In short, the GOP doesn’t want CNN or NBC to run biographies of Hillary Clinton, apparently fearing it will paint her in too positive of a light. If they do, the warn the GOP won’t let them air the 2016 GOP presidential debates.
Good luck with that, I think this is a boneheaded ultimatum by Reince Priebus. What does the dope think? Good idea or bad idea?
How do they know what’ll be in them? For all they know, they’ll be an hour of Vince Foster conspiracy theories.
They have their own network, so why don’t they just give exclusive coverage rights to it? It will help them control the message.
Seriously, I would think that they wouldn’t want anyone other than the party faithful to be watching the primary debates. The primary debates, as we saw in 2012, have to cater to the hard core right wing radicals. The stuff they say during those debates can poison a candidacy during the general election when they have to pretend to be more moderate.
It may be a good move to try and keep the primary debates “in house” so to speak.
Here’s what I think:
Wake me up in late 2015.
While you have a fair point, I think plenty of people didn’t watch the debates at all but still heard soundbites from them. And those soundbites are, unfortunately, enough to torpedo a candidate (sometimes rightfully, most times not).
Just because it would only be broadcast on Fox, to use your suggestion, doesn’t mean the other networks wouldn’t report on the debates.
And actually, even if only party faithful watched, that may be shooting the party in the foot - as it stands now, if either party gets an ideologue in the primaries, that person will have a harder time in the general. Forcing their candidates to be even more conservative/liberal in the primaries will make the other candidate look even better to moderates.
It seems a little disingenuous to me to feature a nationally prominent political figure who’s a candidate for high office in what purports to be merely a celebrity biopic. I can understand the Republicans being pissed about what looks like propaganda (that’s not theirs!).
Let’s see if I’ve got this right: A “documentary” about Hillary before the 2008 primaries that was aimed at torpedoing her campaign and which led to the dreadful Citizens United case was free speech. A neutral biography piece about her must be stifled using blackmail, lest it show her not to be a monster. Got it.
I think a story about such blackmail would make a good lead for the next week or so.
First they need a venial sin committed by the Democrats to balance it, so the talking heads can pompously decry foul play by both parties.
Fox News has reportedly responded by planning to air a biography of Santorum, but then realized the less said the better.
I thought their schedule was literally dripping with santorum.
We’re in for 3+ years of nonstop Hillary promotion in the media (plus another potential eight years if she’s elected). There’s not much Republicans can do but relax and enjoy it.
They cancelled that in favor or a hot dog eating contest featuring Chris Christy and Mike Huckabee.
Is Huckabee a big eater? Beating Christie would be no challenge since his surgery, I bet he couldn’t eat two now.
You’ve heard of muscle memory? I’m sure there’s also “fat memory”. 
I found a better source for this than the OP’s was more about large pictures than really any meat:
Preibus then continued by removing his ball from the ground and walking home.
OTOH, how is she not a good topic for a celebrity biopic?
Oooohhhh, Biiillllll . . . .
She’s not a candidate for high office. She’s not a candidate for any elected office - and she still won’t be when the documentary airs in 2014. That’s two years before the election. Who the hell watches CNN, much less remembers things that aired on it two years ago?
From where I’m standing, I don’t give a shit if Ringo Prius is pissy about other peoples’ propaganda. If he wants to anoint Hillary the Democratic nominee, he can do that, but his vote doesn’t count for a great deal.
Yes. Because the actor seeking to suppress the “documentary” was the Federal Election Commission. That’s why the “dreadful” case was styled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). When the government acts to suppress speech, it implicates the “Free Speech” guarantees of the First Amendment.
I have no idea how neutral, laudatory, or critical the piece is. But I do know that the actors seeking to bury it are not government actors.