Type to search

RNC Threatens NBC And CNN Over Hillary Clinton Biopics

Memo Pad Politics

RNC Threatens NBC And CNN Over Hillary Clinton Biopics

Hillary Clinton

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has sent letters to the heads of NBC and CNN expressing his “deep disappointment” in the two networks’ decisions to produce programming that will document the life of former secretary of state, senator and first lady Hillary Clinton.

He vowed to hold a vote that would prevent both networks from airing any 2016 primary debates if the planned programs are not canceled before the RNC’s summer meeting begins on August 14.

Priebus called the projects an attempt at “putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election.”

The chairman’s evidence that the films would be beneficial to Clinton is that liberals are not upset, as they were when Citizens United attempted to air a “pay-per-view documentary” on the then-2008 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. “They must trust you’re doing her a favor,” he wrote.

Republicans do have cause to fear Mrs. Clinton. She consistently leads national presidential polls and a PAC supporting her candidacy for president in 2016 recently reported over a million dollars in donations.

Just weeks after joining Twitter, she already has hundreds of thousands more followers than Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) — all frontrunners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination — though she’s tweeted only 13 times.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the letter is Priebus’ attempt to lay out the 2016 Democratic field by directly naming “Vice President Biden, Governors O’Malley, Cuomo, Hickenlooper, Senator Klobuchar and others.” Only Governor O’Malley (D-MD) has taken public steps to begin his campaign.

Time‘s Zeke J. Miller believes the “secret” motivation of the RNC’s strong-arming of the networks is creating the pretense for limiting the number of presidential debates. The GOP autopsy found that the abundance of primary debates ended up damaging Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

After calling the productions “an in-kind donation,” Priebus wrote, “Out of a sense of fairness and decency and in the interest of the political process and your company’s reputation, I call on you to cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production.”

What bigger compliment could Priebus offer to Secretary Clinton than to assert that any movie that depicts her life must be endorsing her for president?

Click on to read the letters.

Photo: Marc Nozell via Flickr.com


  1. rat618 August 5, 2013

    This is great! Now we will be able to not have regular programming interrupted by watching a bunch of spoiled rich white men whining over how discriminated they are by life.

  2. Key Demographic August 5, 2013

    I’m having trouble finding Priebus’ disparaging remarks about CNN after they aired the hour-long “Romney Revealed” documentary during the 2012 campaign. Can anyone provide me with a link, because I know there’s no way he’s being a hypocrite.

    1. erma652 August 10, 2013

      like Kim responded I’m shocked that a student can profit $5135 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you see this web page w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  3. sigrid28 August 5, 2013

    Letters to CNN and NBC from the same Republican party that is no doubt behind CNN’s current claim to fame as Fox News Lite: CNN journalists were able to locate ONE witness to the attack in Benghazi whom American intelligence experts could not find. Watch! New on CNN! One hour special! Weeks of promos until this one-hour special airs on CNN! Until then, this claim will be repeated over and over and need not be substantiated. It’s just news, news, news all the time on our cable networks. I wonder what the take on Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will be in this exciting rehashing of the terrible tragedy in Benghazi? CNN probably supports the biography of the former secretary out of antiquated notions, like giving the parties to a story equal time. Or maybe it is just keeping its hand in the biography in order to muddy the waters and leak its content in a timely fashion. I would like to see an independent biography of Hillary Clinton, as would most of us who care about fairness and the future of this country–and her role in it.

    1. A_Real_Einstein August 5, 2013

      Remeber CNNs viewership is mostly over the age of 65 and has an 8% lean toward the GOP. Their reporting is terrible, almost comical lately. I will never forget Wolf Blitzer (Jewish) trying to get an OKlahoma tornado survivor to praise the Lord for her survival. He asked her 3 times if she praised the Lord until she finally politely told him that she was an atheist. It was hard to watch. Even worse was their coverage of the Boston bombing. CNN is for those who would like news that was on the internet at least 12 hours ago. Yesterday they just announced that Obama won the election.

      1. sigrid28 August 5, 2013

        I can hardly watch it any more.

  4. JD Mulvey August 5, 2013

    Personally, I’m much more likely to follow someone who only tweets 13 times in three weeks.

  5. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 5, 2013

    Well another part of the Constitution they do not respect, Freedom of Speech. It seems the only Amendment they really respect is the 2nd Amendment.

    1. bikejedi August 5, 2013

      How about equal time for candidates as required by law ? Will CNN or NBC air a Campaign commercial for whomever is the Republican Nominee ??? 1st amendment indeed

      1. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 5, 2013

        See above.

        1. bikejedi August 5, 2013

          I understand that , but does anyone including you think that this is a Documentary or rather a Campaign Commercial ? Hillary will be the Dem candidate by the time this airs that is unless she is taken out by one of those many phony and racist scandals right ? Those body bags sure are racist and phony . And if it is a documentary why do they need Diane Lane ? By the way that is going to win every prize for makeups and special effects to make Diane over into Hillary . Anyway if it is a Documentary will they cover how she usurped her own self respect to stand by her man ? Again and again and again as he used her for a doormat ? Will they question how that effects all Liberal women who look up to her ? Will they cover the trail of death her and Billy left behind them ? The Vince Foster affair or Ron Brown ? Will they cover how she let Obama play the Race Card on her , and then how she once again usurped her own self respect to take a job for him ? Will they cover how she threw herself under the Obama bus to protect Obama on that phony Benghazi scandal ? I mean You Tube proved it wasn’t Phony right ??? So in summation if it is a documentary they should cover all of that right ?
          Disqus ..not getting on your case just trying to use some realistic satire to prove a point

          1. Elise Dee Beraru August 6, 2013

            I don’t know what CNN is presenting, but NBC is doing a biopic with Diane Lane playing Hillary Clinton. Biopics are not documentaries, they are screenplays, with the necessary time compression, blending of representative characters, and offscreen scenes that are the creation of the writers based on speculation.

          2. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            “Anyway if it is a Documentary will they cover how she usurped her own self respect to stand by her man ? Again and again and again as he used her for a doormat ? ” – That is her business not yours or mine. IF she runs that will be up to the voters to determine. Why weren’t they arrested, brought to trial and incarcerated if they were responsible for Foster or Brown? Benghazi was not a scandal but a tragedy.

            Again – she has not even announced if she is running so Priebus
            has to stop getting his undies in a bunch over this and not act like a Republican thug.

          3. Ed August 6, 2013

            WOW disqus !
            1) “That is her business not yours or mine.”
            2) Benghazi was not a scandal but a tragedy.
            Is THAT the best you can up with?!!
            You’ve got to be kidding me ….

          4. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            Right now yes and in the future yes. Benghazi is a scandal only in Republican minds, other feel it is a tragedy that we must make every effort to prevent from happening. I don’t have to come up with anything because you have your view and I have mine. Kid you no, think you are amusing yes.

          5. bikejedi August 8, 2013

            I agree with some of what you said but it is OUR business because she is a celebrity and the info is out there . Yes the voters will have to decide what they think but unfortunately for the Country the left doesn’t seem to care about morals or ethics in their candidates and Liberal feminists will also usurp their own self respect to vote for a women who does not set a good example for anyone . To answer your other question of why they aren’t in jail it is probably for the same reasons that her hubby wasn’t impeached , and that is that no congressmen had the stones to follow through on impeachment for fear of the backlash . I agree that she hasn’t announced yet but it is a forgone conclusion really . Today NBC’s own journalist ( ? ) stated he is mad about the Miniseries . He knows damn well that no one with an independent mind will ever view NBC as a credible news source because of this obvious PR Campaign for Hillary . Of course most already view NBC as just a PR wing for the Whitehouse after the way they lied and altered video and audio of Mr Zimmerman . Really they have no credibility anyway so maybe they figure what do they have to lose ??? I mean why nit go all I as the network that shamelessly lies and shills for the Dems ….

          6. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 8, 2013

            “Yes the voters will have to decide what they think but unfortunately for the Country the left doesn’t seem to care about morals or ethics in their candidates and Liberal feminists will also usurp their own self respect to vote for a women who does not set a good example for anyone”
            I find your above statement to be close minded, judgmental. condescending and offensive. I want my politicians to be honest, have integrity, compassion and common sense. People such as yourself who stand in judgment of others morals must not live in glass houses. You and your like minded individuals can not be perfect because you disregard the true teachings of Christianity that it is not our place to judge one another, that is God’s job.
            I want my politicians to govern and legislate based on the law and the Constitution ONLY. I want my priest to give spiritual counsel based on God’s teachings. In other words when a politician goes to do his job to govern and or legislate leave your religious beliefs at the door. When a religious leader is preaching his sermon, preach true Christianity and not the new age interpretation and leave your politics at the door.
            This conversation Is over

          7. bikejedi August 8, 2013

            Maybe I did paint with too broad of a stroke . Some on the left do care about their leaders having morals and ethics . Hillary has proven over time to have neither . And you are right about judge not lest you be judged

          8. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 8, 2013

            Thank you – Good night.

      2. CrankyToo August 5, 2013

        There’s nothing righteous about your indignation. In fact, any thinking person would probably recognize it for what it is – partisan bullshit.

        I think it’s safe to say that the propaganda arm of the Greedy Old Prick party will be there to prop up the Repugnican nominee. Of course, I’m talking about Fox Noise, the Opiate of the Asses.

        1. lana ward August 6, 2013

          This country won’t survive 2 communists in a row running it

          1. Bill August 6, 2013

            Lana, your ignorance is blatantly obvious.

          2. lana ward August 6, 2013

            Your ignorance is blatantly scary

          3. Ed August 6, 2013

            lana: You can quickly tell when the liberals have no valid points to counteract yours: they limit themselves to saying that you are ignorant, …. but, secretly, they agree with you !!

          4. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

            C’mon Ed. If brains were dynamite, poor Lana wouldn’t have enough to blow her nose. And if you don’t understand that, then you’re even dumber than she is.

          5. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            You’re an asshole.

          6. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

            It hurts my feelings to think I’m held in such low regard by an intractable moron such as yourself. Really. I’m shattered.

          7. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            Glad that you agree. Now get off this bulletin board so that intelligent people can proceed.

          8. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

            Listen up, Numbnuts. I’ve been reading your inane posts for months and I can tell you with certainty that you and I have never agreed on anything. And judging from the up and down votes you get, I think it’s safe to say that few others on this forum agree with you either.

          9. Ed August 6, 2013

            Cranky: That was cute, very cute ! But, without realizing it, you just proved my point: you Liberals have no arguments to counteract most (never say “all”!) of the Conservatives’ points of view/positions.
            And about calling me dumb, …. it takes one to know on, Cracky !
            All offered in good humor …

          10. lana ward August 6, 2013

            OHitler and OHitlery are communists. You need to do some investigating, coward

          11. lana ward August 6, 2013

            I can’t believe so many want to stay dimwits!! They won’t believe anything evil the dems do and are

        2. bikejedi August 8, 2013

          Unlike your Liberal News Networks who are just PR firms for the Whitehouse , Fox would NEVER usurp their credibility to do a Campaign commercial Biopic or even a documentary on the GOP’s candidate but keep festering in hate for the credible .

      3. OakenTruncheon August 6, 2013

        Equal time, the old FCC Fairness Doctrine, died in a court of law years ago, weren’t you watching?

    2. Kurt CPI August 5, 2013

      Freedom of speech is permitted. But national news organizations, in fact all media, is required to give equal time to candidates. Like it or not Priebus has shown through the documentation of campaign donations, that there have been millions of dollars contributed to the democratic party and Clinton campaigns by high-ranking NBC folks. They have no business trying to sneak a 4 hour campaign ad past those laws disguised as a “mini-series”. Journalistic integrity bars such coverage, but I guess CNN no longer subscribes to the long-held tenets of ethics. Doesn’t matter what party or candidate they choose to expose`, any candidate or highly probably potential candidate must not benefit from the reach of the “impartial” news media. If this were the front-running Republican candidate, this forum would be screaming bloody murder. You know it’s true…

      1. guest August 5, 2013

        I’m pretty sure Fox News is there for the republicans – and talk about media required to give equal time to candidates?? Also, giving equal air time is not the same as making donations – they are not even close to the same thing. And even if they were – how does the republicans feel about Fox News doing it? The GOP IS REALLY running scared and should be. Oh and the equal time requirement is only in effect for “FREE TIME” – not paid advertisements and it applies to broadcast television stations – I’m not too sure it applies to new media – but if it does then FNC falls very very far from complying with this so-called law.

        1. Kurt CPI August 5, 2013

          Whether Fox news is there for republicans or not is not the issue. Donations are not the same as air time, but in analysis, and I would bet in court, unless NBC gives equal campaign contributions to republicans, it shows a clear and indisputable political preference. With a demonstrable political bias, showcasing a candidate that reflects management’s political preference could and ought to be considered a campaign contribution. The news media enjoys certain privileges. Those privileges require them to assume the appearance of taking an unbiased and equitable stance. This certainly is not. No matter how much you disagree with Republicans, no matter how much you want them defeated, this kind of thing is unethical and can’t be tolerated. Priebus is well within his bounds in his objections.

          1. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 5, 2013

            Priebus is as phoney as they come. An earlier poster brought up the hour long documentation aired on CNN during the 2012 campaign “Romney Revealed”. Okay Priebus get Issa to investigate the Media scandal, he is good at making up phoney scandals too.

          2. Bill August 6, 2013

            More bull sh-t!

          3. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

            Nice. You are a definite scholar sir. I’m sure you’ll go far in life.

          4. OakenTruncheon August 6, 2013

            You are mistaken. Under the Citizens United decision, the corporate media have the same rights to unlimited freedom of speech as all other types of corporate persons, and, remember, under that same decision, speech is legally equivalent to the spending of money on mass media. The best part is that this money is simply passed from one corporate pocket to another, often in the same pair of corporate pants, since 96 percent of all media is owned, or controlled, by 6 corporate persons. We are all truly well within the bounds allowed for the pragmatic display of ethical sentiment, now aren’t we? Hail, Eris.

          5. Yvette White August 6, 2013

            You are an asshole just like your party, so go over to the klan party where your stupid ass belongs

          6. tax payer August 10, 2013

            Is that you Fern? If not you are a complete copy of her. Cuss words is all she knows, when she replies to someone.

        2. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

          Air time is money, so giving air time is the same as making donations.

      2. Charlie McKenna August 6, 2013

        So the fact that she is one of the most influential women of the late 20 and early 21 century doesn’t have anything to do with it?

        1. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

          NO problem with the piece. After the election. This is abut ethics, not popularity or even worthiness to have such a piece done about her.

        2. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

          Again, more pro-Hillary baloney about what wonderful things that she’s accomplished. So she’s “…one of the most influential women of the late 20 and early 21 century…”? What has she influenced? Please be specific.

          1. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            Not you apparently.

          2. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            You’re right. She hasn’t influenced me. Now, what was your point in replying? I’m assuming that you had a point in replying. Maybe not.

          3. Yvette White August 6, 2013

            You dum motherfuckers think we care any thing about whether or not you are Influenced,no one gives a flying fuck about you or your stupid,ass or the dum ass conservatives on here.this is why you all are so scared.your a bunch of losers and wil alway be losers

          4. Leftout August 9, 2013

            Sounds like Fern with a new correcting software program , are you all related

      3. Bill August 6, 2013

        Where I come from your blabber is labeled bull sh-t!

        1. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

          I come form the USA where journalism is supposed to be unbiased reporting. Not a campaign front for ANY candidate, REGARDLESS of party. Use of the media to promote candidates is what they did in Germany when that guy was running back in the 30s. What was his name?

          1. Bill August 6, 2013

            This has nothing to do with journalism nor does it actually have anything to do with the media.
            It is basically a history about a woman who has devoted her life and certainly her public life, to service and caring for the United States of America, our Republic and the Democracy we value dearly. Hilary deserves our recognition and thanks.
            Her husband has also devoted most of his life to the betterment of the USA and the world in general, he also deserves recognition and thanks.
            President Clinton, President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have done more good deeds for the United States and the world, than anyone else in the past 33 years. They are concerned citizens first and yes they are Democrats and Americans.
            Hilary will make a great first woman President of the United States of America if she so chooses!
            Kurt you no not what you are alluding to.

          2. lana ward August 6, 2013

            You need to read up on Hillary, she is a traitor to this country. Having 2 communists in a row being President will completely destroy America

          3. Elise Dee Beraru August 6, 2013

            Lana, before you throw words like traitor around, take a deep breath. Hillary Clinton has a record, both as Arkansas and US First Lady and in public office, of devoted service to the people of the United States. Unlike many in Congress today, I can’t imagine Hillary making a decision to disrupt the operation of government on a daily basis. Her only real mistake, and I suspect she’d admit it, was her support for the Iraq War, although that was based on false intelligence.
            As to throwing around the accusation of communist, you need to look that up, too. She is not for communal ownership of the source of supply. The US has embraced certain socialist ideas since the 1930’s when it established the first social safety net programs to get us out of the Depression. This includes any Republican who says he won’t touch Social Security in order to pander to the senior voters.

          4. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013


            You wrote: ” Hillary Clinton has a record, both as Arkansas and US First Lady and in public office, of devoted service to the people of the United States.”
            I’ve asked others this question: Exactly what is her record of achievement, of her great contributions? I’ve yet to receive a clear answer. All I get is complimentary hyperbole.
            Know what I think? i think that Hillary Clinton is a sleazy phoney who a number of people, especially women, want to see president because she’s a woman. There’s no other reason. She reminds me of the Kardashians, who are famous because they’re famous.

          5. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            Why don’t you research it if you really want to know?

          6. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            You’re not getting this, are you? If you make an assertion, such as Hillary Clinton’s “wonderful record of accomplishment,” it’s incumbent on you to provide the proof. Telling me to “research it” is pathetically lacking in substance on two counts: first, it’s a cop out, i.e., you don’t have any proof to support your assertion; second, there are no “wonderful accomplishments” attributable to Hillary Clinton.

            I believe that she a miserable opportunist who gets by on unmitigated gall and the slavish loyalty of liberals.

          7. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            First I am not making any assertions, you keep re posting what are her accomplishments – if you want to know look it up. Since you have such a low opinion of her than you won’t vote for her – IF SHE RUNS.

          8. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            I don’t think that she has ANY accomplishments of note, so I’m challenging those, like you, who say that she HAS accomplishments to prove their assertions. Why is that so hard to understand?

          9. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            What accomplishments did Bush have when he first ran for President? What accomplishments did Reagan have when he first ran for President. Look, I vote for people who I share their Political Point of View, man or women, accomplished in something or not. Let’s face it no person who runs for the President for the first time comes with a whole lot of experience for the job description. You vote for who you want and I will see who the Democratic Nominee will be, I will listen to both sides but if it is the same old Republican Platform – guarantee I am voting Democratic. Don’t bother to reply – I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with me so lets call it a night.

          10. CPAinNewYork August 7, 2013

            You’re evading the issue. You’re for Clinton and Warren because of their “accomplishments,” right? So, what are those accomplishments? The accomplishments of others is irrelevant. You made an assertion. Now back it up.

          11. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 7, 2013

            I am not avoiding the issue because it is not my issue it is your issue. When did Warren enter your conversation. The others are not irrelevant, however at this point I am going to be rude and say you are. Goodbye, farewell, have a good day – not responding anymore. You vote for your Republican and I will vote for the best candidate.

          12. CPAinNewYork August 7, 2013

            I voted Democrat in the last national election.

          13. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 7, 2013

            Even though I said I would not respond anymore, I felt I owed you an apology for assuming you were a Republican and by assuming made an a$$ of myself.

          14. Leftout August 9, 2013

            She has given many women a chance to have sex, something they would not have had an opportunity to do….thanks to Bill.

          15. disqus_fsqeoY3FsG August 6, 2013

            Don’t bother to respond to Lana she is off her meds again.

          16. lana ward August 6, 2013

            You need to check on Hitlerys’ history. She is a traitor, she’s deceitful and she’s a communist

          17. Elise Dee Beraru August 6, 2013

            When you use incendiary terms like “Hitlery,” you’ve already lost the argument. Aside from the fact that communism and fascism are mutually exclusive forms of government, it simply isn’t true. The US is a republican democracy with some semi-socialist public assistance programs and there is nothing Secretary Clinton has done that belies that. As for her being deceitful, all politicians lie, but then, deceit is hard wired in children as young as three, who will lie even when telling the truth is a better option, plus it is the job of diplomats to lie for their countries, so the Secretary of State, being our chief diplomat, can be expected to tell some lies or half-truths for our country.
            And clearly, since it appears that anyone who disagrees with your narrow political view must be a traitor, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind about that.

          18. lana ward August 7, 2013

            Hitlery wasn’t good enough for you in 2008, what makes her any better now??

          19. Elise Dee Beraru August 7, 2013

            Lana, you don’t know who I voted for in the 2008 Virginia primary, but once the Democratic Party had a nominee, I supported that choice. I will look at all the candidates in 2016 and make my choice.

          20. lana ward August 8, 2013

            Most dems were wooed by that black communist fraud, the rest were wooed by the white communist fraud

          21. Bill August 6, 2013

            Lana, I feel sorry for you, your ignorance and intolerance are a disgrace to mankind.

          22. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            I feel sorry for you if you want Hillary Clinton as president. She’s a piece of crap.

          23. lana ward August 6, 2013

            I feel sorry for my country that there are so many mush brains that believe what communist OHitler and OHitlery say!!!

          24. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

            Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with doing the piece. Just not during the prime window of influence in regard to an election. Legal or otherwise, it takes advantage of a position that only a few media moguls have to promote a candidate. It’s equivalent to providing free advertising for a favorite brand by airing a documentary on the history of the company just as a new product emerges that is offered by several other companies, but charging the other companies for their promotional airtime. It amounts to journalistic anti-trust. I think Hillary would be an excellent President. The experience she brings to the Whitehouse would be impossible to match in any other candidate. It’s just my opinion that these media outlets are abusing their Constitutionally sacred position. You can choose to believe that their motives are not tied to influencing an election. I believe differently,

          25. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            Here we go: another Hillary Clinton devotee. Tell us Bill EXACTLY what Hillary has done for the United States. Oh, and while you’re at it, tell us what Hillary did for New york State while
            she was its senator.

          26. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

            How naive can you be? Journalism is supposed to be unbiased reporting? Since when?
            Freedom of the press extends no further than the owners of the medium. If the owner wants to be totally biased, he or she has that right. Your argument is the argument of those who don’t have control of a news medium, but want access to the public.

          27. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

            You’re right, I am naive. I still believe that people are basically good and that they do their best to practice what they preach. It’s blatantly obvious that Fox is in the tank for the people in the right lane and NBC assumes the same position for the left-laners. One can only hope that there is still some sense of “the code” that is held sacred, but it doesn’t appear so. That leaves it to us to listen to the rhetoric from both sides and try to find where the shreds of truth overlap.

        2. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

          Where I come from, you’re an asshole.

        3. Kurt CPI August 9, 2013

          Just a follow up. Today Chuck Todd, NBS News Whitehouse correspondent explains that the NBC News folks have no control over what airs over on the entertainment side. However, he agrees with my position that this should not be happening within the timeframe of a campaign. See on the HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/chuck-todd-hillary-clinton-miniseries-total-nightmare-nbc-news_n_3725002.html

      4. OakenTruncheon August 6, 2013

        Not anymore. The old FCC Fairness Doctrine died in court years ago.

        1. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

          Quoting Wikipedia, “The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.” However, if presented as a “documentary” the rule apparently doesn’t apply. Even if the rule can be skirted, it still isn’t ethical. Using a supposedly neutral platform (be it Fox news or NBC) to promote a candidate is just plain wrong. News outlets should limit themselves to _reporting_ on front-running candidates going into a Presidential election campaign. They should label editorial as such. And according to standards, if not law, permit the equal representation of political positions by opponents. “News” outlets as cheerleaders for their favorite candidate destroys their credibility as unbiased. It amazes me that people can permit the same slimy behavior at CNN or NBC that they condemn FoxNews for – simply because they use the same tactics to support the favorable candidate. “It’s OK because they’re doing for my candidate.”

        2. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

          My research today has made me believe that you, tragically, are right. This gives corporate media the upper hand in what was supposed to be a democracy. We all have free speech rights, but those with the money and means to shout their speech across the airwaves have most of the influence. Had the founders been able to see into the future, the original Constitution would certainly have had restrictions on the corporate funding of politicians. It amounts to legal bribery under the guise of “free speech”.

          1. Michael Kollmorgen August 8, 2013


            IF the founders had really been able to see into the future, I am certain of more than a few things. They would have put way more guarantees in it than they originally did.

            It looks like a block of swiss cheese, full of holes. IF our country had any brains at all, we all should hold a constitutional convention and re-write the entire document that will reflect our modern needs and concerns. It’s way too outdated right now to be useful.

          2. Kurt CPI August 8, 2013

            I agree in large part. The Bill of Rights would have probably had a few more entries. There are definitely things they couldn’t consider, if only because they involved things that didn’t exist at the time. But overall, most of the Constitution still meets muster today. Courts are limited in the way they interpret, and although they can consider historical context, they often don’t. The Constitution was written to limit government as much as to define it. It creates both the framework for governmental structure and attempts to define the extents of central government’s authority. The amendment process was their vision for necessary changes that would be required in the future. One of the key provisions was to keep the power in the hands of the people, not the politicians. It was quickly discovered that politicians are savvy usurpers of power and the Bill of Rights (there was actually one more that was rejected) quickly adopted to clarify the rights of the people for those who’s ambition would seek to limit it. Those who would re-write the Constitution often want to change it to suit their situation. When you consider the past, it’s clear that, even though driven in part by the personal impositions of colonial impositions on the part of the English government, that the greater good was of primary importance. Consider the following:
            1) The colonies had no mass communication.
            2) There were colonial militias, but no central military.
            3) England was the dominant military power.
            4) The most likely outcome of a revolution was capture, conviction of treason, and execution. History would remember our founders as a gang of thugs who tried to take matters into their own hands.
            5) After winning independence, all agreed, in time, that a monarchy wasn’t what they had fought for.
            It is in that historical context that any revision to the Constitution must be considered.

          3. Michael Kollmorgen August 8, 2013

            Well, in certain respects it does cut the muster, so to speak.

            But, if it was as good as people think it is, there wouldn’t be as many court cases going up to the Supreme Court trying to interpret its meanings. The Court is clogged with this stuff.

            If anything, the Constitution needs to be updated and its meanings need to be refined a great deal. That would mean passing more Amendments that serve the “people’s interest” of freedom, liberty and security.

      5. Ben Crowe August 6, 2013

        She is easily the most fascinating public figure in the USA today. There’s ample reason for a network interested in ratings and reputation to air a documentary about this woman. You mention equal time to candidates: she isn’t a candidate. And if the biographies come out before she makes an announcement one way or the other, the “equal time” requirement doesn’t even compute.

        In that vein, I wouldn’t mind at all watching an hour-long documentary on Chris Christie, who is amusing, quick-witted, articulate and direct. Goody-goody Rubio, a bit shady at his core, and whiny, psychiatric Rand would bore me into a state of deep coma. The networks have to go with what works for them, right?

        1. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

          She’s a bum, the same as her sleazebag husband. You can show anything you want about Hillary Clinton. It won’t change my opinion of her.

          1. Yvette White August 6, 2013

            Who gives a fuck about you Opinion,I sure as hell don’t,and opinion are like assholes everybodys got one but rest assured that if she runs she will kick all the Republican in the Dick cause the country will vote for her thats why your party is so dame scare. And for all you haters on here you all just like Obama can kiss her ass, because if its a toss up over her or stupid ass conservative,she will win in another land sild,so get ready for another ass kicking cause its coming.

        2. Kurt CPI August 6, 2013

          I was waiting for someone to point out that Hillary has not formally announced as a candidate. However she is certainly going to do so, and everybody knows it. The network is banking on that to achieve those ratings you speak of. Chris Christie is also an interesting politician, but I think Hillary is a better candidate for a documentary for all the reasons you point out (I doubt that documentary on Christie is being planned at the same table as the Clinton piece). I repeat that I have no problem with the documentary, it’s the timing that wreaks (by the time it airs, her candidacy will likely have been declared). NBC surely is aware of this, and even though it may fall under the courts’ rulings on free speech, it goes against the foundations of journalistic integrity, not that there’s any surprise in this. I am an absolute believer in every aspect of the Bill of Rights, and would never advocate censorship. I think it’s up to the industry to work within their own ethical boundaries. I just think calling them out when they fail to do so is not akin to whining. Priebus obviously has an agenda as well, but that doesn’t make his objections invalid. I believe Hillary Clinton will be our next president regardless of this documentary being aired or not. But it still stinks.

          1. dpaano August 7, 2013

            Kurt: Apparently, you’re also good at reading minds…..and, if she does declare before the documentary, that’s a whole other problem that I’m sure the networks will deal with when it happens. Until then, she’s still NOT a candidate!

          2. Kurt CPI August 7, 2013

            I’m betting she’ll announce. Care to wager against me? How ’bout $500.00? More? I don’t need to be a mind reader to guess that she’s not planning to give back that million dollars she had raised as of the first of this week. And I don’t suppose the Network is planning on spending a bunch of money producing the thing just to shelve it when she becomes a candidate. They have every intention of using the “documentary” exemption to air it either way. It’s not illegal, but that doesn’t make it right.

          3. Leftout August 9, 2013

            Perhaps Fox News can do the true story of Hilary and the happenings in Benghazi , Whitewater, cattle futures, Egypt, Syria , Palestine, the middle east has been transformed under leadership as head of Stste Department. We could all be the Un-United States of America after she gets through with being President. May be the deal is to finish us off for sure after Obama plants the fuses.

      6. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

        Maybe we could see a four-hour documentary on Reince Priebus.

        1. dpaano August 7, 2013

          Oh God, I hope not!! Snorrrrrrrr

      7. dpaano August 7, 2013

        Kurt: She’s NOT a candidate officially…..once she becomes a candidate, then the “equal time” goes into effect. Give me a break! Just because the RNC “thinks” she might be a candidate doesn’t mean anything! Until it’s official, NBC and CNN have the right to show the documentary!

        1. Kurt CPI August 7, 2013

          Right you are, but as I said in another post she most certainly will be, something that NBC is quite aware of. And by the time it airs, she likely will at least have announced her intention to run. As it turns out, a “documentary” is exempt from the equal time thing anyway. It’s a legal way to circumnavigate the rule. Repeating myself again, I think she’s going to be the next president with or without the documentary. That still doesn’t make it the right thing to do, even if it’s legal.

  6. JD Mulvey August 5, 2013

    I wonder if Reince used the same copywriter that McConnell and Cornyn used for this one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150592931/McConnell-Cornyn-Letter-to-NFL-Obamacare

  7. jakenhyde August 5, 2013

    Wouldn’t that be a total heart breaker if the republican “debates” were only shown on Faux Nooz? I know I’m going to lose a lot of sleep over this one. ;o)
    I can’t think of anything more exciting than listening to Santorum talking about how he and his wife took their dead fetus home to introduce it to their other kids and let it “sleep” between Mr. and Mrs. Santorum.

    1. kanawah August 6, 2013

      The only down side would be, that the nation would not get to see them for the fools they are. One by one, the candidates on the right (wrong) bit their foot off up to the hip in the debates the last time around.

      I want the world to have the oppertunity to see the same clown show again.

  8. A_Real_Einstein August 5, 2013

    This is funny.
    Perhaps the Dems should respond by telling Fox that they can’t air any Democrat debates until they fire O’Reilly and Hannity. But wait I would hate that. These two probably drive more voters to the democrats than anyone. LImbaugh,Hannity and O’Reilly are the definition of modrate/independent voter repellant. I am sure all 3 of these hucksters voted for Obama. How much money have they made off of a black man in the Whitehouse? I love it how the republicans always blame their problems on the MSM. It reminds me of my kid’s little league team who always blame the umpire when they start losing. So childish, so boring.

    1. johninPCFL August 5, 2013

      Maybe they really shouldn’t air the Clinton story. They could broadcast the Palin movie, then make a couple of documentaries on GWB and Reagan showing the effects of alcoholism and alzheimers on the presidency (i.e. how they never saw a spending bill they could veto), and another on Cheney and the Haliburton profit curve after they lied us into two wars.

      1. A_Real_Einstein August 5, 2013

        no doubt

      2. bikejedi August 5, 2013

        Or they could do one on Obama and show the effects of Communist Stupidity and failed policy …Plenty to show there

        1. kanawah August 6, 2013

          @ bikejedi
          Don’t you mean Shrub Bush, not Obama.

        2. johninPCFL August 6, 2013

          Yeah those Communist borrow and spend policies invented by Reagan (who added $4T to the national debt) and perfected by GWB (who added another $7T) would be interesting watching. You do know that the fedgov ha been running under CRs for years, right? That the spending levels today are a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of GWBs policies, right?

          1. Elise Dee Beraru August 6, 2013

            Reagan was not a communist, nor was GWB. I’ve never been a republican, but I get angry when people throw the accusation of communist, traitor or war criminal around like they were water balloons. None of our Democratic leaders are communists either, so why not leave it alone.

          2. bikejedi August 7, 2013

            Spoken like someone who buys all the Joy Behar talking points . Lets see nothing Obama has done is his fault he bares absolutely no responsibility for spending more then the previous 43 Presidents did before him combined nor for adding more to the National Debt and at a faster rate then any Preezy in history …It’s all Bush’s fault and anyone who reports facts is just racist right ?

          3. johninPCFL August 8, 2013

            I don’t know which is worse: that you believe the lies, or that you’re too lazy to do your own research. From “debt to the penny”: national debt on the start of GWBs first budget $5.8T (9/30/2009), national debt at the end of his last budget $11.9T. That’s $6.1T for GWB ($1.9T for his last year in office.) Debt at the close of 2012:$16.1T, or an added $4.2T.
            So, in recap, not more that the previous 43 presidents (not more than GWB by himself), and not faster than any prez in history (GWBs last year of $1.9T was the record.) THOSE are the facts.

          4. bikejedi August 8, 2013

            The Numbers you cite seem to be the same ones that Nancy Pelosi used and they were proven a fraud . They attribute all of Obama’s spending in the first year to Bush . they were proven to be a total fabrication and error . Note that you even show 9/30 /2009 and attribute that to Bush

          5. johninPCFL August 8, 2013

            Apparently you need to repeat 8th grade again, skippy. Everybody who’s taken American Government knows that the Fed FY runs from 10/1 through 9/30. So, the GWB spending spree started in bills signed by GWB during the summer of 2008 (including TARP in August of 2008), and the checkbook pops open on 10/1/2008. The spending continues per the spending bills he signed during his presidency in 2008 until 9/30/2009, when president Obama’s spending bills, passed by Congress during 2009, go into effect.

          6. bikejedi August 8, 2013

            Now try and use common sense and separate FY accounting and who did the spending please . Just because they do their fiscal year on 10 /1 doesn’t mean that Bush was doing the spending from 1/20 /2009 to 10 /1 /2009 . All of that was Obama . By the way most of tarp was paid back post haste and the US treasury made money off of that .

          7. johninPCFL August 8, 2013

            When is your citizenship test? Maybe you have time for a remedial class before you flunk…
            GWB signed bills INTO LAW during 2008 that controlled government spending from 10/1/2008 through 9/30/2009. Most folks know that the election was in November 2008, so the spending bills GWB signed INTO LAW controlled spending for the next president’s first year, whether it was Obama or Romney.

          8. bikejedi August 8, 2013

            And if you used common sense you could see that the only one that effected the budget in Obama’s first year was the TARP which was a money maker for the U S Govt . If you look at the budget under Obama in his first year …Oh wait you cant because he didn’t pass one …nor for his second third or fourth years …..But you can look at Govt spending and that was all on Obama

          9. johninPCFL August 8, 2013

            Again, as you study on your way to citizenship, you’ll learn that budgets aren’t spending. The President’s budget, the Congressional budgets are planning documents. The actual APPROPRIATIONS BILLS that are passed by Congress and SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT dictate spending. Since GWB SIGNED BILLS IN 2008 FOR SPENDING DURING 2009, those expendirures are his. He could, after all, have vetoed the bills, right?
            “Unka Dick. Unka Dick? Where’s the VETO stamp?”
            “Dammit George, how many times we gotta go over this? YOU DON’T VETO SPENDING BILLS!”
            And he never did. Not a single one.

          10. johninPCFL August 8, 2013

            Oops…McSame, not Robme.

    2. demz taters August 5, 2013

      In their world, the failure of Republican policies is ALWAYS the fault of liberals.

      1. bikejedi August 5, 2013

        We don’t have to worry about the failure of GOP policies when you have Detroit as the primary example of a Dem/ Liberal Policy now do we ?

      2. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

        I love your handle, Bro.

    3. DurdyDawg August 5, 2013

      Two wrongs don’t make a right, Einstein.. At least that’s what the Rethugs are hoping we’ll continue to live by so they’ll have free reign to do and say what they damn well please without any opposition.

  9. pisces63 August 5, 2013

    Let me get this right. The party of pinheaded bigots and the bastion o f freedom. No, not they!! Ahhhhh, caress me Stokely!! The same ones who are whining about holding a gun as a second amendment right?? YET, dare I write it? They do not believe in the FIRST amendment. Taking the 4th estate to task and they are protected under the constition?? It is out the real communist/socialist n our midsts a la the Manchurian Candidate. Glad the world is finding out about their hypocrisy! !!

    1. kanawah August 6, 2013

      Your post “sounds good” but is is hard to tell who you are referring to.

  10. Paul Dobson August 5, 2013

    Now the Republican party is threatening the TV networks if they don’t do just as they want them to do. The last I knew the constitution gives us “freedom of speech.” I also do not believe we can pick & choose the articles in the constitution or the amendments we like. I hope CNN & NBC call their bluff. If any political party cannot win honestly, then they do not deserve to win. I think the GOP is running scared.

    1. edwardw69 August 5, 2013

      If they go ahead with the threat, I would hope that ABC and CBS refuse to run their debates. Just Fox.
      As for me, to coin a phrase, “I don’ need no stinkin’ debates.”

    2. Blue M Perry August 5, 2013

      It’s called mix-and-match Bible passages and Pieces of the Constitution till you get a string of words that says just what you need to win your argument.

    3. kanawah August 6, 2013

      The republiCON and Transylvania tea bag party know they cannot win honestly. That is why they are sending up all of the fake scandals and going full steam ahead with voter suppression and gerrymandering. They know that in an honest race,they will be totally destroyed.

  11. DezJimmar August 5, 2013

    I don’t remember Reince whining when Faux Noise promoted and even sponsored Tea Bagger rallies and Tea Bagger candidates. Now he whines?!?!?

  12. KMarton August 5, 2013

    Didn’t know those networks would carry the debates. i though the Comedy channel would feature them this time around.

    1. Sand_Cat August 5, 2013

      You get my vote for best comment!

  13. Eleanore Whitaker August 5, 2013

    Whoa…wait a minute…Priebus is the suckup to an Australian media mogul who believes he and only he has the right to determine what Americans can and can’t see. Priebus is just his kissbutt shill. If the GOP Bull Male Dominator Party doesn’t shut their fat yaps, they will have succeeded in proving just how small and petty they’ve become. Rich bois always believe in entitlement…to own the world if need be. Sorry we will have to burst their dream bubbles.

  14. Dominick Vila August 5, 2013

    I disagree with the premise that the presidential debates hurt Mitt Romney. In fact, they helped a dismal GP candidate remain a viable alternative, not so much because of his performance and proposals, but because of President Obama’s horrible performance during the first debate. Had it not been for the latter, he would have won by a much larger margin.
    With that in mind, why is Mr. Priebus threatening two media outlets if they dare run a biographical program about a potential Democratic candidate, after FOX aired a bio about Mitt Romney, and previous Republican candidates in the past? What happened to freedom of speech? Why is this guy allowed to make a mockery of the Constitution and allowed to threaten anyone whose opinions and interests are different from his?

  15. Mary Ann Hoogeveen August 5, 2013

    The GOP are running scared because of Hillary!

  16. FredAppell August 5, 2013

    Reince Priebus is simply being a good little Nazi. His party’s message is basically “screw you America”. If your message sucks than naturally you would be worried about your opponent.

  17. AlfredSonny August 5, 2013

    Isn’t GOP supposed to support the US Constitution and it’s freedom of speech?

    1. DurdyDawg August 5, 2013

      But they are.. It’s just a tad one sided.

  18. Blue M Perry August 5, 2013

    Hillary is not a viable candidate anyway, let them spend there time and energy attacking a non-contender. Right now the woman to watch is Senator Elizabeth Warren, she has dignity, strength of will and no major political baggage to be used against her.

  19. Blue M Perry August 5, 2013

    And also, I thought the Republicans had denounced doing any debates without FOX being involved since the other networks wouldn’t stop asking real questions and kept showing them flubbing answers. No softballs, no debate is a Republican truth.

  20. tdm3624 August 5, 2013

    2016 is a long way into the future. Anyone who sees the CNN show will have moved on to other things by 2016.

    1. DurdyDawg August 5, 2013

      Not so the Pubs.. Their continuing preoccupation to rid the white house of that “N” is, through defeat, inching it’s way toward, “WE will not pass ANY bills until this BITCH is out of office”.. Already their setting up the (re) circus of not allowing Hillary to finish the first term (that she hasn’t even cornered yet) and if the American public fails to rally around that threat then they will pull out the big guns and refuse her a ‘second’ term.. Ah, deja vu, it’s such a cold meal.

  21. Pamby50 August 5, 2013

    Thanks for making my day Reince. RNC should boycott CNN, NBC & MSNBC. We wouldn’t miss you.

  22. DurdyDawg August 5, 2013

    This absolutely sounds like Republicon political thuggery.. How dare they threaten a freedom that they themselves took full advantage of in past election(s). I’m ashamed to admit that there are fools like this in our great Nation. While they were chastising labor unions for (alleged) criminal activities, they were practicing their own form of criminality.. Disgusting!

    1. The_Magic_M August 16, 2013

      Love that sticker! 🙂

  23. old crow August 5, 2013

    Fairness and decency coming out of his lips, give me a brake!

  24. silence dogood August 5, 2013

    If this old hag and her drifter husband get back into the White House we are all screwed.

    1. guest August 5, 2013

      That’s funny – we will be screwed to an economical fix and another budget surplus – and might even get some real job creation if we can keep the damn GOP out of the way this time around. But the sad thing is that after 8 years – we’ll get another jerk off republican in there to destroy everything the Clintons fixed for us.

      1. silence dogood August 5, 2013

        People who understood history would credit that to Republican control of the legislative process.

    2. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

      Consider yourself screwed. And delusional, too.

  25. Jack Licursi August 5, 2013

    This is what losers do. If ya can’t win honestly and fairly you cheat and cry…..before it even begins. How are they so afraid long before the race starts. LOSERS they are.

    1. The_Magic_M August 16, 2013

      Republicans need to prepare the field for the 2016 defeat – they’re hoping some people will finally break and turn violent after the constant drum of “Democrat election fraud… Democrat mass media… 365 impeachment reasons for the black guy… nofairnofairnofair!”.

  26. Jack Licursi August 5, 2013

    Reince is rancid. His threats are pure Communism. His own people need to be disgusted, but they won’t be. That’s how pitiful this country has been trained to fear by the far right.
    If they feel so threatened and don’t want to play then go away and sit the next Presidential race out. Wouldn’t that be historic?

  27. Sand_Cat August 5, 2013

    The GOP has a sense of fairness and decency? They hide it well. Wasn’t in evidence when ABC aired a “docudrama” blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11, nor at any time since that I can remember.

  28. bikejedi August 5, 2013

    I say let the CNN and NBC do these Campaign commercials for Killary . It will only destroy any question of their bias and will ruin whatever credibility that even Liberals have left for these two networks

    1. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

      I don’t know what universe you’re from, Yoda, but you ought to hop on your Vespa, throw it in hyperdrive and get on back to your home planet because this is Earth and you’re clearly lost.

  29. EZ2figure August 5, 2013

    Really, CNN? The Network that all the FOX broadcasters get promotions to go to FOX News from? Reince is whining about a Hillary documentary? She is an Ex-President’s wife! I thought Republicans were for free speech? Guess I missed the reason why Reince would want to stop righties from knowing what Hillary believes in so your Rush Limbaugh can paint a more accurate picture on the Oxy-contin channel, eh?

  30. Bob Williams August 5, 2013

    Let’s have a two-hour special on Whitewater. Or maybe just a one hour special on those missing documents that Hilary couldn’t find that later turned up – laying on her night stand.

    Damn – I hate when that happens!

    1. The_Magic_M August 16, 2013

      If you think you’ll win 2016 running on conspiracy theories two decades old, you’re more deluded than the “Romney landslide” pundits of 2012.

  31. kanawah August 5, 2013

    Typical republiCON and Transylvania tea bag if you do not kiss my A##, I will take my program and go home.

    The nation will be better off with the Clinton program, and with out the republiCON debate. Although, with the “debate” we can all see the potential candidates make total fools of themselves.

  32. CrankyToo August 6, 2013

    And open message to Rancid Privates:

    Dear Rancid,

    You may have shit for brains, but you’ve got one helluva set of balls. I would encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing, Squire – because you’re a shining example of what it means to be a Repugnican in the 21st century.

    See you in the funny papers.

    Your Pal,


  33. Nicolas Nguh Santos August 6, 2013

    How will Obama fix everything, When George Bush had already fixed them?. The so many Bushes in Congress try to erase every good thing that comes from Obama. Republicans have oversold themselves to the American Public to the extent that they merit no presidency for the next hundred years. In fact NASA should be exploiting habitability in Pluto and Mars to contain the two republican groups when they part in 2016. The United States on earth belongs to Democrats and immigrants. Zimmerman could choose to go to either and be safe, because ;he does not need to carry a gun over there. Contact me for more psychotherapy for United States.

  34. Elise Dee Beraru August 6, 2013

    Actually, the “Equal Time” rule was eliminated years ago. It began to crumble when Ronald Reagan ran for President because it was ruled unreasonable to give the opposition equal time any time a movie with Reagan in it aired (although he was not getting residuals for any of them). When Sonny Bono, Ralph Waite and George Takei ran for office in California around the same time, and were potentially being robbed of royalties if their reruns were taken off the air, the Equal Time rule essentially died, because it was unfair for the opposition to have a chance to present their political ideas as against an acting performance that might have nothing to do with the actor’s political positions.
    The other thing Priebus should know is that the Entertainment Division of a network is separate from the News Division and they do not dictate to each other. If the RNC wants to take its basketball and go home–I won’t miss them.

  35. CPAinNewYork August 6, 2013

    Someone’s pulling our collective leg, right? Reince Priebus isn’t really an actual person, right? No one could possibly have a name like that, so this character calling himself Reince Priebus has to be a fiction, right? Right? Right?

    1. Russell Byrd August 6, 2013

      Reince Priebus was born Reinhold Reince Priebus in Dover, New Jersey, on March 18, 1972. Of Greek and German descent. Apparently, he was made Chairman of the RNC because of his early talent for goose-stepping.

      1. The_Magic_M August 16, 2013

        Didn’t he win the chairman nomination because people thought his name was Latin for “none of the above”?

        1. Russell Byrd August 16, 2013


  36. Yvette White August 6, 2013

    They are scared as hell because they know that the people of .this country don’t want them nowhere.death to the Republican party.and I hope it comes fast for all of theses assholes

  37. tax payer August 10, 2013

    I don’t watch cartoons, so I would be glued to the television set.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.