DetTVDir:
Hey! Don’t apply Republican Party rules to-- uh-- Republicans, for crying-out-loud! No fair, with that logic stuff, too.
Maybe. In some places the GOP primary is the de facto election (just as the Democratic primary is in others). There’s a case that says a party whose primary is a de facto election counts as a state actor. Kansas Jayhawk Party? Texas Jaycee Party? Something like that.
What, no Michelle Bachmann? She may not match the other two in volume, but she’ll make up for it in technique.
http://www.politicolnews.com/michelle-and-marcus-bachmann-dig-into-corn-dogs-in-iowa/ (Scroll about halfway down for best pic.)
I’ll read the case if you find it, but it doesn’t sound like that argument applies here, when the discussion is the national party and its actions with respect to its national convention and national candidates.
Were you arguing that it does?
What do you personally think about this blackmail attempt? Even if it is legal, do you think it is the right thing to do?
I guess I would frame it a bit differently.
Citizens United Case
Republicans: We want to use the public airwaves during a primary season to smear a political candidate even though it violates the Fairness Doctrine.
Supreme Court: Party on, dudes! Fairness Doctrine in unfair to rich people!
2013:
Republicans: Hey, networks! We know you have a right to, but if you dare show anything about Hillary that we don’t like, we’re going to cut you out of our 2016 primary process. Neener neener neener!
Sure, it’s their party and they’ll ban who they want to, but it smells. For a major party to attempt to blackmail networks and stifle free speech just doesn’t seem consistent with a democratic society. This just years after fighting for their right to free speech to smear that same candidate.
The vast weight of energy from a substantially active contingent of this board’s membership is spent in telling me how wrong my opinions are.
I’m sure no one is really interested in them now.
Sure. That’s a valid critique. My objection rested in your attempt to conflate the use of the First Amendment’s protection for free speech against a government actor with the private use of pressure to dissuade disliked speech. It’s perfectly possible to say, “I don’t want my government suppressing speech, but I don’t mind private actors taking their best shot.”
And, indeed, isn’t that what often happens when any boycott is called? A group of private actors says to a business: “Stop saying what you’ve been saying, or I’ll stop buying your products and encourage others to do the same.”
Actually, a vast amount of your time seems to be spent hiding your opinions behind legalities. Do you think that the entirety of this thread should be about whether or not what they are doing is legal? Since what they are attempting do is most likely legal, I guess we should not give a shit whether or not what they are attempting to do is right. :rolleyes:
Stupid and bush-league (heh) move by the GOP. I will say, though, that the GOP’s complaints mirror (in reverse) many of the complaints on the SDMB: that a news network is a mouthpiece for a national political party.
I hope both networks run their biopics as I would like to see them. I think they should run them now when she is not a candidate and long before she declares if she will run or not. In fact, if the networks are going to run them at all, they should do it now- long before the political season heats up.
I also think it’s petty and whiny that the RNC is threatening to refuse to participate in debates on those networks. Prebius said something about not getting referees that they like… so is he admitting they can only ‘win’ if they get the right refs?
So what debates are left if they don’t participate in network ones? Just the main “Commission” one?
Really, RNC, why debate at all? It’s not required.
Just refusing to debate looks like a weakness. On the other hand, claiming that they were “forced” to back out because the deck was stacked against them gives the true believers exactly what they want to hear.
No, I think they’re talking here about a primary-season debate between Republican presidential candidates. That’s a debate they can’t not have; looks bad if the Dems do it and the Pubs don’t. They can’t forego it, but they don’t have to let CNN in the door.
Why can’t Fox run a fair and balanced bio of Hillary to offset the liberal one the RNC is crying about?
Because Fox couldn’t even run a “fair and balanced” game of Chutes And Ladders?
They could simply air Hillary: The Movie, the one that gave rise to the Citizens United case.
I suppose I should have enabled the snarkasm indicator…
Why do you hate comedians?
I believe that your definition of “right” is largely informed by who benefits.
That’s the reason the legal answer is of value. When we write the law, we enshrine neutral principles into a code of conduct, before knowing who may benefit. It’s akin to baseball: an umpire has a set of rules which he applies to the situation, without regard to which team happens to benefit.
I think your approach starts by asking whose cause is more just, or preferred, and then works backwards to determine what principles you might advance to aid your cause that particular day.
In this particular case, I perceive no right or wrong. I do think it’s utterly foolish to try to extort compliance in the way the GOp is reported to be doing here, but I don’t see it as moral or immoral – just really idiotic.
And in this we are in absolute agreement.