Kucinich Slams Fox Debate Cancellation (The Nation)

[marmar]

Kucinich Slams Fox Debate Cancellation

Marc Cooper

Under pressure from liberal bloggers, the Nevada Democratic Party has scrubbed a presidential candidates debate that was set for this coming August.

The bloggers were outraged that the Nevada Dems were partnering with the Fox News Channel who had been given the rights to broadcast the debate.

Count me among those who think the debate cancellation is a ridiculous ending to what was a ridiculous and counter-productive cause. Excuse me, but I thought liberals hated Fox precisely because it was NOT fair and balanced, because of the dearth of voices other than those from the Right.

So here was a chance to force-feed the conservative Fox audience a prime-time dose of Democratic campaigning; but now that's all been called off by --- Democrats!
....snip.....

"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."

I couldn't agree more.

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=174222

[madfloridian]

1. Perhaps before speaking they should know what really happened.

Kucinich goofed on this, and needs to be clued in.

[wetcanvas]

47. I like Kucinich...He's the only authentic guy in the crowd...

...and on another thread I said Edwards was not too smart doing what he was doing because a presidential candidate cannot look fearful.

The goal is victory, and ...

this is not the way to win. To win we need swing voters. The base here cannot get it done on its own.

Fact is FOX is No.1 in cable news, it isn't only a republican followed network, there are a ton of swing voters who watch FOX and will look and think something is hugely wrong with our party backing out (which is 100 times worse than just ignoring)

This is a fatal error in my judgment because it is public, because it smacks of fear, and it is an arrow that can be shot for the next 18 months. They will use it, they'd be stupid not to, and their line of attack will be: "can a party that fears a few tough questions from a news network lead us in a turbulent world?

[madfloridian]

57. Fox is the mouthpiece for the Bush White House.

It is far more than just a conservative channel.

Kucinich did not check his facts before he said all this. It was not the candidates doing it all...it was bloggers and activists.

[NDP]

2. Of course he did. Kucinich needs all of the press that he can get.

[robinlynne]

3. I see his line of reasoning, but I think it is more important to expose Fox for

not being a legitimate news channel. I hope ABC is next. These channels are not EARNING their right to transmit on the public air waves any longer.

[saracat]

4. Kucinich is selling out his fellow Dems in order to get the only publicity he can.How sad.

Any candidate who takes this kind of tactic "shouldn't be President of the ZUnited States". Back at ya Denis.

[mikelgb]

5. I felt this way as well...

before Kucinich came out and said it...

I did not dare try and make this case on DU as the cancellation was hailed as a victory.

I don't fault Edwards, Faux hardly deserves the presense of proud Democratic statesmen but I think candidates could have taken the opportunity to beat Faux at their own game.

(friends close, enemies closer)

[Richard Steele]

6. Kucinich is way off-base wih this. 2 good reasons:

#1: FOX would have written and asked the "debate" questions.
Doesn't take a genius to see how THAT would have been bad
for any candidate (aka "Dem") they wanted to smear.

#2: The unfainess and imbalance of Fox News is *NOT* an accident.
Having more Dems on Fox will not CHANGE that problem, merely
LEGITIMIZE it while handing it more ammo.

[ellacott]

8. I agree

The regular Fox viewer would not be watching to be enlightend by the positions of a Dem. They will watch looking for something to criticize and slander. Dennis could have said 100 correct things but if he made one little slip up in speech then that slip up will be the summation of who Dennis is. That slip up would be the headline.

Kucinich really should know this. I'm disappointed that he didn't think about this as opposed to face time on any media outlet.

[thethinker]

11. Well

that happens if they make a speech at a meeting of an organization no one ever heard of. Republicans are going to dish dirt. Get used to it. That is politics.

[Richard Steele]

15. An "organization no one ever heard of" like CBS or NBC, you mean?

This faux "debate" idea was not an opportunity for
the candidates, it was an opportunity for FoxNews.
A big one.

And we don't owe them any big favors.

[Sparkly]

17. As Kucinich says, that sounds like fear.

Your #1: Fear of a potential "smear" (as if that can be avoided); fear of handling questions they don't like.

Your #2: Fear of Fox Newz in general; fear that confronting it "legitimizes" it.

Let's assume for a moment that those things warrant fear, caution, avoidance, etc. Weighed against the importance of the presidential campaign, is this the time and method to launch a campaign against Fox?

I think it's about getting elected, period. From the "bully pulpit" and the power of the presidency, a campaign against Fox might be effective. But this move, at this time, does seem to be about political expediency, and I think Kucinich has it right.

[Richard Steele]

22. Refusing to ENABLE an enemy's attempts to harm us is not "fear", it's common-sense strategy.

FoxNews is not a news organization, it is the propaganda organ
of the Republican Party. That's not "fear", it's FACT.

CONFRONTING Fox? Declining to appear -IS- confronting Fox.
Jumping through their scripted hoops certainly is NOT.

[Sparkly]

30. Democrats can keep their campaigns from Fox, but they can't keep Fox from their campaigns.

I agree with your first point: Fox is a propaganda organ of the rightwing.

I disagree with your second point. I don't think declining a Fox-sponsored debate, or refusing to appear on the network, is confronting them at all. I think it enables Fox even MORE to mischaracterize what's being said, and to spin things according to their own agenda.

Can't Democrats deal with them without "jumping through their scripted hoops?" I think they should be able to do that.

[Richard Steele]

33. I think we agree ALMOST 100%.

I just think that this "debate", where FOX writes
the questions, FOX referees the answers, and FOX
owns all rights to show the resulting video and
FOX-edited "highlights".....would have been, in
itself, a "scripted hoop" scenario. The biggest
FOX has ever had.

I don't think FOX was gonna break character and
approach this debate with any sort of integrity
or newfound sense of impartiality. Therefore, giving
them that degree of CONTROL over OUR message would
not have been a good idea.

[SemperEadem]

41. exactly

(posted in another thread)
If fuxnoise is the outlet handling the videotaping of this debate, then that means that they own the video sources and copyright. Other news outlets would have to send requests to fuxnoise for particular video they needed for their purposes. There is no reason on earth to believe that fuxnoise would turn over the complete, unedited version of the debates--they would most likely release a highly edited version to other outlets.

I wouldn't put it past fuxnoise to not air the debates live, but to tape them in their entirety and then edit the tape, re-shoot the moderators' questions and edit the Dems' responses to the questions to fit the lie fuxnoise is trying to put over on the viewers---and air that as a 'look live', which is a tactic used by just about every news station in the country. (When they can only put to air 2 live shots at one time, but they have 4 reporters doing 'team coverage'--they tape two of the reporters and roll those tapes as a 'look live'--and the viewer thinks all 4 of the reporters in that quad box are standing there live.)

As if that isn't damage enough, it's not really what they will do during the debates, but what they will do with the tape AFTER the debates which will cause the most damage to the Dems' message. fuxnoise has no good reason to let the truth stand as it falls out in experience, as they can't handle the truth and have proven that fact for 11 years now.

I totally applaud the Nevada Dems for cancelling. Any Dem who thinks they would get a fair shake from fux is delusional.

[SaveElmer]

7. Kucinich's "Sister Souljah" moment? Or just seeking airtime...

I guess this is one way for DK to get face time on the news...dis the liberals calling for cancellation of the debate!

[thethinker]

9. I know this isn't a popular opinion around here but . . .

A lot of independents and republicans watch Faux. I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to reach cross-over republican voters and independents. The truth is, a lot of them will be voting democrat next time and our candidates need to reach them. They need to hear the message more than democrats do. You can't just preach to the choir and expect to get ahead.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The Republicans and Independents that watch Faux aren't voting for Democrats

They are the loyal 25% or so that thinks Bush is still doing a good job.

[Jai4WKC08]

38. That's not true. I wish it were.

Fox has a larger audience than the other cable news networks combined. Combined! Approximately a quarter of Fox viewers are Democrats. I'd estimate AT LEAST another quarter are independents and moderate Repubs who DO sometimes vote for Democrats.

I don't know why these people watch Fox. Some probably have no choice, it's what's on the tube where they work. Others probably like the bright flashy graphics and sensationalized stories about celebrity crime or dead blonds. There is a percentage, even among Democrats, who believe the bullshit that the mainstream media has a liberal bias -- after all, the Repubs have been selling that line for an AWFULLY long time, and the corporate media has let them get away with it on purpose.

But whatever the reason, it's a sad fact that if you want to reach as many American voters as possible, you've GOT to put strong Democrats on Fox. Otherwise, you're just giving up on too many people.

Now, having said all that, I do not agree that it was wrong to deny Fox the right to carry our debate. It's just stupid to let them pick the questioners, write the questions, and make all the decisions on who gets covered, how much, from what camera angles, and so forth. I remember that they ran our debate the night before the 04 New Hampshire primary and they totally screwed with the Democrats they didn't want to do well.

We may be giving up some free media by taking the debates away, but not much I think. Most people who want to watch the debates will watch whatever network does carry them. And Fox viewers who don't want to watch are perfectly able to change the channel for a while, so wouldn't be watching even if Fox were still the sponsor.

[FredScuttle]

44. Um.....got any, you know, BASIS for those conclusions...

or did you pull them out of here?



"Approximately a quarter of Fox viewers are Democrats"!!! LOL "AT LEAST another quarter are independents and 'moderate' Repubs..." Double LOL. I guess those are the moderate Repubs who think Colmes is an able foil for Hannity. Give. Me. A. Break.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. There are independent statistics

For the percentage of Democrats. They've been posted at DU a number of times, with links. Look 'em up. Or don't, and continue to believe whatever you choose.

Likewise the ratings info is readily available.

As I think I implied, the corresponding figure on indies and moderates are my own estimate, but it sounds logical based on the number of Democrats, and my estimate that the hard-core don't make up over 50% of the audience. Take it or leave it.

And yes, I suspect moderate Repubs do think Colmes is a good match for Hannity. Obviously they're idiots, but that should be no surprise... they're still Republicans, aren't they? The point is, so what? I'd love to convert them, but at the end of the day, I only really care whether they can be induced to vote for a Democrat. Neither can happen if we don't engage them, and expose them to our ideas and values. Even if it means doing so in little bites that they can digest slowly.

But hey, I believe in talking to Iran and Syria too.

Your picture shows someone with his head up his ass, not someone pulling something out of the same place. I suspect the irony of that is lost on you.

[FredScuttle]

53. I'm not going to do your heavy lifting for you...

You're the one who introduced the ridiculous idea that fully 50% of the Fox audience is Democrats, independents and "moderate" Republicans. You can provide the links to support that drivel.

The people we want to engage and get to vote Democratic do not watch Fox. That's my opinion.

Your interpretation of the picture I posted speaks for itself.

[Jai4WKC08]

61. Facts are facts

I feel no need to prove anything. You can "believe" what you choose. :shrug:

[blondeatlast]

64. Since you can't or won't prove it, I won't take you seriously.

It's all good.

[FredScuttle]

79. I agree completely...

facts ARE facts. And, since you refuse to provide any to support what I surmise to be your opinion, I have no rational cause to take your assertion seriously.

Have a wonderful day.

[ClintonTyree]

26. Did you mean "Democratic" or is your....

"liberal bias" showing? :rofl: Nice try, see ya' in the funny papers.

[ObamaNationYes]

37. Glad you are pointing this out

I made a similar post in a related thread in the LBN forum and got a very nasty rude CHILDISH reply to my post. I can see where it is a good thing not to lend any credence to Fox by not participating, but I also see an audience that Dems may not reach otherwise. Just saying...

[Bronyraurus]

54. Amen

[BootinUp]

56. Glad you aren't

afraid to post your opinion. :thumbsup:

[ecstatic]

76. you may be right, due to the entertainment value it presents

It's goofy news and full of misinformation, but a lot of people may find it entertaining (even if they are smart enough to disagree or get the truth elsewhere).

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Moon Man needs all the free air time he can get.

[Nashyra]

13. I am from NORTHERN NV

and the only station that shows anything resembling news is FAUX. I do not consider them a news source but enertainment and alot of folks in rural Nevada only get FAUX. The Demographics in NORTHERN NV which is where the the debate was going to be held is PREDOMINATELY Republican. Jill Derby running for CD2 make a huge inroad into the moderate Republican and non-partisan vote. As you recall it took 2 trips from the asshole in chief and 1/2 million dollars for the pretty boy to beat her.

We need those FOX viewers to win in rural NV. I agree with Kucinich.

[Ninja Jordan]

14. No CNN in northern NV? yeah right

CNN is carried by every cable package in the US.

[Dr Fate]

24. I'm sure they have ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN in Nevada as well. n/t

n/t

[Sparkly]

16. I think he's right.

As I posted on the other thread about this:

I understand the rationale that it's about "delegitimizing Fox," but weighing that against the importance of the race itself, I think the campaign against Fox is secondary.

And, while Fox is undeniably a rightwing propaganda outlet as a whole, moment-by-moment and person-by-person there are isolated cases where it actually can compare equally or even favorably to other networks. Ted Koppel was absolutely *terrible* "moderating" the debate in 2003, for example; no Fox head could have done worse. And, while I'm an unabashed Clark supporter, he's experienced nothing on Fox as bad as Scarborough accusing him of "aiding and abetting our enemies" and implying he didn't support the troops, and then not letting him speak.

Further, I think there are enough people watching Fox who NEED to hear the Democrats speak -- as opposed to hearing the Republicans mischaracterize what the Democrats are saying -- that it's worthwhile. And, in the long run, I think hearing the Democrats speak is the way to change minds and ultimately change channels.

Again, I understand that Fox is a rightwing network, but I think avoiding it isn't the only way to deal with it.

[Dr Fate]

18. He's wrong on this one. DEMS should be united in opposing FOX. n/t

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

20. Fox News is not a legitimate news network. It's the house organ of the Republican party, and should

be treated accordingly.

Fox News and their minions will now be using Kucinich's words to trash the Democratic party. Thank you, Dennis Kucinch!

[Radical Activist]

21. If Fox agreed to a Democratic moderator

instead of one of their own propagandists, then he might have a point.

[Dr Fate]

23. No- they have to agree to spend 24 hours doing full retractions of every false story aired..

...THEN we will attend.

No, wait-24 hours? It would actually take them an entire 6 month period or longer...

This is what I would say if I were King of the DEMS, or one of the candidates.

[wetcanvas]

50. Flaw in your logic...and people see it...

...is you assume the other networks are more favorabe to us.

Swing voters see right through this...they know FOX has more right wing content, and that they are alone. The Republicans have to face our music, why shouldn't our guys be battle toughened by having it out with the other side. And if not, don't go dance with the devil, tell everyone about it and what a great opportunity it is and then run away like your hair is on fire. It makes us all look like wimps.

[LibDemAlways]

25. The FAUX audience isn't interested in hearing common

sense from Dems. They wouldn't be tuning in to become better informed but to see our candidates turned into red meat for their attack dogs.

Would Kucinich appear at a neo-Nazi rally just to try and get his message across? FAUX News isn't much different. Better to call them out on their crap than to dignify it.

[beaconess]

27. Fox News co-sponsored a Democratic primary debate in 2003

and nobody got their shorts all in a bunch.

Why all of the handwringing over this one? If it's because of Ailes' comment, that's one thing. But the notion that Dems shouldn't participate in a debate just because it's sponsored by Fox, which, regardless what we think of it, is one of the highest rated news channels in the country, is, in my view, silly.

Maybe most Fox viewer will be looking to criticize, but all Fox viewers are not knuckle-draggers. By cancelling the debate, Dems are missing an opportunity to bring some folks over to our side.

And we look like a bunch of crybabies who are scared of the big bad boogeyman, to boot.

[Ninja Jordan]

28. I was fuming. Fox promo'ed the debate as 'National Democrat Debate' in its commercials.

Fuck Fox

[Sparkly]

31. That'd be one point that could have been made during a debate. nt

[SemperEadem]

42. you assume that fux would not edit out any reference to that

what makes you think that they would not heavily edit that show to their spin? They aren't in the business of giving Dems a fair shake on anything--they are in the business of helping the thugs to shut down the Democratic party in this country.

[Dr Fate]

29. We should have banned it back in '03. A lot of good it did us then.

Would have been nice if we had started building the case against FOX sooner rahter than later- but better late than never.

We can still get plenty of air-time on the all the other stations, plus we get MORE publicity from going against the channel than we would ever get positive coverage from "teaming" with them.

We can still bring people over to our side-if FOX viewers are really not knuckle draggers, then they will have no problem-and will make an effort in changing the channel so that they can hear "the other side."

[Eric J in MN]

40. The last time, Fox stopped showing the debate before it ended.

Even if Fox News were a liberal channel, that would be enough to skip Fox News the following presidential debate season.

[Czolgosz]

32. If there were going to be an unlimited number of debates, I'd agree with Dennis, but there will only

be a few debates, and I'd hate to see one of the first debates entrusted to those numbskulls at Faux.

[jen4clark]

34. I agree with Kucinich

but I can see the point of the blogosphere as well, which was that by allowing them to moderate the Dem debate, we legitimize the station.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid was not clear in his public statement on why the debate was cancelled -- he totally ignored the reason the blogosphere wanted the debate cancelled. He should have stated outright, that FOX News is a propaganda tool of the radical right, and that we refuse to give credence to it. Instead, he watered it down in his seemingly wimpy way by making it about FOX News mixing up Obama and Osama or something.

Truth is, if the candidates had accepted the debate and bogus and/or stupid questions were asked, they could have pointed out the stupidity of the question and gone on to talk about what they wanted -- much like General Clark does when Hannity or O'Reilly try to trip him up when he's on their shows. He stays on point, says exactly what he wants to say with calm assurance and reason, and eventually they shut the fuck up, and many times even end up agreeing with him.

I can totally see Kucinich's point when he says: "If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically."

[marmar]

43. I'm torn too....

I see both points. I don't know who's more right.

[wetcanvas]

49. ...fatal flaw is to think FOX is not legit...we may not like it...but...

...being No.1 in anything makes you legit, and dare I say FOX hasn't had any major retractions, like Rather's leaping before looking.

Fact is there are tons of people who sit on the fence that watch FOX. Do you want to reach them?

This wouldn't bother me at all if they simply ignored FOX, but Reid actually praised FOX and the ability to hit a new audience. Backing out, not just ignoring looks awful. It is awful and Kucinich is 100% right.

[NYCGirl]

51. Sure they haven't had any major retractions, because they're not journalists.

So you think that the Madrassas story didn't NEED a retraction?

[BootinUp]

59. The sad truth is

just saying Fox sux, by boycotting them, isn't going to sway anyone that watches that network. Its going to take a lot more than that. A contingent of Democrats up there in a debate is far more powerful.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. Words are cheap. I saw him being worked over by a slip of a girl.

She made nice to him with a fulsome welcome, just to soften him up. "Always nice to talk to you (and, doubtless, to herself, "and take the p*ss out of you...").

Sure enough, when it came to it, instead of giving her both barrels he had her shouting him down most of the time and belittling him with what could only be belittling in freepers' eyes. When she finally allowed him to speak, he should have said, "Are you sure you don't want me to interview you? I'm not sure the audience would learn too much from you, but I expect it would be much easier for me to get a word in edgeways."

His performance wasn't all bad, but he's no attack dog, when that was what was needed. I think that was a Fox program, too. All he needed to say was, "Aren't Fox ever going to put up adults for political interviews. You're wasting my time and the viewers' time." Quoting her chapter and verse if she had the gall to push it.

[BootinUp]

62. he must be a girlieman then eh?

Don't cha think you might be being a little unreasonable with this assessment?

[AtomicKitten]

36. Faux News is quickly becoming a pariah.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea for Dems to make any moves to alter that trend.

[Forkboy]

39. He's wrong,but for the right reasons.

:)

[TwilightGardener]

46. Plenty of time for debates. We don't need to give any credibility to Fox.

[wetcanvas]

48. When the Network is No. 1in cable news...it is credible to many swing voters...

...and the swing voters will look at this and think...wasssup?

This was a dumb ass mistake, and it a story that has garnered national attention. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

If you want to play in the big leagues, you WILL take some hits. That is part of the game. Doing this the entire party gets smacked, they all look bad instead of a few individuals perhaps getting smacked...and those individuals are gonna have to face these shots eventually. Better now than later.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Fox News serves only the interest of Fox News--they are not performing a public service...

the only reason I can see for them hosting the debate is to try to draw in viewers from the other side of the political spectrum in an effort to increase their overall viewership. Well, either that or they plan to frame the debate and questions in such a way as to make Dems look like fools--I can see endless out-of-context clips being played, over and over, to discredit our candidates, or snarky analysis of hairstyles/mannerisms the next day on that Steve Douchey godawful morning show. It's just not a good idea to give your enemy a club to bludgeon you with. And again, they shouldn't be treated as a legitimate news organization--why give them clout and attention? Plenty of other forums, plenty of time, I say. Good on the Dems for sticking together.

[ieoeja]

70. And THAT is the problem.

Many swing voters "think" it is credible. A news outlet that lies on a regular basis should not be thought of as credible. The only people thinking FNC is credible are people unaware of FNC's lack of credibility.

And just now a lot of those swing voters are hearing for the first time ever that FNC is not credible. THAT is the whole point of boycotting FNC. To make people ask, "why?"

[BootinUp]

55. If I thought Kucinich had any chance

to win I would probably be supporting his campaign. He is exactly right here.

on edit...he is right on a lot of things.

[Cha]

58. I disagree with Kucinich..I think it's more

important to expose fauxnoise for what it is than to be concerned about debating Democratic issues anywhere, any place.

And thankfully they did it!

[madfloridian]

60. Does no one care that Dennis is not telling the truth?

""If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership.""

That statement of his is wrong. Marc Cooper was wrong. It was not a true statement. It was NOT the candidates.

Dennis K. is falling for the Fox spin that it was fraidy cat candidates.

Edwards only said he would not appear after Roger Ailes made a stupid joke about Obama again and threatened Dems who might boycott his network.

Dennis Kucinich should be held to the truth standard. Everyone else is.

[Leilani]

63. That's not true

Edwards cancelled on the debate on March 7th.

The TV & Radio Correspondents Dinner was on March 8th.

After Ailes told the joke about Obama other candidates pulled out.

[Arugula Latte]

65. Get a clue, Dennis.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[bigtree]

66. I said this from the beginning

oh well

[ShortnFiery]

67. Kucinich has now morphed into "Don Quixote"

Time for Kucinich to grant his congressional seat to another liberal democrat, so he can NOW pay full attention to his young wife. Recently he's NOT been focusing on "real world" issues where it concerns the propaganda organ of the Executive Branch. :thumbsdown:

[Geek_Girl]

68. I disagree though I see his point

Didn't the debate get canceled because of the Obama joke? Any way they should have never given fox the opportunity to air the debate in the first place. Fox News is a whole network for right-wing propaganda. By letting them host the debate, Dems would be giving them ammo to defend their "fair and balanced" BS credo.

[BootinUp]

69. I think the Obama joke

was an excuse to cancel the debate. The real reason is the loud protestations from bloggers, etc. My opinion of course.

[ShortnFiery]

71. FOX is a Fake (FAUX) News Organization, we don't have to kiss

their asses because they are somewhat popular now.

We, the people, have THE POWER to make them UNPOPULAR.

Please don't forget, "the news" serves "the people" NOT vice versa. ;)

[BootinUp]

72. I guess

you read my posts above? ;)

[ShortnFiery]

73. You believe the talking heads, I believe in THE PEOPLE

who can speak with their actions. Yes, it will make a BIG difference if FOX becomes a dinner time joke between family members.

Just because a few sell outs or clueless reps and journalists tells us that WE CAN NOT make a difference, doesn't make it A FACT.

The Truth is that Our Political Elite (Reps, D.C. cocktail Journalists, Executive Branch) are scared shitless that we will NOT take our marching orders from FOX. They KNOW that The People can make a difference and it frightens them.

They work for us! Time to stop listening to these bloated pompous FOX a**holes who claim to KNOW IT ALL. ;)

[BootinUp]

74. Thanks for telling me

what I believe. Lets all cower from debate thats the answer.

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

75. No, let's debate in VALID forums. FOX cable is a republican TV outlet

and we *all* know it. They are so far from "fair and balanced" that it's laughable each time you catch Hume or Gibson spew their swill. If your are not doubled over with nausea and projectile vomit, that Treasonous Oliver North Comes on Sunday with his "War Stories."

No, anyone who listens to FOX has already drank the koolaid.

F**k FOX Cable News.


There's no cowering here. But there's courage in the statement of FACT: Fox is the mouthpiece of The Republican National Committee.

Amen and thank you sweet Jesus! :P

[Lerkfish]

77. Why allow a Hen in the Fox house?

(just reversing the old example)

Even if Fox promised to be "fair and balanced", I'm reminded of the parable of the woman and the snake.
A woman walks along the road, and sees a snake sunning itself. The snake tells her to pick him up and take him to her home, where if she feeds him, he will not bite her.
The woman believes the snake and takes it home. For a while, the snake behaves. Then, one day, the snake sinks its teeth into her arm.
As she lays dying, the woman says "why did you do that? you promised me you would never bite me"
the snake says "I am but a snake, its what I do. You knew I was a snake when you picked me up, and yet you let me lie to you. This is your fault".

[ProudDad]

78. I couldn't help shuddering at the

potential crawlies faux would have been running on the screen during the debate:

"Kucinich a proven bed-wetter"

"Clinton killed Foster -- news at 11"

"Edwards' boy-toy tells all"

"Obama/Osama Saddam Hussein Obama, Lamma Lamma Ding Dong, Obama"

"Where's Gore?"


Seriously, I was conflicted. It would have been good to expose the ditto-heads who watch faux with ANYTHING other than the serious right-wing capitalist tilt they are fed 24/7. On the other, it DID appear like an acknowledgement of faux as a "news" organization.

On balance, the 1st Amendment fundie in me was disturbed by the cancellation. A better solution would have been a requirement that it be broadcast on ALL networks...

In fact, I'd like to see that in law -- all campaigns must have debates that are broadcast on OUR airwaves for free!!!

[blondeatlast]

80. The screen crawls and the ubiquitous question mark (see my Jon Stewart

quote in sig line) are why I think there is simply no redemption for FAUX and why I wholeheartedly applaud the NV party's decision.

If I thought they'd give us even a smidgen of objectivity, I'd say DK had a point, but they wouldn't.

Screen crawls are the absolute WORST thing to happen to news in my lifetime--nw\ext to FAUX itself, of course. Ugh.