Politico's Smith: Fox can now "confirm to its viewers" that Dems are "cowards"
In an April 9 entry to his Politico.com weblog, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith asserted that Fox News can "confirm to its viewers that Democrats are ... cowards" after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) declined to participate in a presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute. Smith wrote: "No word yet from [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich [D-OH] and [former Sen. Mike] Gravel [D-AK], or the other campaigns, or from Fox, which could presumably do an empty podium hour and confirm to its viewers that Democrats are, in fact, the cowards it's often portrayed them as. Sounds win-win to me."
According to Smith, his blog covers "the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination and all that revolves around it." Smith also frequently writes articles for The Politico about the Democratic presidential candidates. As Media Matters for America senior fellow Eric Boehlert documented, Smith has written baseless and misleading articles alleging that "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's 2008 presidential campaign has been burdened by unusually public discussion about his behavior with women," and that Obama has a "Jewish Problem."
Smith's entry was flagged by the Drudge Report, which, as Media Matters documented, has linked extensively to The Politico since the publication launched less than three months ago.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Pathetic.
What more can I say...
Wait, aren't the rightys still whining about Nancy Pelosi fraternizing with enemies of America? Now they want Dem candidates to formally recognize and talk to Fox?
Sounds like appeasement of the Republofascists to me.
I recognized fox this morning. It was right after I grunted and before I flushed.
"Wait, aren't the rightys still whining about Nancy Pelosi fraternizing with enemies of America?"
-----
HBL, there's proof now that she did precisely that. Then she left the White House, and went with her delegation to Syria.
I don't think these candidates do themselves any favors by not participating. Take your ball and go home?! They need to reach out to everybody, not just their own party. I say the politicians should stay above the fray and let the political supporters do the boycotting of the networks, if that's what they really believe is right.
What good does it do when one is "trying to get their message out" to attempt to do such in a forum sponsored by an entity that has shown evidence of being a propaganda tool of your opposition? It serves no purpose for dems to participate in these FOX News sponsored debates when you know they will hack, edit and distort them after the fact. I'm just disappointed that the CBC is participating in these debates with FOX News seeing that they're (FOX) not exactly the best friend of the Black community.. But then again I suppose it would be different if the community were all nice and cozy with the Republican party.
Well Bruce, it's great to see that my party has grown a pair, and stopped giving FOX "News" the small shred of credibility that they so desire. Yet, there you go with your whining that the Democrats aren't playing well with others--TOO D^MNED BAD. Why would we want to take lessons from a righty about where we should hold our debates?
I hope your next complaint with the Democrats isn't about us squelching FOX "News" 1st amendment rights--that's been played by your side way too often. Perhaps in some future election, FOX "News" will have proven to be worthy of hosting an unbiased debate. But, as long as they continue to practice urinalism, they are worthy only of hosting the RepubliCon debates.
Oh, by the way, please, please tell me how great they are because their ratings are so high.
"They need to reach out to everybody, not just their own party. "
Tell it to Fox. They are the ones who have a proven track record of NOT reaching out to "everybody", but instead pandering only to Republicans who tune-in to Fox to see Democrats bashed.
Fox has made its bed. They can sleep in it.
Dems do reach out to everybody....with their policies.
Refusing to go on Fox, where your message will only be distorted, does not benefit Democrats in any way. It's like saying Republican pro-life candidates should speak in front of pro-choice groups in order to get their message out. You're basically speaking to an audience which has made up their minds, and your message will only be criticized and attacked. It's not beneficial in any way.
Even Fox text banners have recently said things like, "Democrats: Legislating Defeat in Iraq". How can you go to an organization like that and make an honest, fair argument about the Iraq War??? If you say the war is not helping us, you're basically called a coward, traitor, or they claim you're "aiding the enemy", etc.
I mean, just look at how Fox treated the Pelosi trip to Syria. They accused her of committing a felony for Christsake. Do you really think they'll be fair about any other issue? Their goal as an organization is to only give one side.
Oh! How dare those Democrats stand unified in opposition to the republican noise machine. Democrats do themselves a tremendous favor by calling attention to the FOX liars and telling them to stick it. Democrats do themselves a favor by denying Fox any semblance of credibility. Democrats do themselves a favor by not pandering to people who will not hear them anyway.
Okay, you just let me know when the top three republican front-runners agree to have a debate on Democracy Now.
Fox can now "confirm to its viewers" that FNC is not credible and the Dems aren't going to play along any longer.
Seems to me that it's actually pretty brave, not cowardly, to stand up to the Republican misinformation machine that is Fox News. I applaud these Dems for not playing Fox's game.
that's how bullies always operate.
It's time to call a spade a spade. Misinformation implies the possibility of an innocent mistake. Disinformation, is the deliberate use of inaccurate information and faulty logic for sinister purposes. That is what we're dealing with here.
I am disapointed the Candiates are running away from the debate. As long as FOX has the amount of viewers it has , the Democratic candidates need to use it as a vehicle to get the message out.
Doris, nobody's "running away" from a debate. I have mixed feelings about how the Dems should handle this, but using the same loaded language as Fox is not helping to get the truth of it out.
The idea that Democrats running for president should participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News Channel is ridiculous on it's face.
Right, Fox News Corporation, whose president and CEO is career Republican media consultant and all-around Republican operative roger ailes...
...roger ailes should sponsor a Democratic candidate's debate?
The stupidity of it is laughable.
What next, newt gingrich is going to sponsor a Democratic candidate's debate also? ollie north, and ann coulter too, are going to sponsor a Democratic candidate's debate also?
Aren't those people employees of Fox News Corporation, don't they work for roger ailes?
I can't hardly even believe anybody could think such stuff, and still keep a straight face... or still claim they had any sense at all, whichever the case may be.
As for the debates themselves, debates by Democratic presidential candidates, leading up to the various state Democratic primaries:
Just as those primaries are the 'exclusive property' (if you will) of the various state Democratic Parties, and the Democratic Party nationally, so aren't the debates too... they're the 'exclusive property' of the various state's, and the national, Democratic Party.
This is so true, and so obvious, that it's incredible to hear anyone talk as though Fox or any other privately-owned "media" company had any right (or even any remote and strained claim) to sponsor (or even participate!) in any Democratic candidate's debate, for any Democratic primary election, presidential or otherwise.
As a matter of fact, were the Democratic Party nationally, to own or have a controlling interest in any privately-owned "media" television broadcast corporation, then that's where these debates would appear, exclusively...
...if the Democratic Party nationally had such a broadcast arm, it's network call-sign would probably be DNC...
...just as the Replubican National Committee has it's broadcast arm, known as FNC (Fox News Channel).
I think the Dems are missing the boat here also.
What percentage FOX viewers do you estimate would be persuaded to vote "D" next election after watching the debates?
Somewhere between one and zero.
Oh, you're an optimist.
Your question above is BANG Zoom! right on the money...
I remember the 1988 Democratic presidential debates (which I remind again, are the 'exclusive property' of the national and the state's Democratic Parties... just as are the primaries, for which those debates serve)...
In 1988, seven Democratic candidates sat down for their first debate, leading up to the various Democratic primaries...
And before even a single candidate said a single word, the moderator cokie roberts (who the heck chose her?), in a smart-alec introduction to that debate, called those seven candidates "the seven dwarfs"...
I can't be the only one that remembers this.
And so what would we get from a Fox-sponsored Democratic debate (and again, that combination of words right there is absurd: 'Fox-sponsored Democratic debate')...
...what would we get? Who would moderate?
sean hannity?
It's ridiculous, the thought of it... these are Democratic debates, for Democratic candidates, running in Democratic primaries... which are primarily (excusively really) for voters who are registered Democrats (I'm under the impression that registered Independents can vote in a Republican or Democratic primary, but in so doing, their registered affiliation then changes to the party whose primary it is they just voted in).
These debates, like the very primaries that they help decide, are for the benefit of Democrats, pure and simple.
Of course anyone else may lend an ear, Republicans included... but to lend a voice, right into those debates?
No... it was bad enough that someone was so dumb as to let cokie roberts call the candidates "the seven dwarfs", by way of introducing that first Democratic presidential debate...
I can only imagine what the Fox would say and do, were we to let him into the hen house.
Sad thing is I go to pizza stores, local Dunkin Donuts, my waiting room for my Car Dealer service, my doctors office and FOX News is on. People watch it .
It's there for background noise and for people who have already read the latest Women's Day. And even if the debate was on in your Dunkin Donuts or other "waiting room", nobody would see enough of it to make any kind of impact anyway.
A debate on Fox would accomplish 1 thing: reinforce the viewers' belief that none the Dem candidates are worthy of the office.
Doris
No offence, but if you're going to places that serve nothing but junk food don't be surprised if they're also showing junk 'news'.
All that refined sugar & greasy food make people's brains jittery & unfocused... & the perfect audience for Faux.
There are Dems who watch FOX News just like there are conservatives who read this site. You just have to have the stomach for it. You think there are ZERO Dems who watch FOX News?
No, but I think there are plenty of other places where those interested could catch a dem debate or two. Why should the dems contribute programming on a network that's unarguably partisan against them? So they can help sell advertising time? They're surely not getting anything out of it, including voters. I can't blame them for snubbing Fox.
Says alot about the three top contenders for the Democratic party's nomination for President, when they won't join in a debate on the number 1 cable news channel because they cry "unfair", or "bias". Cowards is the perfect description.
Are they going to run away from foreign heads of state or tough international issues that demand their attention because they aren't perceived as "fair"?
do you think fox is biased?
Yes, they are biased. So what? Get your message out there in a debate and meet it head on. You look confident and sure of yourself if you do, not cowardly or scared of unfriendly forums if you back out - as they are doing.
As a "lefty" I respect that they a telling FNC to go screw themselves and I'm not the only one.
If they are going to win any general election they need more than "lefties" to vote for them - just as the Republicans need more than "righties". It's the moderates and those that don't watch Fox or any of them with any regularity that may tune into a debate and find the top three Dems MIA! - not a good first impression.
or they might just wonder why they see them on other channels and not fox.
and i did not call for a blanket boycott of fox. the problem tommy is that the democrats get very little opportunity to "get their message out". this is a way to take a stand and have it make a difference.
If they have "very little opportunity" as you say, and I would disagree saying they all have ample opportunity to be interviewed countless times on these cable news channels, then why would they expect any votes from anyone? If their message isn't out there, who would vote for them?
tell the truth tommy. aren't the cowards at fox? why are they afraid of differing views?
I am not voting for Fox, their views are irrelevant to me - I could care less. I am considering voting for President, not the best news cable channel.
then don't you want both sides so you can make a decision? after all, you might not have defended bush on iraq for so long it you had a more balanced view.
Then I would say you have a biased Republican leaning news cable channel such as Fox, hosting a Democratic debate - that's pretty balanced, wouldn't you say?
no, i wouldn't, because it doesn't nearly make up for all the other time spreading their bias. it doesn't come close.
"you have a biased Republican leaning news cable channel such as Fox, hosting a Democratic debate - that's pretty balanced, wouldn't you say?"
No, that's not balanced in the least. The bias in presentation will always trump the message. Fox is not seeking to host Democratic debates in order to present all sides; it's seeking to legitimize itself and its institutional viewpoint as "fair and balanced"™.
The anchors and pundits at Faux will still have the last word, as well as control of how subsequent reports are edited and presented.
It's just a stupid idea for Democratic candidates to consent to put their images in those hands.
Cowardly, or logical? As I wrote higher up the page, why should they contribute to Fox programming? I can't see where selling advertising time on Fox works in their favor.
Tommy, you've always told us that Fox is not a news outlet but an OPINION outlet. Why the change all of a sudden?
Worrier, I don't recall saying they weren't a news outlet? What they are is a biased news outlet, that is obvious if you watch them. I still don't see where that changes anything with regard to their hosting a debate.
Hey Tommy, I think that Air America Radio should host the Republic debates. Sound like a good idea?
No, coward is the description for the brainwashed to parrot. Fox has chosen sides. Dems are showing they can stand up to those who declare themselves opposition. Nice propaganda parrot work by YOU though. Just repeat the mantra no need to consider if it makes sense.
The issue here is Fox isn't a legitimate news source. If the Fox viewers want to see the Dems debate, they can tune into whichever channel broadcasts it. Having the debate on Fox has a legitimizing effect, which Fox certainly doesn't deserve.
If they are so "illegitimate" as you say, then I would suggest they cease all apperances on all Fox shows. Why don't they do that? They appear regularly on many of their shows, so how "illegitimate" are they?
If Democrats were going on Fox to tell the network and their hosts to go phuck themselves most of us wouldn't mind. Other than that, there is no use in appearing on a network that has made it their goal to discredit you by any means necessary.
Wait a minute, Tommy
The ones who have so far declared not to participate in the debate and help legitimize Fox News are Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. To my knowledge, none of them appear on Fox News, and Obama has very publicly denied any appearances on FNC. So it seems that their decisions are entirely consistant.
Edwards has appeared on Fox many times, not sure about the others.
But if they intend to appear only on channels where they won't be challenged or asked tough questions, or even treated with the gloves off - they shouldn't expect anyone other than hardline liberals to vote for them.
and what is the basis for your contention that they won't be asked tough questions anywhere else?
Look, if you're comfortable with your Democratic hopefuls avoiding unpleasant venues or forums without fawning meaningless questioners, then by all means go for it. I prefer to see them handling all sorts of interviews, from all sorts of points of view.........if they're tough enough, they should be able to handle whatever is thrown at them.
you're making a lot of assumptions that have no basis other than you repeating them. first of all, this is a debate among democratic candidates. the real attacks are going to come from each other, no matter what channel they're on. second, i said that there should not be a blanket boycott of fox. i've seen democrats handle any question thrown them on sunday morning. but that is one of the rare times there is a balance, because right after that they go into their "panel" which is heavily biased to the right. come up with something a little more substantive than your usual talking points.
Give me intelligence over toughness any day. It just isn't smart to handle rattlesnakes, so why walk in the snake den that is Fox? If you think that snake handling makes a person tough then you have just proven why intelligence is superior.
Give me honesty, candor, maybe even a verbal slip up sometimes, and committment to positions and principles even in the face of unfairness and confrontation - rather than well chosen, friendly events with spokespeople, handlers, PR people and bumpersticker, warm and feely good phrases like a campaign commercial.
it's not the "either or" situation you're presenting. as i said, the real attacks will come from their fellow democrats. there will be nothing any candidate can do to avoid that.
It's a poor assumption to think that no other debate forum will offer a challenging environment. It's the sign of a restrained mental process to think in these interminable either/or scenarios.
It's ridiculous to assume anything other than what is at play in this very situation. The Dems simply are not giving credibility to the Fox news liars and they shouldn't.
Your claim of Democratic credibility falls flat as a pancake each and every time a Democrat appears on any FoxNews show........sorry.
No need to be sorry. You made no point. We're not talking about any ole democrats, we're talking about these democratic presidential candidates in this situation. If the candidates continue to appear on Fox then you will have proven I am wrong. Big deal sometimes I'm wrong.
But here again you speak in absolutes about credibility and it is still false to assume democrats will suffer for appearing on Fox. What? How? Why does Edwards lose credibility if Pelosi appears on Fox?
If Fox News is so full of liars who needn't have their credibility given any stature, then why would any Democrat, running for office or not, appear on their network at all and lend any credence to Fox?
What, some can and some shouldn't? That makes no sense. Either they are a trash-laden bunch of lying GOP talking pointers who deserve no respect, or they are the number 1 cable news channel in the country by a wide margin, who despite their rightward slant, are very much a player in today's poltical arena - which is it?
but you yourself admitted they were "biased". so it becomes a matter of picking your battles. in this case, they can make a statement. you're doing the "either or" thing again. you set up these false choices that are not the only option.
Oh, so you pick your battles when it suits you - and then cry foul if it doesn't? Is that your standard for appearing on Fox?
Look, you can't have it both ways - it is an either/or. Either they deserve addressing by the candidates, or they don't. That shouldn't be so hard to determine if you're a principled candidate, should it? You decide if they deserve credibility or you don't - and then stick to it. Don't waffle around and only go on if it's gonna "feel good".
who said anything about "feel good"? just more of your nonsense. as i said, you yourself admit they're "biased". so what the democrats do about it is their business. it's not up to you to decide, as you always think you can, what others should or shouldn't do to deal with a particular situation.
Knock yourself out, Tommy.
We're still not talking about dems in general, despite the fact that this Ben Smith guy is trying to cast all dems in the same light. We are talking about the decision that these presidential candidates made not to lend credibility to Fox. It's their right, their bidness and if it backfires it still doesn't mean all democrats take the hit.
Get over it. Every candidate and elected official has the right to do what they deem appropriate.
You ask; "Which is it?"
Answer--They are a trash-laden bunch of lying GOP talking pointers who deserve no respect, and they are the number 1 cable news channel in the country by a wide margin, despite their rightward slant.
You keep saying these democrats appear on Fox many times. Okay which democrats and on which shows. I used to watch Fox a lot and still tune in occasionally to see what lies and talking points they are now regurgitating and I don't recall really ever seeing democrats on regularly on any Fox show.
Give us facts not your conjecture. I would venture to say that the number of times dems have appeared pales in comparison to the number of times Republicans have appeared.
Fox is not a legitimate "news" station. If you present a biased opinion then it is simply that and you cannot legitimately call it News. Real news presents all sides of an issue and does not interject opinion as fact into a "news" story. This is a win win for Fox because they will bash the dems whether they appear or not.
Kudos to standing up to Fox and showing them for the windbag, bloviating lying group they are and will always be. Fair and balanced my arse.
Can I just use this time to remind you that this is the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY they are shooting for. No matter what, it will be only Democrats voting for them.
Yet they will be viewed by many who may or may not consider voting for them in the general election.
Do you think they are only campaigning to Democrats exclusively now?
"But if they intend to appear only on channels where they won't be challenged or asked tough questions, or even treated with the gloves off - they shouldn't expect anyone other than hardline liberals to vote for them."
First off, you're equating "bias" with "tough questions", which is your usual flavor of intellectual dishonesty. Objective sources can ask tough questions too.
Secondly, who are these voters they're losing by not appearing on FOX? The issue is that the questions are going to be slanted, as is the analysis. So that's what viewers see.
With me so far?
OK now. The question is, do these viewers understand how biased FOX is? Because if they don't, then the slanted nature of the questions and analysis gives those viewers a distorted picture of the candidates. Why give them the opportunity? Who's going to vote for any of them after the network they trust demonstrates to them why none of them are any good? That seems a bit pointless, obviously.
On the other hand, if they do understand how FOX is biased, then they should understand very easily why Dems wouldn't want to show up.
And besides, if they have viewers who really want to see them, they can see them on another channel. If they refuse to watch anything other than FOX, then they clearly fall into the first category of "moderate" viewers who are going to get conned because that's the only channel they trust.
So what's the big risk?
Tommy
You think boycotting a debate sponsored by Faux News makes Democrats cowards.
I think that PARTICIPATING in such a rigged event would have made them saps.
When the Republicans agree to have THEIR debate sponsored by Moveon.org, then you will have a valid point.
"Are they going to run away from foreign heads of state or tough international issues that demand their attention because they aren't perceived as "fair"?" - Tommy
And if their response to a question regarding Iran's or North Korea's uranium enrichment programs is visiting with these countries leaders to speak diplomatically, will Fox then claim they are willing to "aid the enemy" a la Nancy Pelosi?
Fox News deserves the Democratic Heismann.
Not the point. Fox has demonstrated over and over they are a propaganda arm for the GOP. Such actions SHOULD have consequences. I think the Dems are right on this one.
"What percentage FOX viewers do you estimate would be persuaded to vote "D" next election after watching the debates?"
Too small to measure.
Perhaps if the ONLY thing the FOX viewer watched WAS the debate, then a significant amount of them would be persuaded.
However, the problem is the other 166 hours of the week on FOX, during which the FOX viewer sees almost nothing except Republican propaganda, GOP spin, weak "liberals" and "Democrat"-bashing.
There are plenty of much more fair-minded outlets for Democrats to get their message out.
It's Fox' loss, not ours.
it is not "THE" debate, it is one of many, and they simply choose other less partisan and less immoral entities to hold them
In the right-wing lexicon, "cowardice" is a synonym for "intelligence."
Which is in line of the Democrats showing intelligence in the way to handle the Iraq occupation and the Republicans calling it cowardice.
It's bullying fear tactics. It's time to stand up to the bullies.
During the last election Fox was trying to convince everyone that Foley was a Democrat and that what Kerry (who wasn't even running) had to say was the most important thing in the race. And they still won. The Democrats need Fox like a hole in the head.
Fox chooses to alienate non-republicans, now it's paying the price for that. Isn't that what conservatives call the free market?
Who here thinks that FNC will not make some sort of attempt to make all the Democratic candidates look bad as its legion of righty spinmeisters and chatterboxes offer their sober-eyed "commentary" before, during and after the debate?
They will harvest comments during the debate to be used later for attacks on the democratic candidate in the general election. They will ask questions intended to illicit those comments. Hopefully each primary candidate will dutifully provide the ammunition needed later.
This isn't about helping democrats pick a candidate.
You're right. I sometimes click on Fox when all other news channels are in commercial. On a recent foray I arrived at the beginning of an interview concerning Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus. The host, a snot-nosed, pencil-necked Tucker Carlson wannabe, ambushed his "Democratic strategist" guest, who looked young enough to be strategizing sorority tap week, by leading off with, "Is there any doubt in your mind that Syria was behind the assassination of Rafiq Hariri?" Good luck getting back on track, lassie.
This is tame compared to what Faux News would do if given the chance to frame a Democratic debate to the advantage of the Grand Oligarchic Party.
I agree with you Linden.
So, by an extension of the same logic, the fact that Darth Cheney only appears on Fox lately would make him...what?
I think according to Fox news logic it would make him a hero.
Lovely logic there, Nerzog. As an added bonus, it would force Cheney to unplug himself from FNC and its enablers if he wants to follow the Dem debates. He might learn something, and it might even have a slight redeeming effect on his character. Sorry, lost my head there for a minute. At least it'll make him uncomfortable.
Seems like the Politico is showing it's true colors more and more. I definitely question their supposed non-partisan stance. If they want to be partisan, that's fine, just be honest about it.
Spin,
I've always thought that Politico's motto should be "Fair & Balanced too"
How about "Not Unfair or Grossly Unbalanced"
Good point, Spin. I don't think anyone would object to Fox (nor would they lose audience) if they "spun" themselves as the Conservative News Network (wait, already taken, you get my point). Its their insistence on saying Fair and Balanced that constantly have them stepping in it. Be honest, still make the money. Win-win.
Why is it Right Wingers like to hide the fact that they're Right Wing?
Because they want to redefine the political centre to be somewhere to the right of Tom Delay.
I'm sorry, but I can't stop thinking of that capslock troll who thought your name was "Mary..."
"...fox, which could presumably do an empty podium hour and confirm to it's viewers that democrats are, in fact, the cowards it's always portrayed them as." sounds like smith is admitting that fox practices the bias that democrats accuse them of. and while i don't agree with a blanket boycott of fox, this is a good stand to take when it comes to them sponsoring debates. why lend them credibility when it has been shown time after time after time that they go out of their way to spread false propaganda against democrats. when clinton made his remarks about them not being equally tough on republicans, all they kept doing was dragging out a two year old interview of rumsfeld. it's fox that has the cowards. they bring on guest after guest who just agrees with the anti-democratic spin of the hosts. and then you have the cowardly bill o'reilly cutting off the mike of his co-host because she dared point out he was wrong.
I think it was a good thing that Bill challenged them (FOX) in that interview.
On the flip-side he bears responsibility for helping to push forward the environment that a propaganda outfit such as FOX News can even exist with what he did in his time in office with regards to media deregulation.
i agree media deregulation was overdone, but it's a stretch to think fox wouldn't exist without it.
Cowards?
No, I thnk a coward is someone who uses his daddy's connections to avoid going to Vietnam.
"Cowards?"
"No, I think a coward is someone who uses his daddy's connections to avoid going to Vietnam." Hey Sportsguy, you were referring to his stint in the National Guard to avoid going to Vientam. Along those same lines, I think it's deplorable for President Bush to send thousands of National Guard troops to Iraq for HIS failed/ing foreign policy.
I don't see how the Democrats doing the debate would provide Fox with any more 'material for misrepresentation' than their refusal currently is. IMO, it's a good opportunity to give a substantive look at genuine viewpoints drastically different from those of the majority of Fox's viewers. You might be skeptical of the potential for such a debate to change their minds, but regardless, it's a missed opportunity to go into the Lion's den and provide a much needed voice of dissent.
it's a better opportunity to take a stand against their bias. more to gain than lose in this situation.
As long as the debate is framed by Fox, the Democratic Party loses. The questions will be posed to point out what Fox perceives to be Democratic shortcomings and Republican strong points.
Most presidential debates have had some degree of neutrality by the host. Fox has never been neutral. They are a partisan opinion outlet not a news outlet.
Yeah sure and the Boston Red Sox would be cowards too if they didn't play play their games with the New York Yankees using umpires on the Yankees payroll.
All I see here is Politico doing it's damndest to undermine their credibility.
Fox is not a legitimate news network. As someone has already pointed out, it is a propaganda outlet for the GOP. Why should the Democrats even give them the time of day?
The time of the day given would be seen as liberal propaganda.
Post debate analysis:
"Today, Hillary Clinton, when asked what time it was, replied that it was 5:15 p.m. At that time, it was actually 2:15 in California, it was 10:15 in Great Britain. All told, Hillary lied 23 times in one sentence. Bill, do you think Hillary's lies are limited only to issues regarding the correct time of day, or do you think she'll probably lie about other issues as well?"
"Well, Brit, this is the ongoing strategy of misleading and obfuscation that the Clinton camp has been following since she entered the race. And I think just as glaring as Hillary's lie is the fact that Obama didn't correct her. The democrat alliance goes beyond campaigning for the office, but to a whole conspiracy of smearing republicans, and so they look out for each other to that end."
Karl Rove just called, your hired.
Avoiding appearing on Fox for Dems should have been done long ago, especially after the 24/7 reporting of the Swift Boat Liars.
I wonder how many Fox viewers actually believe that Kerry threw away the medals that they say he didn't actually deserve in the first place?
I have a background in professional journalism. If I was a Democratic leader I would refuse to appear on many Fox programs.
Why? Because I consider much of what is broadcast on Fox as something akin to tabloid trash. What better reason is there?
How can we expect democrats to keep us safe when they cut and run from Fox
Wrong again. In order to "cut and run" as you say, they would have had to have been there in the first place. Since they weren't, there is no "cutting and running". Instead, they choose to not participate in a debate sponsored by a known right wing republican GOP 24/7 non-stop "news" channel.
The term"cut and run" is a Roveism, which is/was used by the administration as a talking point to distract from the fact that President Bush does not have a EXIT PLAN for Iraq. It is this type of terminology that has no place in policital debate because it divides people rather than offering a solution and is the verbal exercise of throwing crap on the wall and using what sticks.
Why are Republicans so scared of everything,constantly relying on government to make them "safe" ?
This makes the democrats look weak.If any democrat from the debate ever appears on FNC than they are hypocrites.
How does this make them look weak again? Because they're standing up to FoxNews and saying that they won't contribute to their propaganda machine? Yeah, that's super weak...
And your comments make you look like a fool.
The evidence supporting my statement is made up of the lack of evidence supporting yours.
"This makes the democrats look weak.If any democrat from the debate ever appears on FNC than they are hypocrites."
You're on to something there, BW. This move by the Democrats should be the first salvo in a campaign against the Right's War on Facts.
It's pretty widely accepted that terrorists have been at war against us for decades, and we only came to realize it on 9/11. Well, the neofascist right has been at war with an independant press, and an independant judiciary, since the Nixon Administration, and we haven't recognized it. Roger Ailes and Bush 41's ambush of Dan Rather would be analagous to the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut, and Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of American citizenship (so he could extend his media empire) would mirror Bin Laden's actions in Afghanistan.
A reporter for the New York Times once wrote that, during his days writing for Murdoch's NY Post, his mission had been to "search and distort." (If you're too young to remember Vietnam, Google "search and destroy.") Now the distortion that is part of the Murdoch MO is broadcast 24/7 on Fox, and echoed in God knows how many other Aussie owned outlets. Murdoch has admitted to successfully pushing for the war in Iraq, which makes him and his shills partially responsible for the destruction of Iraq and the slaughter of its people, the death or maiming of 30,000 of our young, the weakening of our global defense posture, and the undermining of our moral stature in the world. How much more of this can the Republic survive?
VULPINO DELENDA EST!
Go read this site for about 5 minutes then come back & tell me Democrats should hold a debate on Fox...
http://www.newshounds.us/
I think the Democrats are well-served by appearing on Fox's newsshows and at least exposing the typical Fox viewer to DNC talking points, because so many more Americans watch Fox than the other news channels. At the same time, though, to participate in a Fox-hosted presidential debate would give Fox an air of stature and credibility than it simply doesn't deserve. I guess I agree with the debate boycott, but the Dems are nuts if they don't agressively hit all the Fox newsshows to counter Rove's talking points. Its a good way to fight back, in my opinion.
Yeah democrats should go to the Clinton News Network or the network that has the most bigots on it MSNBC.
Wow! It's utterly amazing how often you can repeat republican right wing talking points time after time with no substance to back it up at all. Did you get these straight from the RNC? Or did you hear Rush talking about it this afternoon?
Why is it that the dumbest people from the conservative websites always come to comment on the liberal websites? Is it because the smarter readers of the conservative sites recognize their relative lack of substance and don't wish to be embarrassed, unlike these dumber ones?
Who knows... What I do know is that this guy is bringing nothing to the party. If you have some facts, or would like to actually discuss something, bring it on into the site, and put it down in here, and back it up with something. But instead, we get a lot of talking points, a lot of incorrect and factually vacant rhetoric, and nice short one liners that prove, well, nothing. It does prove that the poster in question might not have much of a clue as to what is really happening around him/herself at this point in time, and it is also readily apparent that they might just believe everything Rush, Hannity, Boortz et all tell them. Next thing you know, they'll be talking about how Sean Hannity is a "great" American.
Yes, it's sad. I can't help but have this fear that intellectual beggars such as this guy actually wield a voting registration, too. My God, is our govenrment of the people actually of these people too? Unfortunately, the current administration gives far too much evidence of the answer to that question. I mean, just look at his comment below. Intellectualy vacuuous, knee-jerk in it's phrasing - similar to how a dog learns to beg for food, the "learning by rote" demonstrated by these people is kind of frightening. I mean, I can squish a termite, maybe a few dozen. But when they decide to invade my house by the millions, I'm looking at catastrophe. This termite is only evidence of the million others out there threatening to bring down the house.
Neon, if you think these are the stoopidest posters from the righty sites, you haven't visited Freerepublic lately.
These are the ones, able to type out an entire 10 word talking point, that are called "Professor" over there.
One of these grunt-like posts is usually followed by 20 or 30 that say "ping", "bump" or "God Bless America".(don't ask me, I have no idea what ping and bump mean)
I apologize for trying to be charitable. I consider dumbness to be a measure of intellectuality. I made no provisions for the complete absence of such.
demorcats=cowards. Don't let the Fox boogie man get me!!
Nice bumper sticker mentality that you have working for you over there. Maybe you could add something substantative to your argument that indeed democrats are cowards? I'm thinking that indeed, you cannot, because it has no basis in what normal people like to call reality. This whole process of posting little blurbs is not working for you. It just makes you look even more ignorant than you probably are. If you have something of substance to say, or to even make a point (something you've failed to do thus far in this thread), by all means, make it.
I can see him now, his "Club Gitmo" t-shirt illuminated by the blue light of his monitor which casts the oval shadow of his empty head against the basement walls, Cheetos paste in the corners of his mouth, staring blankly at the screen, he awaits the entry of another Hannity gem into his brain so that he can transcribe it into the "POST A NEW COMMENT" white box staring still and blank back at him. When inspiration fails him as it often does, the latest Coulter column is close at hand for nuggets of wisdom which don't take too many words or too much thought. The stillness is broken by the sudden clacking of keys as he deposits the newly transferred balance of his intellectual bounty into the beckoning white box, which will soon be delivered as a moral bomb, leaving nothing even near it's vast crater but the tears of the liberals vaporized in the blast of bumpersticker philosophy - it's makeup of pure ideological truth such that it's devastation is unchecked.
And he returns to the stillness, again staring at the empty white box, one hand on the keyboard, the other reaching for another orange-colored puffed cornmeal snack. Calm reigns once again, for now. Until inspiration returns to him...
And even more sad than that, is that this person was and is probably a big supporter of the "war" in Iraq, you know, sporting yellow ribbons on his parents' car and all. And I'm certain that this person is well within the age for enlistment, but no, instead they'll fight the good fight from behind their keyboard, telling and writing about how glorious battle is over there in Iraq, and then railing against democrats for not "supporting" the troops, all the while not realizing that it is indeed his hero, George W. Bush and his administration who is not doing the supporting for the most part. He'll rail (only with one sentence at a time of course) against the "liberal" media and the evil democrats because they want to bring the troops home from this almost failed mission in Iraq. He'll talk about the USA, apple pie, patriotism, and at the same time talk about how the ACLU is bad for America, and how it is OK for Bush to wiretap the American public without a warrant, because if you haven't done anything wrong what do you have to worry about. Right?
There is no doubt Fox News is hostile to the Democrats.
That is not enough reason to avoid a debate; debates are about opposing parties.
However, Fox is also DISHONEST. It claims to be 'impartial' (fair and balanced), when they are demonstrably NOT.
It's one thing to face another team in a stadium, with home court advantage and the fans stacked overwhelmingly in favor of the home team, the Republicans.
It's quite another to expect a fair game when all the referees have shown themselves to be biased as well, and will stack the calls and the rulings to make sure the Democrats LOSE.
To agree to a "debate" where the hostiles are also dishonest and will control every aspect with an eye towards favoring their home team Republicans at every turn, is just foolish. Until FOX admits to being openly biased, and drops the lie and pretense of being objective, then theirs is a forum that can only be harmful to any Democrat foolish enough to "trust" FOX to be fair.
The choice of questions, how the questions are phrased, and how much the questions are loaded with premises which reflect rightwing talking points as "truth", all determines the tone and outcome of a debate.
Republicans, by the way, do not fare well in honest debates. This is why they must rig the elections every way possible, first by disenfranchising as many Democrats as possible prior to polling, owning the voting machines, and depending on their slim majority in the courts to overrule the voting public. This is also why Bush, Cheney, and the lot will NEVER appear in front of an audience which has not been thoroughly screened to be sycophantic, and this includes the White House press corps. Rove would NEVER let his people face a REAL audience of REAL Americans ... that would be a DISASTER.
Republicans are the MINORITY in America. For them to hope to retain any POWER in this nation, they must cheat at every level and every opportunity. This FOX-"sponsored" debate is yet another tool which the Republicans hope(d) to turn to their propaganda advantage.
Thank GOD the Dems are not participating in this rigged game. Beware the bully who taunts with accusations of your being "chicken" ... they wish only for harm to come to you. Bullies who challenge "courage" are the biggest cowards of all, just as the loudest warmongers are invariably chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered taking up arms THEMSELVES.
Quit whining, FOX. The ambush you were salivating for has been preempted by your intended victims taking a smarter path than a one-way trip into your box canyon.
I wonder how many conservatives would call Republican candidates "cowards" if they refused to participate in a debate hosted by Air America.
Good point. And for the record, I wouldn't think that a republican would do that kind of debate either. Although, in some of the Air America broadcasts I've listened to, they actually discuss things, not shout down their guests and turn off their microphones, and actually have a real live debate filled with facts and things like that. But I wouldn't blame a republican for saying that he/she wouldn't participate in a debate hosted by and sponsored by Air America.
"No word yet from [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich [D-OH] and [former Sen. Mike] Gravel [D-AK], or the other campaigns, or from Fox, which could presumably do an empty podium hour and confirm to its viewers that Democrats are, in fact, the cowards it's often portrayed them as. Sounds win-win to me."
In other words, Smith's admitting that Fox is a shrill propaganda outlet. When the Republican presidential candidates debate on Air America, I'll reconsider my rejection of the "cowards" label for the presidential Dems.
Democrats need to preach where the devil is...so to speak.....
If you preach only to your base...thats what you win - your base.
If they went on Fox and debated, that is where they will reach the most of the people that are against them. If they are smart about it, they can change the views people hold.
And you do the public a dis-service by thinking that they cannot change their minds.
Fox may be a propaganda/misinformation/disinformation machine, but go where the opposition is and engage them, it does not take a genius to figure that out. If you change a few peoples minds good. If you change no peoples minds...well....ya tried.
Can't they do this same thing with debates in other venues sponsored by other organizations that are far less partisan?
If they went on Fox and debated, that is where they will reach the most of the people that are against them. If they are smart about it, they can change the views people hold.
Well, let's consider that. They get up there, they answer questions pertaining to the issues, they bring up each others stances, and contrast them with their own. Sounds good, some people might be impressed with their positions.
Then, after the debate, Brit Hume comes on. He, along with Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondrake, Sean Hannity, Howard Kurtz, and a liberal to be named later, analyze the performance of people with whom they disagree vehemently. Sound like a positive environment in which the dems will win hearts and minds?
Not to mention that they will edit out the whole debate part, and just show Obama "attacking" Hillary. Edwards attacking Obama. Hillary attacking Edwards. And then, in what will be the coup de grace on this one. They'll put this header on the screen, "John Edwards. Is he a racist?" and then show him grilling Obama.
Yeah, it would be a great time...
For the umpteenth time, the issue isn't what happens during the debate itself, it's the deceitful GOP-spin FOX will put on the debate before and afterwards. FOX has done it before and they want to do it again. FOX can't be trusted anymore.
How many people listen to Air America?? 10 people ? 12people ?
How many years running has FNC been in the top 10 most watched cable channels??
So when deomcrats refuse to debate on Fox they look weak.Democrats would rather go on liberal outlets such has CNN and Msnbc.
Hey, bigwhine, I'm having a little poker game tonight. I deal from every part of the deck, and take your cards when you're not looking.Are you in, or do you want to look "weak"?
"How many years running has FNC been in the top 10 most watched cable channels??"
-----
How many years has "SpongeBob SquarePants " drawn more viewers than O'Reilly?
That means that a cartoon sponge knows more about current events than the Fox blowhard.
Actually, that's not hard to believe. So does your average kitchen sponge.
GW Bush, with 30% "approval" rating for the past two years, looks very very "WEAK". Cheney has claim to only 19% approval, at that. Seldom has an administration been so WEAK.
This is a WEAK and COWARDLY Administration, heading a WEAK and COWARDLY party, which in the last election LOST, and in the next election will lose EVEN MORE.
Trying to portray the WINNING party as "weak" is the work of the rightwing media, propaganda with baseless claims.
The GOP is weak and getting weaker. They are LOSERS, and their record of terrible governance is getting WORSE, not better. This is REALITY. For contrary portrayals of political reality, consult the Rightwing Media, who are working hard to tell America that black is white, up is down, and you must believe FOX NEWS and not your own eyes and ears. Guess what? It ain't working any more.
Tex,
If you keep posting, I'm going to have to rethink my Shrub & DeLay induced antipathy toward Texas.
Really, we all need to give Texas a break. Despite everything you've heard, it has it's good points once you get beyond it being the state that most wishes it was Colorado.
</nudgenudgewinkwink>
liars for hire are all the rage now. perception becomes reality when frauds like smith are not challenged so thanks to mm. the fact is, the democratic candidates courageous enough to snub fox noise are laying the foundation for a campaign season with less poison and more substance. fox noise is a kangaroo court and a stacked deck. why would a democratic candidate tolerate or suffer fools? .
I try to forget Coulter but NO you have to prop "it" up. Now This Smith tool -- eek!!!
How similar their rhetoric sounds like school children at recess, like
"I throw sand in your face nyah nyah. Go ahead and punch me" or
"your mama" or
" punk "
Harsh
What do you want me to do -- I know
ooo, I'm telling!!!
Maybe I'll just ignore media altogether and just watch "Planet Earth"
I applaud the Democratic nominees for blowing off Fox. Fox is a propoganda arm of the RNC disguised as a legitimate news organization giving propogandists like Anne Coulter, Brent Bozell and others of their ilk a nightly voice to spew lies and hate against anyone who doesn't agree with them and their politics.
Spew lies....wow if they do this nightly you should be able to throw out a bunch to prove your point. I won't hold my breath but toss a few out there.
I am quite perplexed. I would really like to know why the dems seem to be so afraid of Fox. I have read several posters say that the debate would be "distorted". Call me crazy but If i watch a live event in which someone asks a question and someone answers or chooses not to answer, where is the distortion.
Also, I watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Without queston Fox is the least biased. MSNBC is a joke. Let's see, Olberman, he never has a guest with a disenting opinion, EVER. Mathew's, well he worked for tip O'Neil and is a registered dem. He treats conservatives completely different that dems. Then theirs CNN, don't get me started.
Personally, I think that the dems avoid fox because they don't want to answer the tough questions. They want to be all things to all people.
You people are delusional. You want facts, ok, I'll give you facts and you will call me names. You won't address the facts that I present objectively, you will just call me names. But, I'm going to give it a try and hope that I am wrong. Let's start with a shinning example of liberals using facts to prove a point. Go here:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11995
Let's add some misleading reporting here:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11979
http://newsbusters.org/node/11926
http://newsbusters.org/node/11898
and just a bit of looking the other way
http://newsbusters.org/node/11898
Now these are just a couple examples of real media bias. Can you back up you "Faux" news accusations with any documented facts? We shall see or will you just call me names.