Thursday, August 08, 2013

HOW RESTRICTIVE IS REINCE PRIEBUS'S GATED COMMUNITY?

A story from Mediaite:
Appearing on Morning Joe Thursday morning, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told host Mika Brzezinski that he wouldn't let her moderate a GOP debate, because he needs to "choose moderators that are actually interested in the Republican Party." ...

"... I'm not going to have you moderate the Republican debate," Priebus said. When Nicole Wallace asked why not, he continued, "Because you're not actually interested in the future of the Republican Party and our nominees. That's not a slam on you, Mika, but I have to choose moderators that are actually interested in the Republican Party and our nominees. It's not going to be NBC, if they continue to go forward with this miniseries." ...
It's generally conceded that Priebus's war with CNN and NBC has less to do with upcoming Hillary Clinton movies than with Priebus's desire to limit the number of GOP debates in the 2016 campaign, and thus limit the number of opportunities Republican candidates will have to say stupid, embarrassing, and extreme things.

But I'm not sure why that goal is served by restricting the participation of people assumed not to be Republicans or right-wingers -- after all, one of the GOP's more embarrassing moments came at a tea party-sponsored debate in 2011, when audience members cheered Ron Paul for rejecting the notion that an uninsured 30-year-old in a coma should be entitled to medical treatment. (That debate was broadcast on CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer, but I don't think that was the reason for the huzzahs from the crowd.) Maybe too much right-wing participation in the debates is the GOP's problem.

Priebus clearly wants fewer debates overall, but I think he also wants to keep his party a gated community. And I wonder how far that goes -- Mika Brzezinski has said she's a Democrat, but would a moderate Republican be acceptable? If Colin Powell were a newsman, would he be an acceptable moderator? Would David Frum or David Brooks? Should Priebus just go all the way and allow activist groups in the party to primary debate moderators? Or just ask Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter to moderate every debate?

Ultimately, why do Republicans even run for president of the United States? They don't consider the citizens of many states (or most cities) to be real Americans -- why run to be head of state of a country that's been mongrelized by un-American liberalism? Shouldn't Republicans just limit themselves to running for president of Red America (a/k/a Foxistan)?

6 comments:

Leslie Galen said...

I think it's a fabulous idea. Let Louie Gohmert moderate the republican primary debate, and let Barney Frank moderate the democratic one. Issues of great importance to both sides would be discussed, and hilarity might ensue. I'd watch the shit out of it.

Victor said...

Kind of like what Leslie said above - getting moderators who support the Republican Party might come back to bite them in the ass.

That moderator may egg on the debate participants to go to extremes that no non-Reich-Wing moderator might.

What the Republican Party needs, is less rabid Conservatives in the audience, who'll cheer on deaths for women due to childbirth or during abortions, or people who either completely lacked, or lacked insufficient health insurance - that the latter may prove to be a moot point by next year, hopefully.

It's not like the moderators egged the morons on, in the 2012 primaries - it's that the audience, and the other participants, did!

If Rinse and Repeatus could hold the debates in a vacuum, he'd be happy.
But FSM forbid, if any video's came out of those!
They may make the 2012 Republican debates, look like the ones between the Franciscans and the Jesuits in Our Sisters of Mercy Catholic HS in a Liberal city.

LittlePig said...

Frum is probably apostate (despite the plus of being a war criminal).

Brooks would be an interesting choice - his slimy self-righteousness might prove more offensive than anything the candidates might say. But then again, these folks are legends in their own minds, and might find Brooks refreshingly honest about the lesser beings the poor Teahadists must endure in "their" country.

FourPutz said...

You people really are stupid. How did you live this long, oh, government housing, food, phones and handouts. If we had a stupidity tax, liberals would pay off the national debt in weeks.

aimai said...

I think you can't guess who they would choose to moderate the thing this far in advance, or how they would prefer to stack the audience to avoid any ugly scenes. My assumption is that if they go the Fox Route they will simply find some anodyne person to moderate who they can represent as above the fray. They can even put in someone totally unknown. Why not? Its been the fashion to pick some Bob Schieffer or Candy crowly type person as the moderator as though the name of the person matters. But from a Fox viewer point of view anyone whose name you know is probably already tainted with the dread MSM cooties.

They can manufacture a tea party leader in a heartbeat, if thats the way they want to go. The entire movement, so called, is so decentralized who is going to be able to tell the players from the ringers?

Dark Avenger said...

I don't hear of any Tea Partiers fighting against the banks and the other institutions "Too Big to Fail".

When you can get the Republicans' dick out of your mouth and asshole, maybe you can have something to say that displays some common sense for a change.

And then you can change your name to Two Putz.