GOP to Boycott Presidential Debates Over Clinton Programs (by unanimous voice vote)
Source: The Chicago Tribune
The Republican party resolved on Friday to boycott any 2016 presidential debates sponsored by CNN and NBC if the networks go ahead with plans to make special programs on Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination.
Delegates to a meeting of the Republican National Committee voted for a resolution including the boycott and said the programs would be "little more than extended commercials promoting former Secretary Clinton."
The RNC also resolved that it would require that any future debates have "appropriate moderators and debate partners."
Delegates approved the motion by a unanimous voice vote.
In preparation for the next presidential election, RNC Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the party would consider holding its 2016 nominating convention in June or July, rather than August, to reduce the amount of time Republican candidates spend competing against one another to win the nomination. An earlier convention also would allow the Republican nominee to focus on the Democratic opponent.
Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-politics-republicans-boston-20130814,0,6934164.story
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)trusty elf
(7,393 posts)puny brat replica
crappy tuba liner
carnal burp piety
pricey lap turban
capably prurient
a crab nipple yurt
TexasTowelie
(112,170 posts)I also wanted to post in case they are needed for future reference.
trusty elf
(7,393 posts)cabal trip penury
aberrant icy pulp
bury placenta RIP
barren lip pay cut
burp any particle
pry bacterial pun
prune crypt labia
urine by claptrap
try anal piper cub
rip puberty canal
Raven
(13,891 posts)to quote TS Eliot: "not with a bang but a whimper"
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)in withholding their "debates" read crap flinging crazy parades) from certain networks.It will allow me to use much less effort in avoiding the screeching insanity that is certain to prove my foregone conclusion that none of them are fit for elected office.At any level.
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)DFW
(54,378 posts)....that her life between the ages of 3 and 7 was already ten times as interesting as the full biography of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie or Marco Rubio.
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)AquaBuddha is pretty interesting.
her life between the ages of 3 and 7 was already ten times as interesting as the full biography of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie or Marco Rubio COMBINED
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)Death by irrelevancy - no one sees them - they don't exist.
BlueManFan
(256 posts)Hamy85
(1 post).....REALLY GOP?!...Really?! You scared of Hillary Clinton? I swear the GOP are like vampires that are scared of the sun..guess who's the sun?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Are your wittle fweelings hoit? There, there. Go suck on an egg.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....trouble is,...they don't HAVE one.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)And CNN and NBC, plus every other network except Faux, should consider running infomercials for weight loss capsules instead.
on point
(2,506 posts)struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)system. might as well start with their own network and ignore the rest of the country since they feel we are not important anyways.
Xolodno
(6,395 posts)...until low card candidates turn to CNN and NBC for exposure.
bloomington-lib
(946 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)lay out a plan moving us to a more progressive, less war-loving society. Turn us around.
I can dig it.
chuckstevens
(1,201 posts)Maybe Clinton Eastwood could show up in the nominee's place! That worked out so well in 2012!
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)and their odds in 2016?
yeah... okay!
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)VADem1980
(53 posts)The Rethuglicans have nothing to offer America in the first place. I guess the debates are a chance to show the world what idiots they are. Besides that, getting a few networks to be All Democrat, All the Time in order to counteract Faux Newz would be great. In the year leading up to the election, unleash a barrage of hit pieces targeting Rethuglican candidates while having documentaries on great progressive leaders such as Ms. Clinton!
randr
(12,412 posts)They have been "no shows" for the last six years. Whats new?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)lack of exposure they will get?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I would hate to miss watching clips from some of the best comedy shows ever seen on the tv. And it is starting to look like some of the old cast members may be back for the upcoming season! I for one can't wait.
nytemare
(10,888 posts)Santorum? Paul? Only Huntsman could stand his own against Clinton, but he's too "liberal" to win the primaries.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...or our foot gets it!''
- K&R
tanyev
(42,556 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Oh, never mind.
Obviously, if CBS or ABC conducts a debate they will determine the moderator. There is no way they would consider allowing the GOP to dictate the moderator, especially if it is someone like Sean Hannity of Fox. They may even boycott the debates in solidarity with NBC and CNN. Why the GOP thinks they hold the high cards in this just boggles the mind. They need the media and not the other way around.
Let the Republicans hold their convention in June and give the stage to Democrats in July and August then try to regain lost ground when the campaigns kick off in earnest after Labor Day. It is unbelievable just how brain dead Republicans have become -- and they think they are being smart. They like to stick it in reverse and then gun the engine.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)We have Campaign & Marketing Opportunities tightly controlled by the two major parties.
We used to have "debates",
back when they were sponsored by the League of Women Voters,
but both major Parties decided that the questions were too hard.
[font size=3]" The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]
According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
Kudos to The League of Women Voters for "no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Now THERE is an organization I can STAND with proudly.
What once were called "debates" have fallen to the level of mild infotainment
complete with Gotcha Journalism more concerned with the best One Liners than actual policy or substantive differences between the two parties.
What is MORE important to the American citizen is NOT what was discussed in these faux "debates",
but what major issues were AVOIDED or IGNORED, because the Two parties absolutely AGREE 100%.
These would be issues like:
*The destruction of the Working Class in America
*The Plight of the Poor
*The erosion of Constitutionally protected Civil Liberties
*The expanding powers of the "Unitary Executive"
*Privatized Prisons
*Privatized ANYTHING that used to be in The Commons
*The negative effects of so called "Free Trade" and the mythological "Free Market"
*Blowback from the "War on Terror"
*the growing disparity of WEALTH in America
*"Too Big to Fail"
*Support or Demonization of the emerging Transparent Democracies in Latin America
*Black Box Voting & verifiable Elections
*The Failed War on Drugs
*Out of Control Military Spending
...does anybody remember ANY of the above important issues discussed in the 2012 Presidential Debates? ALL of the above affect every single American every single day, but none of the above were "debate" issues between the two major parties.
It is easy to become distracted by parsing out What was Said,
but more difficult to discern what was NOT said because BOTH Parties agree 100%, especially when "they" control all aspects of the "debates".
Its not that important anyway.
Its ONLY our Democracy that is at stake here.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
After one of the last debates the media went into a frenzy over whether "an act of terror" means the same thing as "terrorism". Then three are the supposed fact checkers that seemingly can't help but reframe what was said then fact check their own words and find them half-true of false, causing one to wonder who fact checks the fact checkers. And a single brain freeze can doom a candidate -- just ask Rick Perry. Rarely does post debate coverage go to the substance of what was said -- and not much of substance is ever said, to be sure. It instead goes to how much did candidate A sweat or candidate B look down at his notes or candidate C nervously clear his throat before answering. All earth shaking game changers in the feeble mind of the analysis teams.
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)for them, and their ideas, and they will punish anyone who disagrees, with
whatever controls they can muster.
So much for Free Speech of corporate news, eh?
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)Hypocrisy is great ain't it?
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)Cowards, the lot of them.