It seems the success of the Republicans to filibuster virtually every bill in Congress and shut down government has led them to now threaten to "shut out" news networks. In one of the more audacious moves yet, the RNC has threatened to shut out CNN and NBC from future presidential primary debates if they continue with proposed documentaries on Hillary Clinton.
The RNC strategy for 2016 appears to consist entirely of preemptively blocking Hillary Clinton's presumed Democratic nomination, and that they view these documentaries as an attempt to foist her candidacy on an unsuspecting public. It doesn't matter that Hillary is the most respected woman in American national politics. Hell, it wasn't so long ago that Republicans were singing her praises in a last ditch effort to thwart Obama's nomination, with many Republicans crossing over to vote for her in the 2008 primaries in Ohio. But, ever since Benghazi she has become the favorite target of GOP pundits.
Of course, no one knows what Hillary will do in 2016. It is a long way off and there is a nasty set of mid-term elections on the event horizon that will set the tone for the second half of Obama's administration, and in turn who will be the presumptive front runner to his "throne." That doesn't stop everyone from speculating on the 2016 presidential elections, with virtually every news outlets handicapping the race. But, why all this "hate" directed at Hillary?
I see that both CNN and NBC dropped their documentaries,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/business/media/cnn-documentary-is-off-filmmaker-blames-pressure-from-clintons.html?_r=0
I guess they figured there was a greater ratings share in covering the Republican debates. Should be some real humdingers given the proposed candidates. Even Scott Walker is now considered a presidential prospect.
I've been just reading about the 2012 debates in Collision. Nothing particularly new, but remembering all those crazy candidates is really fun.
ReplyDeleteOnly fun in that none of them won. It wouldn't have been so funny if one of them actually got elected.
ReplyDeleteI think I only missed one of those debates for that very reason -- fear that one of them might win. Now I can just enjoy reading about how strong Rick Perry was when he entered the race and how he went out with an "oops." Or Herman Cain's 9-9-9. He was also at the top of the heap for awhile. I think they all were at some point. Even Michelle Bachmann came out strong initially and then fizzled. All Romney had to do was stand there and not sound too stupid or lose his cool.
ReplyDeleteIt looked so silly and juvenile at the time as well, but you just couldn't believe these were actually presidential candidates. It was like some kind of comedy reality show. Given they were able to cash in on the experience to one degree or another, it isn't surprising that they want to run again, at least Perry and Santorum. Wouldn't be surprised to see Bachman there in the beginning. But, Ted Cruz should lay them all to rest pretty quickly. I just hope the Republicans come up with some halfway reasonable looking guy, but they base is so anxious to have one of their own that they are going to treat another Romnoid very kindly,
ReplyDeleteReality show. That's it exactly.
ReplyDeleteThere's a quote in the book from Huntsman who looks around on the stage and asks himself something similar ... with a nation of Nobel prize winners, great writers, great innovators, etc., and this is the best it can do? Does say something about the country, though.
Ted Cruz can be the last election's Newt Gingrich. For a moment there I blanked on his name -- how soon we forget! But he did have a significant lead there for awhile -- thanks to Adelson.
One person Balz interviewed practically swooned at the thought of Gingrich debating Obama. Remember that? Many thought he was the only one who was smart enough to beat him.
I had a hard time understanding this love for Gingrich. Like Santorum he left Congress with his tail between his legs, repudiated by his fellow Republicans. Yet, both had marked resurgences during that campaign, largely because of the widespread unrest over Romney.
ReplyDeleteI thought Huntsman someone who could have actually posed a threat to Obama, but most Republicans saw him as a sellout for serving his country as Ambassador to China. Amazing!
I think it's the Chris Christie effect -- speaking so-called truth to power (or in Christie's case, usually people without power).
ReplyDeleteI was reading last night about the last debates with Romney where he had done his homework and really got under Gingrich's skin. What's nice about this book (Collision) is that much of it was reported in real time, so he was interviewing Gingrich and Romney advisers right after some of these debates, getting their impressions and plans.
I remember reading about that. Romney also spent gobs of money painting Gingrich into a corner, only to see it come back to haunt him in the general election. I got the sense that everyone hated Romney. Not surprisingly none of them made any effort to campaign for him in the general election, not that he wanted their support at that point, as he was trying to recast himself as a moderate. It was such an ugly election. Too bad Hunter S. Thompson wasn't around to report it. He would have had a field day with those lizards.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there was a good discussion of how he went at them hard on immigration and then found it difficult to move back to any sort of sensible position. It's interesting watching the mechanisms of a campaign as they make decisions that will come back to haunt them later.
ReplyDeleteHuntsman endorsed Romney then disappeared from view. The book doesn't mention this, but as I recall his campaign was largely bankrolled by his father, who pulled the plug. I think Pawlenty campaigned for Romney.
Supposedly, Huntsman was just testing the water. Obviously, it was too cold. Better luck in 2016, although I haven't heard his name mentioned yet.
ReplyDelete