We all remember the gop circus of 2011-2, where their group of clowns, all vying for their party’s presidential nomination, paraded themselves through debate after debate, 20 in all, as well as those utterly stupefying caucuses, in which the flavor of the day took turns leading the national polls, from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich to Perry to Fred Thompson (oh, wait, he was 2008).
The more one of these non-thinkers was allowed to speak and expose their insipid ideas, the more the gop’s fervent 25% loved them, and the more the rest of the earth’s inhabitants were exposed to their lunacy. Positions, plans, and pending policies were exposed to voters, and the more they heard, the less chance the gop had of winning the White House.
Now, two years later, as the 2016 election approaches, the gop has a plan to win in 2016. Is that plan to mend fences with the 47%? Is that plan to formulate policies that would actually help America and Americans? Is that plan to forget their political opposition to what is true and right and support the world wide crises of climate change and the national need for accepting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care and move forward towards even more meaningful and necessary health care reform? Is that plan to encourage rather than to stifle voters’ rights, workers’ rights, students’ rights and minority rights? Is that plan to stop the insidious give aways to the rich and powerful at the expense of the needy? The answer is a clear NO to all of these.
|What then is their plan, what have they figured out to change course, and win in 2016?|
Well, the Republican National Committee, at its Memphis meeting last week, decided that the way to for them to win is to have less exposure of their ideas.
They have now chosen a committee of 13 members, working under the thumb of party head honcho Reince Priebus, that will oversee the next presidential debate process, and their plan is to limit the number of debates, and exercise “more” control over the questioners. Yep, their big plan to win in 2016 is to not publicize their ideas, keep silent on their extreme positions, and let the voters play a guessing game.
At their meeting, Priebus stated the following:
“Any speech you give nowadays to the grass roots, there’s no bigger applause line than when you say, ‘This time around, we’re going to have something to say about the moderators and debate partners.’”
|Yea, the problem isn't their ideas, its independent moderators having the gaul to ASK about their ideas. And then there is the Candy Crowley incident when she had the bad taste to correct Mitt Romney with, of all things, FACTS.
ABC News has reported that a frequent RNC complaint was that 2011-2 debate moderators were
Mark Barabak, writing in the LA Times, said that if the party wanted to prevent their candidates from ever saying anything potentially damaging about their primary opponents, that they could hand out muzzles. Isn’t this exactly what they are doing?