Hillary Really Does Scare Them
On Monday, RNC Chair roused himself from their Prime Directive of finding more old white people to vote for his candidates to threaten CNN and NBC with “No Debates For You!” if they go forward with projects for a documentary and for a miniseries about Hillary Clinton’s life. Both are planned for release around the 2014 timeframe. But the RNC is so scared of Hillary that they will threaten to not participate in 2016 Presidential debates on these networks:
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, on Monday sent blistering letters to the network bosses, calling their decision to air Clinton projects just as the 2016 White House campaign is heating up “disturbing and disappointing.” And if the shows go forward, the GOP will cut CNN and NBC out of Republican debates during primary season leading up to the election.
“Out of a sense of fairness and decency and in the interest of the political process and your company’s reputation, I call on you to cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production,” Priebus wrote NBC Entertainment chairman Robert Greenblatt. (You can read the letters in their entirety here.)
This is especially choice in light of Citizens United v. Federal Communications Commission. Remember that? Citizens United had this movie called Hillary: The Movie that they created for airing in order to show how the then frontrunner would be a bad president. Citizens United took the FCC to court to defend their free speech rights — even though this was clearly electioneering on their part. Now that CNN and NBC want to create entertainment programming, the RNC is looking to restrict the free speech rights of these networks. And they are doing it by threatening to withhold the speech of their Presidential candidates to do that. Anyone remember the last round of GOP debates? Would anyone miss them?
The RNC also released separate letters (see below) penned by Priebus to Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, and NBC chair Robert Greenblatt, in which he accused the networks of giving “special treatment” to Clinton ahead of her possible presidential bid in 2016. The RNC chair noted that by focusing their programming on Clinton, CNN and NBC are being “unfair” to other potential Democratic candidates, such as Vice President Joe Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, and to the Republican candidates.
“Secretary Clinton has been in the public eye for well over two decades, so you certainly cannot claim that a documentary about her political career is any sort of public service or eye-opening journalism on an unknown individual,” Priebus wrote. “Quite the opposite is true: it would be most accurately described as an in-kind donation.”
Anyone remember when NEWS Corp gave $1M to the Republican Governor’s Association? Don’t even get me started on the 24/7 in-kind donation to the GOP that has earned Fox News the reputation as being the PR arm of the RNC.
In other words, we’re looking at more silly whining from the GOP. I have no idea what use either of these projects will be to Hillary Clinton, it is amazing to me that the people who are actively working at undermining the entire business of reporting and campaign speech and who have made the business of working the refs an artform (don’t get me started on how the refs are way to vulnerable to this, either) are whinging about this now. But then, if there is anything that the modern GOP is singularly good at — it is being a victim.
And how about this bit of business that was sent out by the Hillary Project — an anti-Clinton SuperPAC raising money to Stop Hillary. This isn’t new, but it is being heavily pushed to reporters and others on Twitter this week, asking folks “Have you slapped Hillary today?” Apparently one more plank in the GOP outreach to women, because encouraging violence to women is really appealing to your potential GOP voter.
Tags: Hillary Clinton
I find it hard to believe that a documentary about Hillary’s life would be a slam-dunk win for her campaign. She has a history that some people find abrasive and even divisive. There are probably a lot of people that have forgotten what they didn’t like about her and this will dredge up those memories.
Granted, some people will have the exact opposite reaction. I would guess that it would be a wash in the long-run.
But now that Reince has made an issue out of it, I’m sure it will at least draw more attention, if not viewers. Way to go Reince!
The RNCis good at working the media refs. Now the documentaries will have 85% Cli ton bashing, instead of the planned 65%.
Reince’s mission here is to have fewer debates and only have them on friendly networks (i.e. Fox, Fox News and the Fox Business Channel) so that Republicans no longer embarass themselves by saying what they think and are for. He admitted as much yesterday. Documentaries and movies about Hillary Clinton are just the excuse.
By now, Republicans should have learned how divisive and destructive their debates are. If they want them televised, put them all on the Fox News echo chamber. But they would probably be better off not to televise them at all.
Really, they could do the country a favor and punish the networks by disappearing from all of them (except Fox) for the duration. Leave the non-Fox airwaves to Hillary.
I myself will miss the clown show
Presidential debates are overwhelmingly moderated by liberals, and most frequently held at liberal venues.
FBH: First, we’re talking here about the Republican debates, not the presidential debates.
Second, liberal according to whom? You? How many of these “liberals” have you heard speak out against conservative causes, or even conservative lies? I’ll save you the research: That would be zero.
Yeah, I know. I’m just throwing it out there.
Gop did not threaten to not particpate in the debates if the hillary stuff moves forward, they stated they would not participate, not doing something is completely different than threatening to not do something. President Obama has not learned the difference in that yet.
So the question is, does hillary scare the conservatives more than ted cruz scares the liberals
And the next question is, what happens to the dems if for whatever reason hillary does not run, whom, that is a mystery
@RD “So the question is, does hillary scare the conservatives more than ted cruz scares the liberals”
Pray tell, why would anyone be afraid of a senator with such extraordinary negative ratings?
By all means… nominate him. Please.
@RD “And the next question is, what happens to the dems if for whatever reason hillary does not run, whom, that is a mystery”
“Whom”?
There’s an english teacher rolling in her grave somewhere. I think the question would be “who”.
@fhb “Presidential debates are overwhelmingly moderated by liberals, and most frequently held at liberal venues.”
That because conservative moderators already think they know all the answers.
Who want to see Lauren Green moderate a debate? Raise your hands…
The only “liberals” that should be worried about Ted Cruz are the ones living in his state who are at physical risk from the rednecks living there, and what Cruz might say to incite them.
You do bring up a good question….. probably by accident….. Does the DNC have a sho-in candidate of Hillary DOESN’T run? Will we NEED one? I dont expect it to be sunshine and rainbows on any front by that point…. but will the GOP keep doin their thing and hand the election to whatever Dem-Suit runs?
Is it time to draft Senator Warren?
Troubling hawkish tendencies. Has she changed?
I doubt it — she was one of the strongest voices supporting action in Libya when their rebels were going against Quaddafi.
On the other hand, I also doubt that we’re going to have any candidates for President who could really win who won’t be hawkish, unfortunately.
I’ve said it on conservative sites enough that I might as well go on the record on a liberal one: I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will be a candidate in 2016.
Oh, I am sure that she’d like to be President, and thinks that she should actually be President, right now, but Mrs Clinton will turn 69 just a couple of weeks before the 2016 election, and, quite frankly, time has not been kind to her. She not only looks every day of her current 65 years, but she really doesn’t look particularly healthy. My guess is that, come mid-2015, when she’ll have to take a final decision on running, she’s not going to be up to the challenge physically.
Shame that no one gave Ronald Reagan that advice. He was 69 when he won the Presidency and never looked (or sounded) like anything other than a doddering old white guy. I’d venture to guess that Hillary is tougher than RR ever was. And she doesn’t have Altzheimers.
President Reagan was a very strong, vigorous and healthy man at 69, and if his strength was ever in doubt, those doubts were cleared up when he was shot; he survived a very serious chest wound. Standing beside President Carter, he looked like the stronger, healthier candidate, even though Mr Carter was 13 years his junior.
Of course, the voters had their say, and after four years of a pathetic performance, they declined to rehire Mr Carter; after President Reagan’s first four years, the voters chose to re-elect him, at age 73, in a landslide.