Thats right, the worlds worst hostage taker, RNC chairman Reince Preibus has returned.
When we last left Mr. Preibus, he had just taken his own party hostage and was threatening to shoot unless two news networks somehow convinced two entertainment networks to stop production on two projects that may or may not be finished before 2016 and may or may not be about a 2016 presidential candidate.
Now shockingly, it turns out, to use the video I inserted into the last blog, some of those people in the crowd really are stupid enough to put their own guns down after the RNC threatened to blow its own head off. Chuck Todd and Andera Mitchell of NBC, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, and Liberal watchdog group Media Matters backed Preibus and suggested NBC should not make their series because it might be seen as biased.
So actually things were going pretty well for Priebus, and I owe him an applogy, the media really is as dumb as he thinks,.....and then this happened:
In an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Co-Host Mika Brzezinski tired to point out the oddity of Preibus' claim, given that Preibus himself was a guest on the shiow. She said:
But Reince, my point is that you expected an honest and fair conversation here, even though we’re a part of NBC. I mean you understand there’s a difference.
To which he replied: Listen, but I’m not going to have you moderate the Republican debates in our primary. I mean there’s a difference.
Nicole Wallace [another guest on the show]: Why not?
Preibus: Because you’re not interested, because you’re not actually interested in the future of the Republican Party and our nominees. That’s not a slam on your Mika, but I have to choose moderators that are actually interested in the Republican Party and our nominees. I mean it’s not going to be NBC if they continue to go forward with this miniseries.
Everyone caught that right? Apparently Reince Preibus only wants people who actually like Republican's asking them questions. Its got nothing to do with the Hilary Projects, Preibus just wants reassurance that he is the popular kid in the class and that everyone likes him.
It might be worth nothing too by the way, that since the Morning Joe interview all of Reince's left wing support seems to have vanished.
Now why does Preibus want only Republican friendly moderators? well for that we can turn to one of the right wing supporter of Reince Preibus' Senator Rand Paul, who when asked if he supported Preibus said he did and gave the following example:
"You can look back to the last primary season and wonder whether there was collusion between some reporters, You know, Stephanopoulos asks an obscure question about Griswold and birth control when no Republicans were bringing up anything about trying to have any limits on birth control. The thing is, it was a weird thing to bring up in a debate, and nobody understood why, “But then for two years, the President’s campaign then ran ads saying that the Republicans were against people allowing birth control. So you wonder if there was a concerted action between a former Democrat operative and basically the President’s campaign.”
So yea see, thats the problem, politically biased moderators keep bringing up points that are just designed to make Republican's look bad.
Except not really. Ok Look I admit I'm not shocked Rand Paul doesnt understand why the question was asked, mostly because there is shockingly little Rand Paul does understand, including his own political positions (including how drones actually work, how state welfare works and the roll and number of military bases in giving out welfare, and most recently if the man he would want to run the fed is still actually breathing)
So I'm gonna help Paul out, and not only explain to him why the question was asked.
First, in the Paul example, the Griswold he was talking about is an old Supreme Court case from 1965 having to do with Birth Control, that basically ruled a state trying to ban contraception was unconstitutional.
Wanting that decision overturned was a central point of then possible front runner, Rick Santourm's campaign. In fact it was the very issue he was campaigning on that same day of the debate.
So basically the question was asked because the moderator wanted to know if the other candidates agreed or disagreed with one of the major positions pushed by the party front runner.
that is pretty much EXACTLY the point of primary debates, to figure out which candidate has the position closest to your (the voter) own.
But again this wouldnt have been note worthy at all, nor lead to a 2 year campaign ad attack, if the guy who eventually won the nomination fucked up the answer.
Mitt Romeny's answer was as follows:
"States have the right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so -- you are asking could it constitutionally be done? We could we could ask our constitutionalist here, [motions to Ron Paul]”
In other-words "wait you mean we have actually ever debated this issue as a country?.....I'm paying so little attention I missed the fact the very answer to that question was in the question you just asked me....can I phone a friend? if so ask Ron Paul"
His follow ups when the moderator pressed the issue didnt go any better
“George, I don’t know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do is kind of a silly thing, I think.”
Well except that they do, as witnessed by the very case in question here that had to stop a state from doing just that....which of course you would know if you paid attention to anything.
In other-words the example Rand Paul himself provided shows the eventual GOP nominee not knowing a damn thing about one of the major issues of his competition. Now in a fully functional party, that would have ensure the idiot who knows nothing didnt get nominated, and after all the idiots had been dismissed people would choose between the remaining reasonable candidates and pick the one with the best chance of winning.
Thats exactly how primaries work, and thats how they are supposed to work.
The problem the GOP has is they nominated their idiot because they didnt have anyone else. And now the GOP solution, as stated by Reince Preibus on Morning Joe, is to ensure all the moderators of the few GOP debates wont actually ask any questions that will make the candidates look stupid.
Instead they will leave that to the General Election debate moderators....you know, the debates that happen well after the Republican Party will be stuck with whatever idiot who doesnt understand issues (like Rand Paul?) manages to slip through the primary without ever being asked a hard question.
Yep, after all, sticking your party with an idiot and hoping people felt obligated to vote for him worked out great for the GOP in 2012....just ask President Romney.
Oh and by the way, lest you think I am making too much out of one comment on Morning Joe, I should point out there is one other late breaking/recent piece to this story.
Quoting the New York Times:
"While NBC has come under heavy fire, especially from Republican critics, for agreeing to broadcast the series, the project may wind up being produced by another company: Fox Television Studios, the sister company of the conservative favorite, Fox News."
And the article goes on to add that according to FOX's own spokesman, the deal currently being worked out FOX would also be "the distributor of the film internationally"
In otherwords FOX is going to create the series and in all other countries but the US is going to decide where to air the series. (it should be noted this is in no way unusual for a television program).
Basically FOX is now guilty of exactly the same sins as CNN and NBC.
Which is kinda awkward, because that leaves the RNC without a single national network to air any primary debate on, pretty much ensuring no one actually sees any of the debates, so no matter who the GOP winds up with the person will be a total unknown trying to compete against a Democrat with lots of national exposure (from the Democratic debates).
Or at least it would, if the Hilary related series have ever actually been the problem here.
See here's what Priebus had to say when confronted by Candy Crowley on CNN with the fact that FOX is producing the NBC series:
"Our party has to quit availing itself to biased moderators and companies that put on television, in this particular case, documentaries and mini-series about a particular candidate that we all know is gearing up to run for president and that’s Hillary Clinton and so the big question for me, Candy is number one, which company is putting it on the air. Who is doing the work? I’m not interested if they’re using the same caterer or whether they all drink Diet Coke and I’m not boycotting Diane Lane. I am going to boycott the company that puts the mini-series and the documentaries on the air for the American people to view. I’m not interested in whether they use the same sound studio or whether they use the same set."
Now there's an irony in this answer, if he really cared about the Hilary show itself Reince Preibus just openly admitted he doesnt trust FOX. After all FOX is going to be making all the decisions about how to make portray Clinton, but he still assumes the series would paint her in an awesome light. Except again he really doesnt give a shit about the show, he just needs to cover up his real motive.
Luckily he knows most people dont care enough about who produces their shows just where they air (as an example, most people dont know or care that House M.D. was made and distributed by NBC, they still will always think of it as a FOX show).
So he's instead going to just blame the network that is airing the show, as it will help him advance his real agenda of hiding the fact his parties nominee will likely be an idiot by cutting down on their national exposure. And he actually believes that the one network that will help him do that is the one whos actually making the show he objects to. (By the way, in fairness to FOX, it should be noted that their moderators went no easier on anyone or asked easier questions than anyone else did in the 2012 debates so its not even clear why Preibus believes FOX will protect them)
Thats the other thing. By Preibus' new revised "spare FOX" ultimatum where only the company that is airing the show gets blamed he actually should lift his ultimatum against CNN, since they are producing (same as FOX) a film for theatrical release, not directly to their own airwaves.
But of course he's not doing that either, because only FOX gets an exception, and by only giving FOX the exception Priebus has made it clear, he doesnt actually have a hostage he's willing to release. He's going to do this no matter what, he's just looking for an excuse.
And since it looks like several members of the RNC agree with Priebus' threat(and the number is growing), his threat might actually come to pass in 3 days when the deadline is up as the RNC may well pass the resolution not allowing NBC or CNN to have any GOP debates.
At which point this will transition from the world's worst hostage taking to a suicide pact that will kill the GOP's chances in 2016.
And dont take my word for it, instead take the word of the "autopsy report" commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Preibus a few months ago. In that report it laid out the strategies the RNC and the GOp need to follow if they want to have any shot at winning in 2016. Chief among them:
"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself, We have lost the ability to be persuasive with — or welcoming to — those who do not agree with us on every issue."
And really, what embodies that strategy more than retreating from all television networks you think dont like you, only dealing with the on that does, and insisting that all the moderators be "interested in the Republican Party"?
I guess that explains why the RNC called it an "autopsy" even though the party isnt dead....yet. It was intended as foreshadowing.
No comments:
Post a Comment