Fox News suffers another debate snub; bloggers take a bow
Coveted assignments for presidential debate moderators were handed out last week, and guess who was left off the list ... again.
After suffering the bitter, and unprecedented, blow during the Democratic primary season of having candidates refuse -- twice -- to appear in Fox News-sponsored forums when bloggers raised hell about the news organization's lack of legitimacy, Rupert Murdoch's news channel was again left off the list of news anchors tapped to moderate the must-see TV events in the fall.
Instead, the questions during the three presidential forums and one vice presidential debate will be posed by PBS' Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill, as well as NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Bob Schieffer.
Unlike the primaries, Fox News this time won't be locked out entirely; all the networks will be able to broadcast the debates. But the snub means that once again Fox News will be denied the chance to leave its imprint on the all-important debates. It won't be able to build its brand on the back of Democrats who have injected extraordinary passion and interest into the White House run.
That passion and interest has helped boost ratings for Fox News' cable competitors, while Fox's numbers have remained stagnant. Meaning, the unfolding presidential campaign has been a ratings dud so far for Fox News and its unofficial year of woe.
Just as the 9-11 terrorist attacks catapulted Fox News' ratings into the patriotic stratosphere, the 2008 campaign season may be viewed as the news event that marked the news channel's fall from ratings dominance.
In turn, Fox News' ratings woes have opened the door to a much more frank and honest discussion about the news outlet. Like when New York Times media columnist David Carr recently called out Fox News flacks as thugs. And the way MSNBC chief Phil Griffin declared that when it comes to Fox News, "you can't trust a word they say." Sure, Griffin's a competitor. But before this year, that kind of blunt talk was not heard in polite Beltway media circles, and it certainly was not heard on the record.
Fox News has been taken down several notches, and the demotions can be traced back to the blogger-led debate boycott from 2007 and the repercussions it set off.
The point of that media pushback was to begin chipping away, in a serious, consistent method, at Fox News' reputation. The goal was to portray Fox News as illegitimate, to spell out that Fox News was nothing more than a Republican mouthpiece and that Democrats need not engage with the News Corp. giant, let alone be afraid of it.
In other words, bloggers wanted to badly dent the Fox News brand.
I have no definitive proof that the blue-ribbon Commission on Presidential Debates, which organizes the televised forums, bypassed Fox News in terms of moderators because of the formal boycott that the netroots launched last year or the noisy questions it raised about Fox News' professionalism. But if there is one thing the staid debate commission seems to detest, it's controversy.
The commission has made it clear that it wants the forums to be all about the candidates and not about the moderators or, by extension, about the media. The last thing the commission would want this year by tapping a Fox News moderator is to spark a large, and raucous, debate over the nature of Fox News and whether it was appropriate to have one of Rupert Murdoch's personalities host a presidential debate.
And trust me, formal petitions and online protests would be flying around the Internet right now if the commission had tapped a Fox News anchor to pose the presidential hopeful questions in September or October. You can bet Robert Greenwald at Foxnewsattacks.com and the whole MoveOn.org crew, along with bloggers like Matt Stoller, would be raising holy hell at the prospect of Sen. Barack Obama having to be on stage for 90 minutes and answer questions posed by a Fox News anchor.
It's true that neither CNN nor MSNBC are represented this cycle in terms of moderators. But since 1988, CNN twice has had one of its anchor moderate a general-election presidential debate. No Fox News anchor has ever been tapped for that honor. For the Fox News family, which desperately wants to be seen as a legitimate news operation, that ongoing slight has got to hurt. (For years, MSNBC's ratings were so insignificant that it had no chance of being considered for the debates.)
And based on the ongoing pushback that bloggers have unleashed on Murdoch and Co. -- based on the questions the bloggers have raised about the brand of journalism being practiced there -- I doubt Fox News will ever be seen as fair or professional enough to have one of its big-name hosts help talk Americans through a presidential campaign in the high-profile role of moderator.
Obviously, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity aren't ever going to be allowed with 500 yards of any commission debate's moderating table. But what about Brit Hume, Fox News' high-profile evening anchor who's been a Beltway news staple, and well-liked within elite circles, for several decades? If he worked for any other network, he would almost certainly be viewed by the commission as a viable choice.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the commission's 11-member executive board, which selects the moderators, employs an "informal" agreement not to use any of the nightly news anchors for moderators. (I assume that's to avoid any implication that it's playing favorites with the network or trying to boost the ratings of one of the nightly newscasts.) So that might explain why Hume hasn't been asked to host a debate.
Additionally, the Journal reported that the commission uses three criteria for the moderators:
- Knowledge of the candidates and relevant issues.
- Experience in live broadcasting.
- Understanding that a moderator's role is to facilitate conversation between the candidates, not to participate in it.
Doesn't Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday and perhaps its least partisan personality, pretty much meet those criteria? But again, my guess is that as long as Wallace is cashing a Fox News paycheck, he will never moderate a presidential debate, which is seen as a pinnacle achievement in the broadcast news business.
Why? Because bloggers and the entire netroots movement have damaged the Fox News brand and sent a clear signal to Beltway institutions such as the Commission on Presidential Debates that any attempt to bring Fox News into the mainstream, to bestow it with unearned legitimacy, will be met with active protests. (Wallace's chances for a moderator slot were probably not helped by the fact that Fox News has been busy airing doctored, cartoonish images of New York Times journalists, dubbing Obama hand gestures as "terrorist fist jab[s]," and reportedly leaking gossip about reporters to industry blogs.)
Bloggers deserve the credit because the pushback they initiated was something that members of the Democratic Party had, for years, refused to do. Instead, they adopted a go-along/get-along strategy with Fox News, hoping that if they were nice (and cooperative) with Fox News, then Fox News would be nice (and cooperative) in response.
Indeed, without the online campaign, do you think the head of the Democratic National Committee would have appeared on Fox News and publicly denounced its coverage as being "shockingly biased" the way Howard Dean did in May? I doubt it, since for years Democrats, and particularly the inside-the-Beltway party leaders, acquiesced.
Hell, in 2007 leaders of the Nevada Democratic Party wanted to partner with Fox News to sponsor a debate among the party's presidential hopefuls.
For online activists, the idea of the Democratic Party itself anointing Fox News as some sort of standard-bearer for election coverage was too much.
The debate itself was actually rather meaningless. Bloggers didn't really care about the actual forum and certainly were not scared about what kinds of questions the Fox News moderators would pose to the Democrats during the primary. Activists were more concerned about the other 364 days of the year and how Fox News would benefit from the legitimacy attached to moderating a presidential debate and the unspoken seal of approval it implies.
"The lies of FOX News and Roger Ailes have no place in public discourse, journalism, or the Democratic Party presidential debates," blogger Matt Stoller wrote in 2007, further stressing it was important "to not ratify Fox News as a legitimate news source."
One year later, the initiative is still paying dividends for Fox's foes. Not just in terms of watching the news channel being snubbed by the debate commission, but also in watching Fox News' continued slide in the campaign ratings race.
It's true that after losing the first quarter prime-time ratings battle this year to CNN (marking CNN's first quarterly win in nearly seven years), Fox News rebounded and came out on top, barely, for the second quarter. But that doesn't mean its troubles are over because now the cable news ratings battle has been transformed into a month-to-month dogfight. Fox News no longer posts wins with ease the way it did for nearly a decade.
The simple explanation for the viewership lull is that the current campaign has produced enormous interest among Democratic news consumers, and Democrats don't watch Fox News. It's just that simple. Time and again on the nights of primary returns this winter and spring, Fox News floundered.
And by getting shut out of the Democratic debates, the Fox News team was denied the ratings gold the prime-time events generated. The snub also effectively turned Fox News into a bystander in the race.
Fact: Through mid-June this year, CNN added 170,000 viewers a night, on average, when compared the first five-and-a-half months of 2004, or the last time the cablers covered a presidential run. During that same period through June this year, Fox News lost about 90,000 viewers each night vs. 2004, according to The New York Times.
Back when the bloggers rolled out their successful debate boycott strategy in Nevada, Fox News executives reacted with pure venom, denouncing the netroots as "radical fringe out-of-state interest groups." At the time, the response struck me as being wildly out of proportion. But it seems the Fox News team could see the looming trouble. They could see that a Democratic-friendly election year was going to mean ratings woes for them, and that by refusing to debate on Fox News, the Democratic candidates would be sending a damaging (irreparable?) message about the news organization's lack of legitimacy.
One year later, the ratings surge for Fox News' competitors remains in full view, while the selection of the presidential debate moderators confirms that Fox News' quest for respect has suffered another setback.
Bloggers, take a bow.
...because this presidential race is alot closer than it should be.
Thanks to whom...? Remind me again...oh, yea, FOX News. ;>)
Fox News, yes... but it's perhaps more the influence that Fox & it's other media allies (talk radio?) have had on other media outlets. How many times now has MMFA had to call out the traditionally liberal media - CNN, MSNBC, NTY, WashPO? Fox is the most visible and far reaching offender by far. Talk radio is perhaps the most eggregious, but all media outlets deserve criticism for abandoning all standards and poretense of journalistic objectivity in repsonse to the largely unfounded accusation of liberal bias.
...because this presidential race is alot closer than it should be.
Thanks to whom...? Remind me again...oh, yea, FOX News. ;>)
She noticed I was on MMFA and casually told me it was imperitave that we not elect Obama. When I asked why she said "He will negroize America". (though she used the more colorful version of negro). She's convinced it will be a wholesale givaway to the blacks in America at white people's expense.
Hey, Snoopy, I'm driving to Texas on the 24th. Can I arrange to meet your former friend?
Mary, here's a clip...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/sportscaster-bob-costas-s_n_118209.html
I wonder (hope!) if the MSM will realize that they just got showed up by a sportscaster and clean up their act...
I'm willing to bet that by 10:30 someone will come by and ask, "why are they so afraid of Fox News?" or "How can we expect them to go toe to toe with the Ruskies if they can't handle the Fox News crew?"
We're going to keep our eye on you, colonel.
King,
Glad to see that you boys are keeping up with Alex Trebek and Jeopardy...continuing education is a wonderful thing.
Sorry Wes.
You've made the list too.
Alex Trebek is a Canadian and a foreigner. Thus, we'll have to watch the Colonel, you and Alex Trebeck.
Mary, you neglected to mention questions about Bill Ayers interjected between each of the other questions you listed. Otherwise, good job... ;>)
Mary, you neglected to mention questions about Bill Ayers interjected between each of the other questions you listed. Otherwise, good job... ;>)
Don't forget to use Ayers full name, Unrepentant Terrorist Bill Ayers.
Ummm, yea...I forgot about that.
BTW, since we're on the topic of names after listening to Sean Hannity I'm afraid that I have been wrong about Barack Obama's name for quite a while. Apparently his first name is actually THE RADICAL. Funny first name...but then Obama is an exotic, foreign guy. ;>)
Let them come, King. Any troll who doesn't understand why faux news isn't on the list need look no further than this diatribe from the faux:
Yesterday, Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia, which Georgia has called “a state of war.” Nearly two thousand people have died and the conflict risks sparking a wider war. Also yesterday, former senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006.
Fox News has decided which story is worthy of more coverage. Today, host Gregg Jarrett interviewed PBS’s Bonnie Erbe. “We have these huge stories going on like the one you’re reporting in Georgia,” Erbe noted when asked about Edwards. Jarrett, however, completely ignored Erbe’s comment on Georgia and continued to talk about Edwards, offering praise for the National Enquirer:
Throughout the segment, Jarrett refused to talk about anything except for Edwards’s affair:
Erbe called the Edwards story “water cooler talk,” noting again that Edwards’s affair is “not the stuff the American public wants to hear about in this election cycle.” Again, Jarrett wholly ignored her, responding with more Edwards talk:
I saw that, hilarious stuff.
ERBE: ...We could have been on the verge of nuclear war. Those are the kinds of the things that the American public wants to see discussed.
JARRETT: Right. You know, but getting back to Edwards...
In other words, "I don't care what the public wants to see discussed, I want to play up the story that hurts Dems". That really sums up FOX in general.
Snoopy and Brabantio:
One mega problem with your analysis: Think Progress and Keith Olbermann lied!
Here is the proof, courtesy of Johnny Dollar:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY1FBiMxixc
Fox News has decided which story is worthy of more coverage.
...and it was the situation in Georgia, not what Think Progress said, not what Keith Olbermann repeated (without citation, natch!)
No "context" needed. Simple right versus wrong.
The criticism in this instance is still valid for Jarrett though, since he kept pulling the conversation back to Edwards. The idea that his behavior isn't encouraged or at least accepted by FOX is sort of hard to swallow, of course.
I also wonder how much other coverage there was of the Edwards story that day. If the ratio is anywhere close to even, then the Edwards story was overplayed.
That being said, they shouldn't make the declaration that FOX has made such a decision based on that single instance alone, that's fair enough. They should keep it specific to Jarrett, or make an effort to show a trend for a certain time period.
Chromium, you may have been disoriented by the ominous music that Johhny Dollar inserted into his video. There's a total of about one minute of Fox Nooz doing Russia/Georgia related stuff in there. Hardly a strong case for a 24 hour station.
But "proof", I suppose, if that's what you desperately want to believe.
Colonel,
J$ did not take those field reports over a 24-hour period!
They were all taken from the previous 70 minutes. See the graphic that scrolls starting at 36 seconds into the video.
No one from ABC or CNN is featured on the list either... I wonder why they're not complaining...
But regardless, I don't think network affiliation should have that much impact on whether or not they hold both candidates to the fire. The only person I've heard crying about the moderator selection was Sean Hannity, claiming that everyone but Schieffer was liberal (he labeled Schieffer as a moderate).
I know - no complaints if the moderators were Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs, right? ;)
Democrats aren't afraid to have Fox News involved in the debates, they just want the debates to be about real issues; not about stupid patriotic tests, (lapel pins), stupid smears (elitism, racism, thinness, exoticness, etc.) or stupid straw man arguments (socialism, giving in to terrorists, etc.) We all know any moderator from Fox is in the tank for McCain. So why would Obama volunteer to put his head on the chopping block?
Maybe it appeared for him as it did for me. I just saw a blank panel with a little symbol in the corner. I was only able to see it by right-clicking on the space and telling it to open in a new tab.
It might have been funnier if it had actually been taking a stab at reality. However, the fact is that, while Obama has been getting more air time than McCain, a larger percentage of that air time has been negative in nature than it has for McCain.
Sorry, Fox News. It's time for the adults to assemble and discuss grown-up things.
FOX is a propaganda tool for the GOP and also at 10pm has the Tabloid junk of Gretta. It is not legitimite.
Fox' alleged conservative bias is no more pronounced than the liberal bias displayed by all its competitors.
Tell you what, here's a quick screenshot of what a conservative and right leaning joke Fox News is:
http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/news/o/obama_barack/baby_mama_fox_061308/alt/281x211b.jpg
Let's see your example of a liberal media outlet doing something similar but left leaning.....
Thomp,
My only disagreement with your post is that you state that FOX is allegedly biased towards the Right. There are Left voices on FOX but by & large I think they do lean Right. Of course CNN & especially MSNBC has a great many Left-leaning participants on their programming...
And in the end who cares about the moderators of these debates. No matter who participates, both sides will think they got the short end of the fair & balanced treatment.
Also since CNN & MSNBC aren't included either who, but the FOX haters are gonna see this as some sort of victory?
Of course CNN & especially MSNBC has a great many Left-leaning participants on their programming...
Can you list names of "left-leaning" participants on another network that's on par with this short list of Fox News righties:
Steve DoocyJohn Gibson
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
E.D. Hill
Brit Hume
Brian Kilmeade
Mort Kondracke
Bill O'Reilly
Chris Wallace
Off the top of my head:
Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, Harold Ford, Rachel Maddow, David Schuster, Andrea Kramer, Craig Crawford, Howard Fineman, Dan Abrams, Mika Bryzn . .. (sp), and everybody who happens to appear on KO's show.
Gov,
Chris Mathews doesn't fit the dem bill:
Democrat Chris Mathews
Chris's demorat resume'
Worked under Jimmy Carter, Ed Muskie & Tippy O'neil...
Yeah, he's not a liberal.
"Yeah, he's not a liberal."
I agree. His right-wing fawning over the last few years disqualifies him from being a liberal.
PS: Andrea Kramer is only left of Peyton Manning
http://www.dack.com/images/weblog/andrea-kramer.jpg
Your list is quite dubious.
Funny stuff, Thomp.
Tonight Alan Colmes crushed the opposition. They were saying that John Edwards can't be trusted because he had an affair, and he called them on that, and asked them if John McCain could be trusted. They squirmed, and tried to bring up John McCain's time as a prisoner of war, and Bill Clinton, and Robert Byrd, but could not admit that if John Edwards, who isn't running for Prez, is not trustworthy, then neither is John McCain. They said that 'Edwards was running for Prez when he had the affair', like that has anything to do with whether or not having an affair makes you not trustworthy. They said that McCain's affair was 30 years ago, like that makes it okay!
McCain's running, and Edwards is not. As I said when this story was first harped on by the righties, if it's a problem, then it's a problem, and if it's a small problem for Obama that's Edwards had an affair, then it's a huge problem for McCain that McCain had an affair!
Fox News gets between one to two million viewers with O'Reilly occasionally getting above that and they're very popular with the "close to death" demographic. Fox News gets the best ratings among a system where most Americans don't get their news. Most people get their news from their local affliiate or some other source.
And there is no station as blatantly to the left as FOX is to the right.
-- they're very popular with the "close to death" demographic -- loonz
They're popular with a lot of groups...even the "far from death" demographic.
-- When prime-time cable news ratings for the second quarter of 2008 are officially released next week, they will show that Fox News reclaimed the top spot among viewers in their mid-20s through mid-50s, those of greatest interest to news advertisers, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. -- NYTimes
Thomp:
Ratings have nothing to do with legitimacy, only with popularity.
OT, but this is too funny to pass up. McCain apparently gets his speeches from Wikipedia!
Earlier today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a speech on the war in Georgia. A Wikipedia editor notes that the speech is strikingly similar to the Wikipedia entry on the country Georgia. “[M]ost people would consider parts of McCain’s speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia,” Taegan Goddard writes:
Goddard has more examples of the similarities. (HT: Democracy Arsenal)
This racism angle that is being raised so often here is getting tiresome and boring...kinda like global warming is the cause of all things bad in the world.
Moving along from the blatant racist moaning:
-- A study released this month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University found that Fox News Channel's evening coverage was more "balanced" than that of the broadcast networks. -- Huffpo
You can skip with the additional moaning that the study was funded by conservative groups...debunk the methodology if you want...but conservative dollars do not automatically bias the study.
A little more on Fox News fairness and balance from some prominent democrats:
-- I thought that Fox’s coverage during the primary was comprehensive and fair and evenhanded. -- Harold Wolfson - Clinton campaign strategist
-- Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables. -- Terry McAuliffe - Clinton campaign manager
You can skip with the additional moaning that the study was funded by conservative groups...debunk the methodology if you want...but conservative dollars do not automatically bias the study.
I wouldn't approach it at that angle. The Dems on Fox "News" are pushovers. They're there to make the right-wing hosts (and conservatives in general) feel superior to Democrats. I think conservatives suffer from low esteem.
So, if you're accepting their study, I assume you also accept their conclusion that Obama's coverage was very heavily negative through the campaign?
Why should we disregard the fact that the study was heavily funded by conservative groups? Especially when the methodology involved watching the coverage and making subjective judgments on whether the coverage was slanted and how much? That sounds like a study custom designed to achieve a predetermined conclusion.
-- I assume you also accept their conclusion that Obama's coverage was very heavily negative through the campaign? -- billjmn
Here's what the CMPA actually found...a changing scenario after Hillary dropped out:
-- Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative). --
Why the wild swing in reporting on Obama? From strongly positive when running against Clinton to very strongly negative when running against McCain.
Since it has been widely reported that media members are overwhelmingly democrats...why the negative reporting on Obama? One theory, which I believe, points to the media's policy of destruction...building someone up in order to later tear them down.
As a whole, I believe the members of the media to being nasty, mean-spirited, egoists...completely out of touch with main stream America.
What's the point of this piece? That Fox News is systematically discriminated against in elite media circles because it dares challenge the left's dominance of the MSM? - interestingobserver
Wow, I've seen some people miss the point before, but this is an airball for the books.
-- The simple explanation for the viewership lull is that the current campaign has produced enormous interest among Democratic news consumers, and Democrats don't watch Fox News. It's just that simple. -- Boehlert
I agree.
Next time you choose to wander around the keyboard on this subject...do me a favor and post this at the beginning of the article. Then I won't waste my time with a lot of gibberish about netroots and bloggers.
Wesley,
You can always use the Delete button before you make silly posts.
This is great news. Everyone here can take a bow!! We've damaged Fox, no doubt about it. We've hobbled the filthy beast.
Ths is just the beginning. The goal is to cripple and destroy this "News" organization. I believe we can do it.
Wes is absolutely correct. The eight years of Bush/Cheney, along with the lackluster and indifference felt by many on the right over their plummeting poll numbers and their boring presidential candidate has done more damage to Fox News than any blogger ever could. Combine that with Barack Obama and Fox is undoubtedly slipping.
It's the ups and downs of politics and ideology.
Schadenfreude is alive and well at MMFA.
In the spirit of deciding who should commentate, I would think that everyone here would want the toughest questioners to ask the toughest questions.
Simply put, the moderator selection process has evolved into a good-ol-boy process. The MSM is doing it's best to keep Fox News out of the their 'club'. We can see how well the MSM keeps us "in the know" with their Edwards cover-up.
But that's okay. The monopoly is over. Alternative media now drives most of the big stories anyway.
I'd love to see Boehlert or Moulitsas and someone like Drudge or Malkin as moderators. Let them rip into the candidates in a debate the way they do in their columns. No... instead we have glorified time keepers and news anchors who put you to sleep.
It is just another example of how the left biased MSM is dying out. Simply going back to the same old game plan only hastens their demise.
"Edwards cover-up"
You are just plain bonkers. Edwards was covered on a loop throughout all of MSM. How you could type the words "Edwards cover-up" in good faith is totally beyond my understanding.
Thanks. I guess that's similar to MSM not covering the rumor that tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq because of countless lies told by the US Gov't after 9/11. Rumor has it that 90,000 Iraqis civilians were killed as a result of our willfully idiotic and vicious leaders.
Here's a recent photo that's rumored to be of the dolt kingpin during a visit to China:
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/3a/fullj.e9069654e472a74413906702d6aded19/e9069654e472a74413906702d6aded19-getty-81972190mw013_olympics_day_.jpg
"It is just another example of how the left biased MSM is dying out."
The left-biased MSM died a long time ago when profit was introduced into the mix.
Well, who really gives a crap who cheats on who's wife....I mean really....isn't it between the cheater and the cheated.
If someone cheats (sexually) doesn't mean he/she can't run a good country/business....
sheesh
and the "news" thinks everyone gives a hoot.
You are right, it is between the "cheater" and the "cheated". And it just illustrates what a phony Edwards was, many of us were right about him all along.
However personal his situation is, for him to run for office knowing this was hanging over his head is unforgivable. What would have happened had he got elected and this woman, or some bottom feeding blackmailer, gotten their hooks into the leader of our country. One doesn't have to be a genius to consider the dangerous ramifications of that situation. So, in that context, Yes, their infidelity IS our business.
I don't want our president to be low hanging fruit for extortionists ready to fleece them for some bombshell secret they are hiding.
Good riddance John Edwards.
You're right Tommy,
hopefully when this blows over we'll never have to hear his name anymore. If it wasn't so sad and embarrassing for his wife and kids, I wouldn't mind so much seeing the guy humiliated
Fine, you do that. This is not a partisan issue for me, unlike you apparently. My statements regarding the risk of electing a John Edwards type holds true for any politician, from any party.
Governor, Please feel free to find a past John Edwards thread on this website and reread any of my posts explaining why I believed then, even before it was revealed that he cheated on his cancer stricken wife, that he was a phony.
You will have your answers there, otherwise you will have to live with your ignorance in that regard.
You're forgiven.....
My nonpartisan statement went to his philandering phoniness, as it would for any rightwinger cut from the same cloth.
Here you go then:
"Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,6546861.story?page=1I think Tommy's point was about the risk of electing Edwards vs. McCain. Grampy's personal life may be much more sordid and immoral than Edwards', but there's very little risk of the media digging into it, regardless of any blackmailers or witnesses who may come forward.
Besides, most of McCain's ex-mistresses are probably long dead or don't remember him.
It's being reported now that Sen. George McCain...
had a 6-year affair with Zsa Zsa Gabor--while he was married to Cindy and before she had her 3rd facelift.
McCain also contacted a sexually transmitted disease from Bea Arthur right before she had a stroke.
Dem,
I do believe McCain was separated from his wife at the time and has said that he acted poorly. So he has a mea culpa regarding an romance and remarriage 20 some years ago.
Edwards campaigned on his fidelity to his cancer stricken wife and children while carrying on the affair. Up till last Friday, a cover up on his part. So the cheating on Edward's part is current.
"Politics makes strange bedfellows" seems to describe these politicians behavior literally as well as figuratively.
You can bet that if Obama had McCain's background...
Faux and the rest of the corporate media would be all over it. We'd be hearing about it all the time. We'd be hearing about the Keating 5, we'd be hearing rumors of affairs, we'd have filth authors with airtime on the corporate channels.
But since Grandpah is a consevative, he gets a free pass. The corporate make damn sure this stuff doesn't get any traction.
I do believe McCain was separated from his wife at the time and has said that he acted poorly. So he has a mea culpa regarding an romance and remarriage 20 some years ago.
In April 1979, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley. There is an 18-year age difference between Cindy and John, but they both lied about their ages when they met. John said he was younger than 42, and Cindy said she was older than 24. They didn't realize this until they went to apply for a marriage license a year after they met.
McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had “cohabited” until Jan. 7 of that year — or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.
His divorce was granted April 2, 1980
Pearlene,
My point was that McCain took out the marriage license while separated from his wife. I agree he acted poorly.
It is worth noting that the silence surrounding Edward's affair by the MSM had Howard Wolfson complaining that this piece of information not being explored by the MSM allowed Edwards to take enough votes away from Hillary in Iowa to change the whole nomination process.
In effect, the Edwards cover up, (by Edwards and his wife,) caused people to donate to his campaign when they might not have, and caused Hillary to eventually lose the nomination.
So there are a few differences between McCain's behavior and Edwards even if both men acted poorly.
Edwards didn't campaign on his fidelity...
YOU MORON.
That being considered, why isn't he being indicted for treason for allowing his U.S. corporation to propagandize U.S. citizens? Isn't that against the law?
Fox has an obvious agenda, but the idiot shows such as Olberman's countdown have become as ridiculous as their counter parts on Fox, It's all propaganda from both extremes.
Bill from ct
It makes me laugh that folks such as yourself use the term "big media" to describe other news sources rather than Fox, which is the largest news corporation IN THE WORLD.
If Fox isn't the MSM, I don't know who is.