You cant fix stupid. RNC edition.

Ok so for those who dont know, there is a comedian out there named Ron White. He's not quite as famous as his friends/fellow blue collar comedy tour members Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Foxworthy or even Bill Engvall. But like those guys he has his own catch phrase. You cant fix stupid.

And it appears the RNC just proved him right. See they just voted UNANIMOUSLY to pass Renice Preibus' hostage threat/suicide pact.  So there will be no republican debates on NBC or CNN.

Yep that's right, not a single member of the RNC actually thought it was a bad idea to cut themselves off of two of the 3 national news networks.

Oh and actually its slightly worse then that. See the boycott will also extend to all brands owned by either company, including Telemundo and CNN espanol.

Remember all that noise the GOP made about needing to reach out to latino voters because they got crushed by them in 2012? well....OOPS.

Now to be fair its not a complete cutoff, after all they could still broadcast a debate on Univision, which is independently owned, and one of the largest Spanish speaking networks in the country.

But really this is the same party that cant seem to pass immigration reform, even though they all agree they need it to pass to have a political future. This is the same party who's base appears to be solidly behind Steve "Dreamers are drug mules with cantaloupe sized calves" King, who also got almost all of them to vote to deport Dreamers.

How well do you think a debate on a Spanish language network will go over with those folks? IE with the base AKA primary voters?  Yea.....once again outreach FAIL.

Actually more of an outreach backtrack. See in 2012 the GOP did hold several debates that played on Spanish language television.

See anytime they held a debate on CNN, it was also aired on CNN espanol. Ditto with NBC and Telemundo. So basically they got to do debates that would be seen by a Latino audience without letting their base know they were doing it. Its not the most P.C. way to do it, but at least it was something.

Something they just lost.

So yea, pissing away free exposure to Latino's just passed the RNC unanimously.

But to be fair to the RNC they did catch one break. FOX it turns out is not actually going to produce the NBC series on Clinton, so that free's the RNC from a hypocrisy charge. Or it did.....

First up its worth noting that FOX is claiming the entire reason it pulled out is financial (and for what its worth I personally believe them) but the problem is, its being reported like this (from politico):

"But in the wake of the Republican National Committee's vote to bar NBC and CNN, which is producing a Hillary Clinton documentary film, from the GOP primary debates, FTVS has apparently pulled out."

In other words they gave in to what the RNC wanted. So instead of being the "one principled network" the way the RNC is trying to set them up to be, they instead look like the only network weak enough to bow to the demands of a political party.

Way to go credibility booster FAIL.

And thats a fail that will rebound on the RNC when they host debates on what appears to be their "pet network" making it look like the GOP doesnt want to speak to people who dont agree with them and are to chickenshit to face questions on a network that isnt afraid of them. (once again I should point out in fairness to FOX, many of the moments/questions that made republicans look horrible actually happened in FOX debates, IE the refusal of all candidates to take a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases, so they are actually no better or easier than CNN/NBC are to the GOP)

Oh and as I said, turns out the RNC didnt quite escape the hypocrisy problem either even with FOX passing on making the NBC Hilary series.

See in the resolution banning the debates the RNC had to give reasons NBC and CNN shouldnt be allowed to hold debates, and they gave several, including this one:

"WHEREAS, Robert Greenblatt, Chairman of NBC Entertainment,contributed the maximum amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign committee, contributed $25,000 to Obama’s 2012 Victory Fund, and this year contributed $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee;"

Now first, yes that is totally true, and yes once again the RNC as a whole dont seem to understand how media works and cant tell the difference between news and entertainment.  But in any case, lets accept their argument for the moment.

Ok you dont want your candidates to appear on any network where a guy who worked for a related network gave money to democrats. because thats an unfair democratic bias. Ok fine.

So you probably dont want to appear on a network who has a connection to a guy who maxed out his contributions to Hilary's 2012 presidential run.

Nor do you want to appear on a network who's company PAC has contributed money to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Chuck Schumer, and the newest member of the Senate, Democrat Ed Markey (John Kerry's replacement). On top of that, the PAC in question News America PAC, has also contributed more money to the Democrats than the Republicans, in 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012, and already 2014.

The problem for the RNC, the guy who set up that PAC, and who maxed out his contributions to the Clinton Campaign is this man:

Rupert Murdoch. Owner of FOX news.

Again OOPS.

Actually double OOPS on this one, since it was entirely an unforced error by the RNC, if they could have just resisted the cheap shot at a guy who has nothing to do with NBC news they wouldnt look like hypocrites.

So Hypocrisy FAIL.

And now and only now do we even make it to the practical problems the RNC just created.

Namely who exactly is going to moderate these debates, you just cut off 2/3rds of the national news reporters.

And even the ones on FOX catn be trusted. Bret Baier is the reason I keep saying even the FOX news guys made the GOP look bad. Shep Smith, half the time calls out even his own network for lying and bullshit and tends to be liberal. And Megyn Kelly, FOX's rising star is currently being blasted as an evil liberal following her promotion to prime time due to many of the liberal potions that she does actually hold.

So you if you want, as Preibus put it, moderators interested in the future of the Republican Party and their candidates, you cant use the news side of FOX either.

So there really isnt anyone left to moderate any debates.

But dont worry the RNC actually has an answer for that as well: Right Wing radio talk show hosts. They actually have been suggesting this for a few days now.

Specifically they have in mind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

2 of which at least are major poblems. See of the 3 only Sean Hannity actually has a contract with FOX or any television station for that matter.

Which means either of the other two would have to be paid by FOX to appear, making the debates a lot more expensive.

And even Hannity might be risky. Remember how I said Megyn Kelly was under fire following her promotion into primetime? yea well that timeslot she was promoted into is Hannity's slot. It kinda looks like she just took his job.

Nor is that Hannity's only issue. His radio network just announced they are dropping his show, AND they said the same thing about Rush's show too.

Meaning unless some network is willing to shell out an appearance fee for a debate being hosted by two guys who were recently fired, neither of them can even host a radio debate since they wont have a network.

And this assumes anyone wants a man who doesnt know how birth control works (Rush) or a man who cant remember Bush was elected before 9/11 (Hannity) vetting candidates as moderator in the first place.

Leaving Mark Levin as the one person who could actually host a debate on his own air. Which is a problem for two reasons. 1st, who the hell is Mark Levin? I mean seriously raise your hand if you've heard of this guy before......I'm not seeing any hands.

Second, he did also just recently say in reference to Chris Christie "I will do everything I can, in my little way, to make sure he is not the nominee,", meaning he wouldnt even attempt to appear non-biased.

So yes, once again my hat is off to the RNC, you managed to pick moderators who dont have networks to host debates. So yea even the networks you havnt boycotted are going to have to spend money to host debates for you. And the moderators you picked are crack pots, two of whom may have gotten the Glenn Beck (remember him?) treatment by primary season.

Anyone else think that might not work so well?

So yea. Moderator FAIL.

Oh and one last thing. Its about how exactly the RNC could enforce this ban.

See its not uncommon for non RNC or non DNC sponsored debates to happen, 2012 had 3 of them as an example. Because no matter what, neither party can actually stop an independent network from extending an offer for a debate, or a candidate from accepting, the parties dont have that level of control over the campaigns.

In fact the only thing the parties have any actual control over is their nominating conventions. Which themselves only allow one form of punishment.

Anytime a state holds the primary "early" that is before the party wants them too, you hear about that state having its delegates blocked/reduced. Basically for breaking the rules your states votes dont count as much.

Now the problem is, that is the same thing they would have to do to the candidates.

Blocking delegates from a state doesnt hurt any specific candidate, they all know in advance to just not put as much time and effort into that state.

But thats a very different thing when applied to the specific candidate.

Lets say in a bid to get enough national attention to win not just the primaries by large margins but to help get the exposure needed to win the national debate, Chris Christie and Rand Paul both agree to a debate on NBC (which is a national network) and one on CNN.

Well clearly if they are the only two republicans to do that, they will likely get the most votes in the primaries, partly due to being the only two candidates anyones heard of or seen debate.

Now what the RNC will be forced to do, is cut their delegates in half or more. lets say both men have 1000 delegates, the RNC will actually be forced to say "actually no, you two only have 500 delegates"

now not only will that result in no one actually clearly the 1,100 delegate threshold needed to win the nomination cleanly, it would likely result in the person who came the closest but didnt make the threshold win the nomination. Which could be I dont know, Congressman Ted Yoho of FL who might only have 550 delegates.

Which means the nominee for the republican party would be a person the majority of the party actually voted against.

Even though the person they all voted for DID have enough votes to win, their own party just told them their opinions dont matter and nominated an idiot they didnt like and didnt vote for

How well do you think that would work in the general election?

So yea. Democracy FAIL.

So to recap: EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE RNC just voted to set up a system where
1) They just made it harder to reach out to minority groups they admit they need to win any election.
2) Did so with reasons to make them look like hypocrites for no good reason AND slandered the one network they want to support.
3) results in a system where the moderators they want dont have television networks.....making it hard or impossible to have ANY debates without networks volunteering to pay extra cash.
4) If enforced requires them to tell the majority of their own party their votes dont actually matter worth shit, and results in a candidate the majority of their party doesnt want.

Yep, that totally sounds like a winning strategy, reach out to no one, functionally broadcast no debates, and refuse to listen to your own party....

Like I started with. "You cant fix stupid" and the RNC is living proof.