Why Rove/FOX didn't plan the disruptors

[absolutezero]

Ok, the biggest arguement that the disruptions were plants is the "they all didn't stand up at once, so Rove hired proffesionals"

Normally, this holds true, but not with those psycho larouchites. They know how to disrupt events like this...they start screaming 1 or 2 at a time, then when one of them is dragged out another starts up again...they think it makes people more likely to listen to their rantings

besides, the commentators only said, in passing, "we're sorry about the disruption" and "some overzealous larouche supporters managed to sneak in"...had they planned this they woulda made a much bigger deal of it.

[Doug Decker]

1. I agree totally...

that nice Mr. Rove would never do that. :evilgrin:

[absolutezero]

3. he would do something like that

i have no doubt of that....but you underestimate larouche...ive been studying this asshole since his followers started stalking me ( they found out i was on the newspaper staff at school and wanted me to write in favor for them)

if it was anything other than "where's larouche?" and "larouche for pres" i'd believe it was rove

[Dookus]

2. exactly...

The Larouchies are perfectly capable of doing this on their own. They do it all the time.

I think it's ridiculous to attack Fox for the disruptors. It didn't HURT the Dems on stage - in fact, it made at least one (Sharpton) look great.

[oasis]

10. To some Fox viewers it paints Dems as being incapable of organizing

an orderly debate.

[leftyandproud]

4. after the debate..

brit hume lashed at the disruptors as well..calling them immature...pointing out the entire audience was against them and the candidates handled it very well, etc etc

I don't think Faux planted these guys...They wanted publicity for Larouche and they certainly got it.

[Doug Decker]

5. Do you have evidence that the ...

disrupters worked for or supported LaRouche? How do you know that? Do you have any evidence for that or is that just your opinion?

It wouldn't have been very smart for Rove to have them yell out "Bush is God", would it?

[TheYellowDog]

6. I agree

I personally believe that Rove/Fox planted them, and that they weret told to say LaRouche slogans, because of course they can't say Bush for president or Bush for god, like doug said above.

[burr]

7. LaRouch, Rove???

Give me a freaken break...

this was clearly the failure of the FOX News Network. They had a responsibility to work with the site that was hosting the debate to insure there were no disruptions, if there was any doubt about this location..then the televised debate should of been held elsewhere!

This was a waste of the candidates' time, the audience's time, and FOX's time. The only people not wasting their time were the demonstrators. All this debate did was to reduce the likelyhood that people who saw this will tune into future Democratic debates. Not many will take this seriously.

I agree that the candidates did the best they could with the limited time, and considering what a disaster the format was. This was worse than the format for the Gore-Qualye-Stockdale debate, where the groundrules were hardly enforced and it declined into a mudslinging freeforall.

[NWHarkness]

8. What's in it for Fox?

The biggest thing Fox wanted out of this debate was to be considered a real player, capable of hosting such events in a professional manner.

The last thing they wanted was disruptors making them look like they weren't in control of their own broadcast.

[oasis]

9. Who wins when Democrats are discredited in front of a Fox audience?

Chimpy has $200 million to spend. Rove could easily hire operatives to study LaRouche tactics, show up and the debate, and carry out a plan.

[burr]

12. yet another manner in which Fox failed...

They did little to make sure the site was secure or suitable for a nationally televised debate. What if someone had gone in there with a bomb and wiped out everyone including all of the candidates?

FNC helped to arrange this debate, so they owe it to the candidates to provide a secure and peaceful place to debate. If the candidates chose to press the flesh, I admire this, but let this be done on their own campaign time!

[Dookus]

16. People yelled....

How do you do security for that? Scan 'em for larynges?

[burr]

17. How is security done for most of these debates?

On a person to person basis. Don't just let in any ole person. Let them in if they are know by the college, the candidates, the black caucas, or are willing to undergo a detailed background check!

Remember this was a debate, not a forum. Personally I prefer forums, but there really was no need for such a large audience.

[Dookus]

19. lol...

as with most things in life, we just sort of trust that people aren't going to be MAJOR assholes.

Sometimes that system fails. But I don't wanna have to undergo a background check before seeing a candidate speak.
just no way

[burr]

28. I agree...

A speech is all about pressing the flesh, speaking to your supporters, and spending one on one time to raise support for your campaign. Having security in such a setting is difficult, although some security is always necessary.

This is different from a debate setting that is tightly timed, has rules, and includes most if not all of the participating candidates. If such an event is televised on the airwaves it needs to be well managed, so it will be something that all of the candidates will consider an opportunity for improving their campaign. If it is a forum, all participants should be familar with the groundrules. If it is a debate, then the audience should be restricted to people that are known..or who certainly shall not cause problems during the debate.

A debate should be disrupted as little as possible, because that takes attention away from the candidates and the issues which they are there to address!

[oasis]

20. Someone should be vouching for each member of the audience.

They do it for the academy awards etc.

[Dookus]

22. that's bs...

If a candidate comes to speak in my town, I need to find a sponsor to go see him/her speak?

C'mon... blame the Larouchies for this, not Fox, not Rove, not the RNC.

[oasis]

31. You say "that's b.s." then go on to practically agree with my post #20

Sponsoring or vouching: same difference.

[maggrwaggr]

11. Man, some of you people are paranoid!!

You really see Rove behind every tree, don't you?

C'mon, it's like blaming Clinton's penis for every little thing that happens in the world.

I think Rove is quite busy making sure those electronic voting machines vote for Bush, he doesn't need to be hiring fake LaRouche protesters.

You guys look like psychos thinking it's Rove.

[oasis]

18. There's no possibilty this is Rove's work. He's so above board.

What was I thinking? Or was I? :dunce:

[Dookus]

21. no...

he's a dirty scumbag.

But not EVERYTHING that happens to a Democrat is his fault.

As in this case. I can't imagine how the republican party, or Fox news, was helped by this.

Plus, the Larouchies have a history of such disruption.

Using Occam's razor, I'll believe that the Larouchies did it all by their crazy little selves.

[oasis]

23. The Democrats could be perceived by Foxies as not being organized

enough to put together an orderly debate.

[maggrwaggr]

24. so what? That doesn't mean Rove did it

Just because something is bad doesn't mean that Rove or Bush did it.

That's reverse logic.

And it's silly.

[oasis]

29. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm simply stating the possibility

that Rove operatives could be involved. They have done much worse.

[The Night Owl]

13. Prediction: Rush will say that the disruptors show division amongst Dems.

Rush will probably say nothing about the disruptors being LaRouche followers.

[maggrwaggr]

25. At this point, any drama is good publicity

maybe people will actually learn the names of the candidates from this.

Hell, maybe the DLC planted those people! OH MY GOD!

[kentuck]

14. Tomorrow in some small town paper, you will read....

That Lyndon Larouche says neither he nor his group had anything to do with the disruptors...And then we get the little FOX giggle, for ridicule effect, and the comment, "Yeah, sure!"

[stickdog]

15. Yeah, it did nothing to help the Repuke cause.

Especially among the true believers who might be getting a bit sick of Bush themselves at this point. :eyes:

[snooper2]

26. because

He is a fucking idiot and only has information on 10% of what we think he does.

[leftofthedial]

27. imagine how hard it would be to keep disruptors silent

about who paid them. Or to prevent connections between disruptors and Fox or the GOP secret.

They would certainly be exposed for who and what they are and it would be seriously damaging to Faux and GOP credibility.

[zoidberg]

30. Exactly

This did nothing to hurt the Democrats and helped Sharpton gain respect in front of a nationwide TV audience. The risk/reward of this stunt was much, much too high for either the GOP or Fox to try to pull it off.