wasn't it also one of the things the GOP bitched about the most while it was in effect?

You may be correct. But i don't think so. And both parties hated it tremendously (as did the MSM), which meant it was a good, no scratch that, a great thing in my book.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

True enough! :doh

I would rather watch stand-up comedy on CC.

Or paint dry. ;)

I was watching the VP debates before I had to go meet my friend's parents who were visiting from England. When my friend's mother found out I was watching the debates she asked me why I was gay. Awkward.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The RNC needs CNN and NBC waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than CNN and NBC need the RNC. Very dumb move.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

True enough! :doh

I would rather watch stand-up comedy on CC.

Or paint dry. ;)

I know.

Let's have the debates sponsored by John Stewart and Steven Colbert, and televised over Comedy Central.

That way, there won't be any softball questions, and maybe people will actually watch the debates. Stewart's expressions when the candidates sidestep the questions would be hilarious in themselves.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

I know.

Let's have the debates sponsored by John Stewart and Steven Colbert, and televised over Comedy Central.

That way, there won't be any softball questions, and maybe people will actually watch the debates. Stewart's expressions when the candidates sidestep the questions would be hilarious in themselves
.
if only
there would be NO debate winners
only one who had lost the most
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
I guess to me, I see more danger in large coalitions supporting one candidate versus another large coalition supporting the second candidate threatening to break free or stay home if the other were to be nominated. I don't think anything will come close to say, 1912, 1964, and 1968 for either party, but I saw more potential in '08.

Heya Fiddy :2wave: .....well that would come down to the money anyways. Yet the GOP is correct on how the candidates tore each other down last time. With then afterwards the press with the MSMedia and their 3 day news-cycle.
 
I agree. That seems to be the truth.

I wonder why they were so nasty.


What I don't remember seeing in the Democrat primary is every candidate working together to bring down the perceived front runner. 11-12 was essentially every Republican ganging up on whoever they thought was winning to drag them back down. When Newt took the perceived lead, they all ganged up on him. When Perry did, they all brought him down. 07-08 turned into a two strong willed slug fest, but that's very different then a concerted temporary set of alliances that ultimately lead to constant backstabbing.
 
I like that idea.


I know.

Let's have the debates sponsored by John Stewart and Steven Colbert, and televised over Comedy Central.

That way, there won't be any softball questions, and maybe people will actually watch the debates. Stewart's expressions when the candidates sidestep the questions would be hilarious in themselves.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Not the same thing. What he was talking about is something they complained about during and since the last primary season. That there were way too many debates and that weakened their final nominee because of all the political infighting which takes place during the primary season. They ate their own.

There was a saying in the Army I served with... "Pressure makes diamonds!" to which I would add 'or a little squirt of oil if the lump of coal has a flaw in it.'

The real problem I see with the GOP nomination process is they let in damn near every yahoo who had so many flaws there was ZERO chance of a diamond forming. The addition of the TPs to the process didn't bring the sterilizing 'flame of truth' but rather the wrecking ball of hyperpartisanship. ALL candidates had to stake out positions so far the the right that as the Willard adviser so correctly stated, after securing the nomination we will have an Etch-a-Sketch moment.

The problem with the larger than life nominees was they all had larger than life millstones. Meteoric rise and just as fast a fall- don't blame MSM for that, these guys had HUGE skeletons in their individual closets, you can't nor should be able to hide this from the citizens.

As things now stand any candidate that appeals to moderates would be the bane of the TP movement. Any true TP candidate would need a complete failure of a dem candidate to have even a ghost of a chance- and Hillary ain't it.

Prebuis can dance this around all he wants- it isn't too many debates, or too much time for the MSM to look into the candidates pasts... no Sir, it is the platform the candidates must espouse in order to secure the nomination turning many moderates away from the GOP.

It would be folly to try and shield the eventual candidate from hard scrutiny until the general, the MSM is going to get it's prying in and if some skeletons like all the sexual harassment charges against Herman Ciane came out then the GOP would have lost by a huge landslide.

If the RNC wants to manipulate the process better they screen candidates HARD before let them anywhere near the stage. Return the party platform to a more moderate course. Drop social issues like abortion and where a woman should stay... yes I know Tigger will never vote for a GOP candidate but I believe he never has anyways... :peace
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

There was a saying in the Army I served with... "Pressure makes diamonds!" to which I would add 'or a little squirt of oil if the lump of coal has a flaw in it.'

The real problem I see with the GOP nomination process is they let in damn near every yahoo who had so many flaws there was ZERO chance of a diamond forming. The addition of the TPs to the process didn't bring the sterilizing 'flame of truth' but rather the wrecking ball of hyperpartisanship. ALL candidates had to stake out positions so far the the right that as the Willard adviser so correctly stated, after securing the nomination we will have an Etch-a-Sketch moment.

The problem with the larger than life nominees was they all had larger than life millstones. Meteoric rise and just as fast a fall- don't blame MSM for that, these guys had HUGE skeletons in their individual closets, you can't nor should be able to hide this from the citizens.

As things now stand any candidate that appeals to moderates would be the bane of the TP movement. Any true TP candidate would need a complete failure of a dem candidate to have even a ghost of a chance- and Hillary ain't it.

Prebuis can dance this around all he wants- it isn't too many debates, or too much time for the MSM to look into the candidates pasts... no Sir, it is the platform the candidates must espouse in order to secure the nomination turning many moderates away from the GOP.

It would be folly to try and shield the eventual candidate from hard scrutiny until the general, the MSM is going to get it's prying in and if some skeletons like all the sexual harassment charges against Herman Ciane came out then the GOP would have lost by a huge landslide.

If the RNC wants to manipulate the process better they screen candidates HARD before let them anywhere near the stage. Return the party platform to a more moderate course. Drop social issues like abortion and where a woman should stay... yes I know Tigger will never vote for a GOP candidate but I believe he never has anyways... :peace

For the record, I'm not blaming the MSM or anyone other than the party. They know that the press has been liberal for decades, but that didn't stop other Republican's from winning the general election. And if the party hadn't moved so far to the right they may not have looked like a bunch of totally out of touch regressive TV evangelists asking you to send your money to Jesus but telling you to make the check out in their name. I was truly embarrassed. Oh for the chance to have another Barry Goldwater.

Other than the clarification on my position above, I agree with everything you said. And well said by the way.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The real problem I see with the GOP nomination process is they let in damn near every yahoo who had so many flaws there was ZERO chance of a diamond forming. The addition of the TPs to the process didn't bring the sterilizing 'flame of truth' but rather the wrecking ball of hyperpartisanship. ALL candidates had to stake out positions so far the the right that as the Willard adviser so correctly stated, after securing the nomination we will have an Etch-a-Sketch moment.


Well, they can't stop anyone from running for president; however, they CAN control who is in the debates. Sadly, the one guy I wish had been in there - Buddy Roemer - got frozen out. It's not that I thought he had a chance of winning, but I wanted his message of campaign finance reform to be part of the picture.

But with such a weak field, guess they didn't have any good way of kicking out some of the participants; so if they had a nationally known name, they got in to the debates.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Well, they can't stop anyone from running for president; however, they CAN control who is in the debates. Sadly, the one guy I wish had been in there - Buddy Roemer - got frozen out. It's not that I thought he had a chance of winning, but I wanted his message of campaign finance reform to be part of the picture.

But with such a weak field, guess they didn't have any good way of kicking out some of the participants; so if they had a nationally known name, they got in to the debates.

I believe in theory they can't stop someone, anyone from running- but the actual effect of not allowing them on the RNC debate stage is to stop any realistic shot at the GOP nomination. Perhaps a solid vetting process BEFORE any public debate would push a few scandal mavens to the rear and allow the Buddy's of the party more of a chance.

But to be very realistic I doubt either party wants any meaningful campaign finance reform. The media damn sure doesn't.
 
The Republican's can't win by dividing their base.

Christie needs to be convinced to run. He is a "rock star" candidate the kind of which can win elecctions. The only thing is he belongs on the Democratic ticket not the Republican one. Putting him up as a "republican" is the same kind of lie as calling Ron Paul a "republican" they are both extremes in the opposite way from the core Republican principles. The Republicans will lose so long as they elect a RINO and think the right side base will be all happy and excited about a VP nominee. (ala 2008 / 2012). The Republican's won't elect the likes of Ron Paul so I'm not worried about it - his son is far more mainstream Republican then Ron ever was.

As for the "lame stream media" Lee Atwater taught us an important lesson. The media is against us and the more you remind people about it the better. I'm glad the RNC has the marbles to tell CNN/NBC where to take their bias and stick it.


Republicans need to swing public opinion again after 8 years of a Democratic-lead country. You don't do that by having a policy of pandering to the same people again and again. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way. They had to engage with the massive number of people watching Fox News or on talk radio. It had to be done. There is no need to cut yourself off so soon.

You don't go repeating crap about the "lame stream media" and expect to impress anyone that isn't already interested.
 
a) Why would they want their debates on CNN and NBC anyway - no one is watching those networks.

b) The RNC is free to do what it wants. Rarely do they do a lot that make sense, finally they nailed one.


The Republican's can't win by dividing their base.

Christie needs to be convinced to run. He is a "rock star" candidate the kind of which can win elecctions. The only thing is he belongs on the Democratic ticket not the Republican one. Putting him up as a "republican" is the same kind of lie as calling Ron Paul a "republican" they are both extremes in the opposite way from the core Republican principles. The Republicans will lose so long as they elect a RINO and think the right side base will be all happy and excited about a VP nominee. (ala 2008 / 2012). The Republican's won't elect the likes of Ron Paul so I'm not worried about it - his son is far more mainstream Republican then Ron ever was.

As for the "lame stream media" Lee Atwater taught us an important lesson. The media is against us and the more you remind people about it the better. I'm glad the RNC has the marbles to tell CNN/NBC where to take their bias and stick it.

Its all moot anyway. The Republican chances of winning in 2016 are between slim and none. The exception to the that: Christie runs. Unfortunately, as of now, he would not make it through the primary process (though that could change.)

The Cons need to actually put up their presidential version of Christine McDonnell so they can get shallacked a the polls and perhaps then, they will listen to the general electorate and run candidates that have vision and can win.
 
Last edited:
Looks Like Priebus kept his word. The GOP has voted to block CNN and NBC out from any Republican Primaries. Only way they get in. Is to not run the Clinton Specials.

2013-08-12T224547Z_929823006_GM1E98D0IPY01_RTRMADP_3_USA.JPG


The Republican National Committee has approved a resolution to block two television networks from hosting GOP presidential primary debates.

Friday's vote affirms RNC chairman Reince Priebus's (ryns PREE'-bus) threat against CNN and NBC unless the networks drop plans to air programs about possible Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton. The vote at the committee's summer meeting in Boston was unanimous.....snip~

RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Any excuse to not actually stand up in front of people and sell what you're talking about.
 
Any excuse to not actually stand up in front of people and sell what you're talking about.

Well, I see it as their point in that they still will be selling. Just with ABC, CBS, and FOX. Looks like they will have to do it the Ole fashion way, and earn it. Which means stumping around the country.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

I believe in theory they can't stop someone, anyone from running- but the actual effect of not allowing them on the RNC debate stage is to stop any realistic shot at the GOP nomination. Perhaps a solid vetting process BEFORE any public debate would push a few scandal mavens to the rear and allow the Buddy's of the party more of a chance.

But to be very realistic I doubt either party wants any meaningful campaign finance reform. The media damn sure doesn't.


I agree with all your points here....
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

For the record, I'm not blaming the MSM or anyone other than the party. They know that the press has been liberal for decades, but that didn't stop other Republican's from winning the general election. And if the party hadn't moved so far to the right they may not have looked like a bunch of totally out of touch regressive TV evangelists asking you to send your money to Jesus but telling you to make the check out in their name. I was truly embarrassed. Oh for the chance to have another Barry Goldwater.

Other than the clarification on my position above, I agree with everything you said. And well said by the way.

Is Barry Goldwater somehow not on the far right because he was more of a classical liberal, or am I the only one finding it strange that Goldwater wouldn't be perceived as extreme?
 
I guess to me, I see more danger in large coalitions supporting one candidate versus another large coalition supporting the second candidate threatening to break free or stay home if the other were to be nominated. I don't think anything will come close to say, 1912, 1964, and 1968 for either party, but I saw more potential in '08.

But isn't this how it's always been in America? Every candidate in a primary has their own supporting groups and coalitions. Part of winning the primary has been getting more coalitions and groups. And the GOP has always had the problem of alienating the social conservatives. There aren't enough Romney Business types to win and there aren't enough social conservatives to win. So GOP candidates have to play to both groups or they risk having one saying home. The Democrats have this groups in environmentalists, unions, teachers groups, so on and so forth. I don't see how this is any different than it's been before.

Personally I saw, the 11-12 GOP Primary was a bunch of crabs in a bucket pulling down whoever got close to escaping. In the end, they all got fried. 07-08 on the Democrat primary was far less of this and more building themselves up rather than primarily tearing each other down. 11-12 GOP Primary was very little about why each candidate was better than the rest and more why the leader at the time was a bad choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom