This debate was ruined

[CentristDemocrat]

Wonder why Fox let it happen?

[Brucey]

1. Fox?

Are they even competent? But, of course, they have bad intentions for Dems.

[David Zephyr]

2. Either Fox Let This Happen or They Owe the American Pubic Apology.

This is the worst handled presidential debate in history. No question about it.

Fox.

[graham67]

3. What happened???

I just got home and don't have the TV on. What happened??

[absolutezero]

6. larouche happened

his nutcase follwers kept disrupting

[graham67]

10. They were

shouting from the audience??

[thom1102]

20. yep,,, many times

Sharpton got on the pulpit and read them the riot act.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. Yes, Faux does owe us a pubic apology. . . .

. . . for screwing us royally for so long.


Sorry, couldn't fix your typo so thought I'd have some fun with it.

:evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

4. what are you talking about?

why is the debate ruined?

why is everything a conspiracy?

[FlashHarry]

11. Actually, I think it's been pretty 'fair and balanced' so far.

Amazingly enough. As I said in a different thread, Brit Hume must be grounding his teeth down to stumps.

BTW, why can't Sharpton pronounce the word 'ask?' He keeps saying 'axe.'

[lumpy]

18. You"ll have to axe Sharpton

nt

[Orangepeel]

12. Well it WAS a conspiracy

although it was most likely a LaRouchite conspiracy. The disruptions are obviously coordinated.

[Terwilliger]

14. sure...4 or 5 LaRouche supporters got together and crashed the debate

Karl Rove didn't call them into action :eyes:

[Orangepeel]

17. yes. that makes it a small conspiracy

rather than a big conspiracy

Fox did do a lousy job at security, though.

[drewb]

21. Flash Mob!

n/t

[olacan]

5. let it

happen, I tuned late (30 Mins) but from what I saw when someone started shouting they took time to bounce the person and continued.

[ixion]

7. would you expect anything better from FAUX?

I'm suprised that this was allowed to go on at all... the candidates were suckered into the FAUXhole, as it were.

[graham67]

8. Is the debate....

going to be replayed?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Which moron in the Dem leadership allowed the debate to take place

on a channel managed by Nixon's dirty trickster? and..given that it'snot anywhere NEAR any of the elections....do you think the Dems got a clue??? Don't go on your enemy's network?

[baby_bear]

15. I think the Dems look fine

Overall, anyway; Juan Williams comes across totally baiting them, but so what? They are all answering fine. The LaRouche interruptions, even if they were planted by Rove, didn't fluster any of them.

Who cares if its Faux? Maybe there are Republicans watching who will be impressed by one or a few of these folks, and I don't mean Juan Williams. I mean the candidates.

Some people on DU seem to think they can only appear on Dem-friendly territory. That sounds like Bush tactics to me (i.e., invited audiences only).

s_m

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. good point about Republicans watching

not that they would but there sure must have been some in the audience.

[Terwilliger]

16. enemy? ENEMY?!?!

I thought we were supposed to appeal to those folks. Isn't awfully extremist of you to refer to them as "the enemy"?

[w4rma]

25. The poster isn't refering to the viewers. It's the owner: Murdoch (n/t)

[Gore1FL]

28. LaRouche isn't a Dem

never was. Never will be.

He is a facist who claims to be liberal. He is a convicted criminal, a nutcase, etc.

I agree enemy is a poor choice of words, but appealing to a LaRouche supported is like appealing to a Freeper.

[alcuno]

13. Don't get carried away.

It's September and 70% of Democrats don't know who is running. This is one debate and I think it's a lot of fun to watch.

[Fixated]

23. ...

Also, getting on the most watched channel in news can't hurt, even if it's mostly Republican viewers.

[DIKB]

24. Amazed that it was on FAUX News

at first of course.

given the number of interruptions, and the dismantling of the candidates afterwards. . . well what can you expect from this bunch of fascist cheerleaders ?

in the face of this (and Smirky's Sunday address), how in the HELL can people still believe in a "Liberal" media ???

IMMEDIATELY after the debate, they started badmouthing the candidates, saying that they mentioned goals, but no actual ideas for change. I for one wholeheartedly agreed with Edwards' education reform ideas, as well as Health Care reform ideas that were mentioned by other candidates.

Yet after *es address on sunday, there wasn't even a dissenting opinion from CNN, "known" by conservatives to be the most liberal news network around.

sorry, i'm a little angry now, and words escape me.

[newyorican]

26. Fox is pissed

The candidates did not attack each other. Fox is royally pissed and you could hear the aggravation in the pundits. Fox got taken this time, they thought they could get good footage of dems attacking each other to run for the next year. *snort*

[VolcanoJen]

27. I'm a little irritated that the press is calling them "protestors"

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030909_2592.html

The debate was interrupted several times by protesters in the hall. "This is crazy," said Sharpton, a man who first rose to prominence as a civil rights street activist.

Now, for the sake of accuracy, shouldn't that read "The debate was interrupted several times by organized disruptors sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche?"

I thought Carol nailed it when she said, "Do they do this at Republican debates?"

The whole thing was unfortunate, but luckily, I thought the candidates did an excellent job of recovering and staying on-message.

[birdman]

29. It was a few asshole LaRouchies

It was a black eye for Fox. I seriously doubt
that they would have set this up.

It was much like a bunch of Freepers getting together
to scream themselves senseless at one of Mrs. Clintons
book signings.

[JohnKleeb]

30. yawn about the LaRouches

I seem to remember some of them in Baltimore this past June. Yawn I dont know.