RNC's Ban Of MSNBC, CNN From Hosting Debates Is Bad Politics

On Saturday, the Republican National Committee almost gleefully voted to ban cable channels CNN and MSNBC from hosting officially sanctioned Republican primary debates during the 2016 Presidential cycle. The move is in reaction to plans by the two CNN and MSNBC sister network NBC to produce movies based on the life of probable Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in an interview with Reuters that it's part of an effort by Republicans to highlight the party's candidates in the best possible light. Along with the debate ban, that plan also includes moving the Republican convention into June or July instead of August. The hope is that the extended period between the Republican convention and the Democratic one would give the Republican candidate more time to focus on the opposition.

These moves fall into the category of a plan which sounds good at first glance, but is amazingly dumb once you wade into the details. And before I'm buried under an avalanche of emails claiming I'm a liberal tool, let's keep a couple of things in mind. Yes, I have tended to vote Democratic, but I am by no means a Hillary fan. Even though she's probably the best chance for Democrats to win in 2016, I can think of a dozen people I would rather have as the party nominee. And I agree with Republicans that while the NBC and CNN movies aren't illegal, they are at best bad form and more likely the result of people who are sympathetic to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

But let's take a look at a portion of some recent comments by Priebus during a press conference and see if we can spot the flaw in his thinking:

"Our party should not be involved in setting up a system that encourages the slicing and dicing of candidates over a long period of time with moderators that are not in the business of being at all concerned about the future of our party," Priebus told reporters this week.

Priebus at least outwardly seems to be a bright guy. So it's difficult to believe that he really believes debate moderators should be concerned with the future of the Republican party. How does having a friendly moderator help pick the best nominee? The only way to weed out the weak links is to force them to answer tough questions. Not just because it strengthens them for the campaign, but because a President needs to be able to handle tough or even unfair questions. If he or she can't, then do they have any business being President?

The other problem with this idea is more substantial. Republicans have a lot of theories about why they've lost the last two Presidential elections and some of the ideas make more sense than others. But one challenge for Republicans is to get their candidate and their message in front of more people. You often hear Republican officials argue that the media has gotten in the way of their message and if more Americans could only hear their ideas, they would be golden.

So if you accept their premise that any debate moderated by CNN or MSNBC journalists would either be unfair or draw an audience of unfriendly viewers, then you should want to encourage those debate formats, not prevent them. You would want your candidates to heard by as many people as possible. You would want to show viewers that no matter how unfair the moderators might be, your candidates have ideas so strong and vibrant that they can drown out any attempts to prevent them from being heard.

Instead, Republicans are faced with the prospect of having friendly moderators such as Sean Hannity ask them leading questions about the evils of big government and the dangers of a Clinton presidency. It's a move that will thrill the base of the Republican Party and it may even energize them. But if you end up only energizing 48 percent of the electorate once again, then the results are likely to be the same.

In other words, congratulations, President Clinton.