RNC passes resolution to ban CNN, NBC from 2016 GOP Primary debates

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/breakingpol/status/368393215072038912

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317399-gop-votes-to-ban-nbc-cnn-from-debates

If CNN/NBC continue with plans for Hillary program, the RNC has approved/voted just now to ban them from debates.

Excellent. Treat CNN/NBC how the Dems treat Fox News.

Look forward to seeing where this goes. Country getting more and more divisive...

 

[netsecurity]

After the Candy Crawly incident, they should ban them anyways.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[nawainwright]

My question is: Why is the RNC meeting in Boston?

 

[spec4]

Good for them. Why set yourself up for abuse from these clowns? Diane Lane to Hillary is like a BMW to a Yugo.

 

[MisterChester]

That is incredibly dumb on the RNC's part. If I were them I'd want the debates to be on as many stations as possible to reach the biggest audience.

 

[pudly]

That is incredibly dumb on the RNC's part. If I were them I'd want the debates to be on as many stations as possible to reach the biggest audience.

They'll still be in all markets. CNN and NBC will just not be hosting it and are not needed. In this case, they don't have to put up with Democrat operatives shaping the Republican debates. Remember George Stephanopolous forcing the Republican primary candidates into an abortion debate when there were no abortion issues in the news? Remember CNN bringing in "pre-screened" Republicans voters to a Republican debate that turned out to be Democrat voters? Remember Candy Crowley taking sides in the presidential debate against Romney when he was correct? Remember Gwen Ifill moderating the 2008 VP debate when she was about ready to publish a book about Obama? Republicans voters deserve to have their interests and questions represented in the primary debates. They also should look for ways to provide more balance in the main election debates.

 

[jbombelli]

That is incredibly dumb on the RNC's part. If I were them I'd want the debates to be on as many stations as possible to reach the biggest audience.

Not dumb at all. They're trading off the morons who aren't smart enough to change a channel and in return not having CNN and NBC shape their debates with a bunch of loaded crap like last time. And let's be honest, anyone who would be watching the debate on NBC or CNN is probably not going to vote in the Republican primary anyway unless they were voting for the Democrats' favorite pick, in which case Media Matters, moveon.org, or DailyKos has already told them how to vote.

 

[level0]

Two channels I never watch anyway. Don't know what's on them, don't care.

 

[MisterChester]

Not dumb at all. They're trading off the morons who aren't smart enough to change a channel and in return not having CNN and NBC shape their debates with a bunch of loaded crap like last time. And let's be honest, anyone who would be watching the debate on NBC or CNN is probably not going to vote in the Republican primary anyway unless they were voting for the Democrats' favorite pick, in which case Media Matters, moveon.org, or DailyKos has already told them how to vote.

It further damages their image problem. If they only show on Faux, then people who won't watch the channel will think the debates only serve the people they think are stupid. It only hurts their chances at getting more voters.

 

[Jomibe]

RNC will cave when it's all said and done.

 

[jbombelli]

It further damages their image problem. If they only show on Faux, then people who won't watch the channel will think the debates only serve the people they think are stupid. It only hurts their chances at getting more voters.

It doesn't hurt their chances to get more votes at all because those who watch CNN and NBC etc. already think that anyway. Those viewers might come out to vote in the primary, but that would only be to vote for the Republican that has the worst chance to beat the Democrat in the general election.

 

[HenryWallace]

Sorry I couldn't hear this thread over the rings at the political circus.

I think that the RNC just did their first trick!

 

[The Commissioner]

That is incredibly dumb on the RNC's part. If I were them I'd want the debates to be on as many stations as possible to reach the biggest audience.

No, it is smart on the DNC's part.

Chances are Hillary will get an unobstructed path to the Democratic nomination so there won't be much news about her other than the novelty of being the first woman nominee. The real circus will be the Republican's road to the convention and it will draw a lot of attention. Taking the debates off the networks hostile to the RNC lets the RNC better manage the message AND allows the networks like Fox to grow their audience.

Despite what the NBC folks say about their news and entertainment divisions being completely separate, it's all the same to their audience. NBC News loses the perception of political neutrality they try to promote so that's a good thing. The RNC's decision, however bold, is a win-win all the way around.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I honestly didn't think the Republican establishment had the stones left to stand up to the Left-Stream Media.

 

[SmithGuy]

I think this overall is a negative for the Republican party. I think it will come across to most voters of all parties as a disingenuous and political attempt at censorship. We all enjoy our freedom of speech, so why can't the people producing these documentaries/movies enjoy theirs? Sure, the RNC and anyone else has the right to disagree with and protest it, but everyone also has the right to not watch it. I believe there is very little likelihood of these type of movies swaying significant numbers of undecided voters, so I think the RNC should pick their battles and resources more wisely.

Remember that movie titled "2016: Obama's America"? It was released before the election and it was deemed a box office hit, but it had virtually no effect at swaying undecided voters and Barack Obama was elected president again. Conservative voters loved it, liberal voters hated it, and undecided voters were left still undecided. The only winners were anyone making money off of it. Which is precisely why people are interested at making pre-election movies about Hillary Clinton. People are just capitalizing on an opportunity to make money.

Those that vehemently oppose these Hillary Clinton movies have the right to support and produce their own Hillary Clinton movies with an alternative message and viewpoint. Again, everyone has freedom of speech. I would rather live in a society in which people utilize their freedom of speech long before attempting to censor and silence views they do not agree with.

 

[CathyInBlue]

No one is telling NBC, "You can't make Hillary Clinton movies, and here's why…" They're saying, "Go ahead and make your Hillary Clinton movies, but if you do, your media hitmen can't host any RNC primary debates." See the diff? An if this, then that ultimatum is never tyranny when it's being promulgated by the weak against the strong.

 

[jbombelli]

I think this overall is a negative for the Republican party. I think it will come across to most voters of all parties as a disingenuous and political attempt at censorship. We all enjoy our freedom of speech, so why can't the people producing these documentaries/movies enjoy theirs? Sure, the RNC and anyone else has the right to disagree with and protest it, but everyone also has the right to not watch it. I believe there is very little likelihood of these type of movies swaying significant numbers of undecided voters, so I think the RNC should pick their battles and resources more wisely.

Remember that movie titled "2016: Obama's America"? It was released before the election and it was deemed a box office hit, but it had virtually no effect at swaying undecided voters and Barack Obama was elected president again. Conservative voters loved it, liberal voters hated it, and undecided voters were left still undecided. The only winners were anyone making money off of it. Which is precisely why people are interested at making pre-election movies about Hillary Clinton. People are just capitalizing on an opportunity to make money.

Those that vehemently oppose these Hillary Clinton movies have the right to support and produce their own Hillary Clinton movies with an alternative message and viewpoint. Again, everyone has freedom of speech. I would rather live in a society in which people utilize their freedom of speech long before attempting to censor and silence views they do not agree with.

There is no freedom of speech issue here.

 

[Dauvis]

Just think... this is happening because Republicans wanted to show an anti-Hillary documentary and took it all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[cobber]

My question is: Why is the RNC meeting in Boston?

My question is, where does GFGT get ALL that popcorn? You would think it grows on trees or something!!