Nevada's Fox Democratic debate....decision not made by NV Dem party.

[madfloridian]

I have seen several blogs going into this subject tonight. Looks like, some are hearing...that perhaps media consultants with a group involving several states got the party chair to sign on without telling anyone else. It appears that it was not the Nevada Party itself, but a multi-state group called the Western Majority Project.

Here is something about them.

Desert Beacon

What Ailes the Western Majority?

It did seem a little strange that Fox News (or my preferred Faux Snooze) had been chosen to host the Nevada Democratic presidential debate on August 14, 2007. It seems all the more intriguing given the make up of the third leg of the stool: The Western Majority Project -- which doesn't sound like the sort of group given much positive mention by the Murdoch Empire:

"The Western Majority Project (WMP), another cosponsor of the FOX debate, is a federally registered political action committee. WMP was recently founded to build upon the growing political strength of the West by injecting Western issues into the national dialogue and highlight the common sense, forward looking, independent values of Western voters. WMP's advisory council includes co-chairs Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, as well as Senators Ken Salazar, Colorado; Max Baucus, Montana; Jon Tester, Montana; and Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico and Governors Bill Ritter, Colorado; Brian Schweitzer, Montana; Bill Richardson, New Mexico."

Here is more on the situation from the blog called Reno Discontents. Sounds like a situation many parties will be facing. The upper levels working without the knowledge or consent of the lower levels of the party. We have had it happen here. It is like a fighting back against having too many voices in the party.

Nevada State Democratic Party Debating Fox News Debate

While I was busy convincing myself that the Nevada Democratic Party would not have anyone brave enough to come forward about who or what negotiated the Fox news debate on behalf of the party, Michael Zahara member of the Nevada State Democratic Party’s Executive Board from Clark County came out and stated pretty damn definitively that the decision was made without the knowledge of said Board in his “Fox Is Not So Hot” article in Nevada Today that I didn’t have time to digest yesterday. Darn that day job.

...."Little birdies are telling me that many Democrats and Democratic Party workers were extremely upset upon hearing that Nevada’s presidential debate would be broadcast on Fox News–keep in mind that many of the party’s newest faithful (particularly the youngsters) came from the ranks of the 2004 election workforce, of which Moveon.org and American Coming Together had a lot to do with. Nevada’s Democratic infrastructure owes them a debt. You remember the army of walking clipboards in Reno during the fall of 2004 don’t you?

The speculation I’ve heard is that media consultants affiliated with the mysterious Western Majority Project were responsible for negotiating the deal and got Tom Collins, State Party Chair, to sign off on it. The thing is, no one knows upon whose direction or authority he signed off on it. I have a feeling it’ll be coming out soon. My sources tell me that many people working for the party found out about the debate from the media, bloggers, and Moveon.org–not the through the party communication channels. Imagine their embarrassment and frustration. But the deal was made (or not–people are trying to find out if it can be undone), and now we have to decide what to do about it.

Here is the Zahara article link and some quotes.

To win the West, Democrats need to attract ‘squishy middle-of-the-road’ voters, not hard-core cable news watchers

“In the case of the decision to include FOX News in our partisan pre-caucus debate this August, apparently those who made this decision forgot who and what FOX News is and who and what our opponents are. This was not a NV Dems decision, this was a unilateral move without the consultation of the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of the State of Nevada, nor the executive boards of the other sponsor states.”

Here is another opinion about this situation...my own though many disagreed.

Once again our party is catering to the other side against our grassroots.

And don't forget to watch Fox Attacks by the guy who brought you Outfoxed and Uncovered, and other great films...Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films

www.foxattacks.com

[napi21]

1. There's a lot of people on that Western Majority Project that I admire!

I know how much we all hate FOX, but the politicians associated with that group are well liked in their States. Do you think they realizea lot of their constituents watch FOXand it would be a good forum for the Dems to get exposure of their position?

There's just no way your going to convince me that Brian Schweitzer has ulterior motives.

[madfloridian]

2. I guess I thought it should come from the Democratic party itself.

Not catch them by surprise.

Was I being critical of the ones in that group? No. I wasn't. I don't think consultants should be given that kind of decision making power for the presidential candidate forums. I don't believe I said a critical word about the group.

I took time to word things carefully.

That is not a Democratic Party group officially.

Is there a rule that only the party can negotiate forums? I don't think there is, but to keep it from getting out of control there should be.

CNN has negotiated one with NH. I would be interested to know if it were with the state party itself.

(NH debate CNN, WMUR and the New Hampshire Union Leader. Don't know if the party was involved at all)

I tried to word carefully. Ok, just checked the OP and I won't edit because I don't think I even implied anything negative. I admire a lot of them, but I think it should be a party decision.

[MaineDem]

10. I don't believe the NH Dems were party to this agreement

I'm 99% sure of that.

[dsc]

3. I have to say I find it amazing

that you are so upset about this when you defended Dean going on Robertson's show. Either Democrats should go on these things or they shouldn't.

[madfloridian]

4. This is a candidate's forum.

I have no objection to individual Democrats going on networks like Fox. I think it puts the candidates on the spot, though. They are already having their reps meet with the DNC to limit the number of forums that are cropping up.

Thanks for understanding.

I understand that the gay community will never forgive him for that. Nor will it ever forgive me for thinking it was ok for him to do that. That's sort of sad. He's been pretty fair to that community and has reached out. Many others have not bothered. Many in the gay community are actively working against him now. And many never fail to bring up that I thought it ok. Holding a grudge?

I think you will see this is about our candidates for president, it is not just about going on a network for an interview.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Completely agree w/you

Simply put, it's not a smart move to go with Faux for a Democratic Candidates forum. There's a reason why Bushetals choose Faux: It reaches their base.

[dsc]

19. Oh please

come down of the cross we need the wood. The point isn't Dean it is you and your hypocrisy. We still have no idea why Fox was chosen or who chose them. While I have a problem with Dean going on the 700 Club I have defended pretty much everything else he did. If you doubt that, you can look it up for yourself.

My guess as to why Fox was chosen, is that they were the only network who would or they offered the best deal.

[wyldwolf]

5. Interesting revelation you chose to highlight

keep in mind that many of the party’s newest faithful (particularly the youngsters) came from the ranks of the 2004 election workforce, of which Moveon.org and American Coming Together had a lot to do with.

Something I've long believed, yet most of those "new faithful" will never admit to. This is the same crowd that tosses around words like "Repub-lite," "DINO" and other such rubbish to those who've been involved for years.

[madfloridian]

6. That is a great thing. You call it negative, I call it positive.

I think probably the way you talk to many of us here is a great thing, after all. It is the attitude the party leaders have had for years. It is a looking down the nose at activists attitude. It is a let us run things like we used to do in the smoke-filled rooms attitude.

It is like you don't think I am very bright or very capable. It is like you feel most of us here at DU are not worthy.

Why is that good? Because that is how most of the party leaders feel. They want to do it their way. They think activists are too demanding. It is the attitude that will keep activists on their toes to keep fighting back.

In my mind it is one of the very best things that has happened. Al From started the fringe thing in 03, and it is being continued here at DU by many.

They are both good things. The fact that MoveOn and groups like it from the 04 election are inspiring young people. It is also a good thing to see some here continue their condescension. If nothing else, that has shown up the right wing of the party for who they really are.....superior in every way to us peons. Someday we may be worthy.

[wyldwolf]

8. I call it petulance

The very idea you can come to a party late and then claim you own the house.

[madfloridian]

9. Go ahead, Dig the hole of insults deeper. Then they will lock my post...

because it has turned into flamebait. Which of course was your goal all along.

I have been a Democrat since I was old enough to vote. But now I see a side of my party that worries me....the Iraq war started it and insults continue it.

Feel free. I hold the record for the most sensible posts locked because they were turned into flamebait through no fault of my own.

Enough said.

[wyldwolf]

11. Have I insulted you?

Why would I want to get your thread locked?

Lifelong Dem? I thought it started for you "early in 2003, around March" with a Howard Dean speech "that was the beginning of (your) involvement in politics." (From your Journal)

[madfloridian]

12. It was the Iraq War that changed us because we knew it was lies.

We became a different kind of Democrat then...the old activist, fringe thing that Al From started a campaign against. I find your post interesting.

I am now a proud "fringe, activist, MoveOn member". You think people like me are upstarts, and we are.

Dig the hole deeper. People watch.

[wyldwolf]

13. ok ok ok...

... you weren't involved in politics until the Iraq war, so everything you've learned about it, you learned since then. Got it.

[madfloridian]

14. It was the those who were "smart" about politics that took us to Iraq.

And it is those who are "smart" about politics in the Democratic Party who are shooting down every plan to get us out of there.

Therefore I must assume that enough of our party wants to stay there, let our military there be hostage in case Little Boots bombs Iran...

So I am now officially smarter than they are...or more caring. Take your pick. Keep digging.

[wyldwolf]

16. Ok... so you admit you're not smart about politics?

:shrug:

Seems to be what you're saying...

[madfloridian]

17. Go to your blog and write about me and how "smart" I am.

That's the next step.

[wyldwolf]

18. you haven't given me enough material yet.

[Doctor_J]

ALL Dems should freeze out ALL GOP mouthpieces

period. All that will come of it are leading questions, gotchas, and sound bites that will be edited, twisted, and taken out of context. Refuse to speak to all but the handful of honest journalists that remain in TV and radio.

[Doctor_J]

15. ALL Dems should freeze out ALL GOP mouthpieces

period. All that will come of it are leading questions, gotchas, and sound bites that will be edited, twisted, and taken out of context. Refuse to speak to all but the handful of honest journalists that remain in TV and radio.