Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Can Republicans keep clowns off the debate stage? 13
Still traumatized by the 2012 "dog-and-pony show," which he called an "embarrassment and ridiculous," Priebus has decreed that this time the circus can have only nine rings, I mean debates, compared with about two dozen in the 2012 cycle. Only media outlets Priebus can stomach will get the chance to broadcast one of them. The left-leaning MSNBC will be excluded and its parent, NBC, will have to share its one debate with Telemundo. Fox and CNBC have been granted debates along with CNN after it dropped plans for a Hillary docudrama.
Limiting the number of debates may or may not help. What Priebus really needs to do is limit the number of debaters. He publicly atoned for not doing it last time but so far he hasn't come up with a way to prevent another melee. He'll have to act fast to find a formula before the first debate in August in Ohio, sponsored by Fox.
Priebus saw the damage last time as the eventual winner, Mitt Romney, repeatedly found himself on stage with people who weren't going to win anything but frequent flyer miles but could still goad him into musing about "self-deportation."
If Priebus doesn't come up with something, the eventual winner this time will be sharing a stage with Carson comparing the U.S. under President Barack Obama to Nazi Germany or the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo. But Carson is the only black candidate, and that matters to a party that recognizes it has a likability deficit with minorities.
Similarly, eliminating Fiorina would reignite the War on Women meme. Fiorina isn't as out there as Carson, but she has no hope of making a dent, given her credentials as a losing Senate candidate, who had previously been ousted as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard for a questionable merger and huge layoffs, a record that is likely to come up a lot.
And how can he nudge evangelical favorite Huckabee to the side? He wasn't a clown in 2008 but he, his party and his Fox audience have moved to the right since then. In his campaign manifesto, "God, Guns, Grits and Gravy," and on the stump, the former governor dishes out opprobrium to a wasteland of miscreants. He assails the mainstream media, Jay-Z, the "ick factor" in gay relationships and gay adoption (because "children are not puppies"). And he has become a survivalist hawking quack medicine, even though, like the other former governor from Hope, he became rich after leaving office.
No. (Score:2)
If they were Democrats (Score:2)
I just hope Halprin does some moderating. Because #MoarClowns
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for Halperin, welcome to the club. I'm pretty sure blogging was partially invented just to bag on him
Re: (Score:2)
Were you not alive in 2004?
Most republicans willfully have their heads in the sand over that time period. Otherwise they would have to acknowledge the presidency of GWB, who most republicans refuse to mention by name. Those who acknowledge that time to have even passed will often try to pass off that atrocious era of government and economy as being either an extension of the Clinton Administration or an early start of the Obama Administration.
Re: (Score:1)
Mr. Smith will revise that to the Wilson administration. I only need to go back as far as Nixon/Reagan's. Carter was placeholder to keep the seat warm until Watergate blew over. The little twists and turns of your economies seem to be something to invest in, not complain about.
The world is pretty right wing. Clown car or not, they still win elections and are st
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Carter was a complete fluke, a result of post-Watergate Repub scrambling and the new Dem primary nominating procedures introduced by McGovern.
But that's a lot less sexy than your conspiracy, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
What 'conspiracy theory'?
That's what I just said. Thee republicans couldn't put up Reagan until it blew over. So they let it go for four years and sacrificed Ford, no big deal, just a regular setup, like a cop planting evidence on a bad bust. I don't understand why everyday business is a 'conspiracy' to you. I just don't see it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they let Reagan in on that when he was running in '76?
Or just keep him in the dark?
Re: (Score:1)
Does it make a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
It would most likely have some influence on my thinking about him and about the regard in which his party held him then and later.
Did they also sacrifice Goldwater to Johnson to pave the way for the return of Nixon?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really know, or even care that much. The voters get what they want. It's just something to talk about, like the weather, or the Cubs. The presidency is ceremonial, like any other political position that answers to the money that fills the seat. In Reagan's case, he was 'discovered' [wikipedia.org], or maybe rediscovered after the Dean Martin Roasts. I was very disappointed when Goldwater lost, I hated Johnson. Evidently, so did Nixon [bbc.com], but for different reasons. But... I'm the 'crazy conspiracy theorist'. I always d
"Can Republicans keep clowns off the debate stage? (Score:2)
Now where would the entertainment value in that be?