April 10, 2007

Democrats Fear Fox, Part II

Democrats have once again gone running in fright from Fox News Channel for a political debate -- or more accurately, have run from fear of their anti-war base. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama join John Edwards in refusing to appear on Fox for a debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus:

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday joined former North Carolina senator John Edwards (D) in deciding to skip a debate scheduled for September that Fox News is co-sponsoring with the Congressional Black Caucus.

Liberal activists, particularly the online group Moveon.org, have called for Democratic presidential candidates not to participate in debates by Fox, which they say is biased against Democrats. Clinton campaign aides said she would participate only in the six events sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee and two other events she had already agreed to. Several candidates, including Edwards, last month withdrew from a debate that Fox was co-hosting with the Nevada Democratic Party and would have taken place in August in Reno.

Aides to Obama, Edwards and Clinton said the candidates will participate in a debate that the Congressional Black Caucus is co-sponsoring with CNN in January in South Carolina.

Hmmm. I wonder why these courageous Democrats only feel free to speak when appearing on CNN. I mean, the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't seem to feel the same fear as the candidates. They had their 2004 debates on Fox, and they survived the ordeal -- twice. Those debates included Edwards on both occasions, and he wound up on the ticket for the Democrats.

Once again, I will ask this question: how can we expect these candidates to face off against America's enemies when they can't bring themselves to face Fox? Do they expect that this demonstration of cravenness to actually impress anyone but the radical defeatists of MoveOn?

Some will suggest that the Republicans boycott CNN in response. That would be a huge mistake. First, the choice of venue for these debates, especially in the primary, is almost meaningless. Second, we don't need both parties to act like shrieking little children at the sight of a mouse. The eventual President represents the entire nation, not just a party -- or in this case, a faction of a party -- and the candidates who model that in the primaries and the general election will have the greatest chance of success. Besides, CNN didn't do anything in this case to earn Republican enmity except be the unfortunate cave in which these courageous Democratic candidates chose to hide.

But hey, it's still early in the campaign. Perhaps by the time the primaries arrive, Democratic presidential candidates might even have the stones to make appearances without MoveOn's permission.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9642

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Fear Fox, Part II:

» Blackballing the Black Caucus from JammieWearingFool
The Opinion Journal editorial today smacks down the Democrat Party for pandering to the far-left fringe over debates on Fox News Channel. [Read More]

» Web Reconnaissance for 04/10/2007 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention. [Read More]

» Hillary Clinton bows out of Fox/CBC hosted debate, too from Sister Toldjah
Now that the man who may be the nation’s second first black president has bowed out, la Clinton has followed suit, cleverly saying she’ll only appear in debates sanctioned by the DNC: Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama said the... [Read More]

» Let Us Know What You Really Think from Tai-Chi Policy
Captain’s Quarters talks about how the Democrats are afraid of Fox, even when debating themselves on it. In Contrast, Newt is pushing for 9 90 minute debates for each candidate, and has been debating anyone on anything political. Tonight he’... [Read More]

» Random politcal notes. from Bill's Bites
Ain't gonna have time to be organized today. Democrats Fear Fox, Part IIEd Morrissey Democrats have once again gone running in fright from Fox News Channel for a political debate -- or more accurately, have run from fear of their [Read More]

Comments (119)

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:23 AM

Democrats are right to stay off Fox News.

But the other networks display bias against them too. Let's encourage Democrats to stay off them as well.

If we're lucky, we'll never see another Democrat on TV, ever again.

They can beam their voices and images directly through the tinfoil hats of their lunatic Democrat base. The rest of us can live Democrat-free.

Posted by chsw [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:39 AM

Permission to speak freely, Captain? Thank you.

You and every other blogger and media outlet are approaching this story from the wrong angle. This is a tremendous disrespect shown to the Congressional Black Caucus by MoveOn.org and other Jackass organizations, as well as by the candidates. This tells the CBC that they can be taken for granted.

chsw

Posted by hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:40 AM

They are not afraid of Fox. They are out to suppress and destroy Fox. They hate the freedom Fox represents and want to end their expression of it. I will not be surprised if they find a way to run campaign commercials everywhere but Fox. And if they take over the FCC,they will go after the broadcasting licenses.
REmember: the anti-freedom, anti-patriotic efforts in this day and age are coming from the left. They are the ones censoring free speech on University campuses. They are the ones suppressing religious freedom.
The democrats are all about denial, from simply denying they ever voted for the war, to denying legitimate broadcast venues the right to show debates, to denying academic honors to those whom they disagree. They are even denying we are at war.
What better way to express that sense of denial than to pick out the network they feel is most vulnerable and to set out to destroy it?

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:50 AM

Dems aren't staying off Fox because they are scared, it's because Fox is a joke of a news network.

I find it funny that Cap'n, et al, are so hyped up about media "bias" that they read every story in the NYTimes as an assault on conservatism (bias in restaurant reviews can't be far off) while most of them are big fans of the most biased "news organization" around. And beyond that, they are the #1 offenders in all that is wrong with main stream media...

Coverage of sensationalized "non" news stories.

Combative, politically slanted "opinion" shows.

Honestly CNN is bad as well, but it is significantly better than Fox.

I turned on Hannity and Combs a couple weeks ago and their lead story was Anna Nicole Smith. I actually felt bad for Hannity.

PBS is pretty much the only station I watch for national news (McNeil/Leher for news and McGlaughlin Group for analysis).

There are myriad better venues than Fox News for a democratic debate. I mean, you don't want to risk breaking news that Don Imus is Anna Nicole Smith's illegitimate uncle cutting into the debate.

Posted by Gahrie [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:58 AM

Fox should go ahead with the debate. Set up chairs with placards for the candidates that don't show.

If none of them show, do the same thing, then use the air time to do a special about who the nutsroots are, what their agenda is, what their tactics are, and the effect they are having on the Democratic party.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:13 AM

I rarely watch Fox or CNN, but to say CNN is significantly better than Fox, is just ridiculous. CNN is just abysmal.

CNN lied about No Gun Ri. CNN lied about "Tailwind" These were outrageous lies about alleged international crimes. CNN admitted they favored "access" over "truth" in pre-war Iraq.

Has Fox perpetrated anything similar, Tom Shipley?

CNN puts out serial liar Lou Dobbs each and every evening, paired up with left wing lunatic Jack Cafferty.

Compare the Dobbs/Cafferty DNC buffoons to Brit Hume and Fred Barnes along with Democrats Mora Laison and Juan Williams.

Democrats cannot tolerate any "news" source that isn't first filtered by the DNC. Democrat National Committeee Nutcase "News" (DNCNN) is not a credible news source.

Posted by vladtheimp [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:16 AM

This is simply another example of the Democrats balkanizing the country. While it would be wrong for the Republicans to boycott CNN and act similarly childishly while participating in the balkanization, the Dems should pay a price. Fox should issue a challenge to them, worded clearly to show that their refusal to participate is based upon their fear of exposing their beliefs to the widest cable audience possible. If this doesn't shame them into it, Fox could stage a mock debate with actors reading from actual transcripts using the candidates prior remarks on topics chosen by Fox with a real Fox moderator.

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:16 AM

Tom, CNN is better? The CNN that surpressed how bad things were in Iraq under Saddam, simply because they wanted to continue to have access. Access to report news, but then not report that news? CNN has no credibility with me, I can never be sure that they are not still engaging in that practice somewhere.

I generally don't watch any news tv -- Fox, CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC etc. Usually I'm busy.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:18 AM

Boycotting Fox is a "Convenient Truth" to these candidates. They are not refusing to debate because of Fox's participation - They are refusing to debate because they are insecure in their positions.
If you look at the dates of the first cancelled debate in Nevada and this one planned in September, that is a treacherous time for Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that ....what if the "Surge" has shown significant progress over the next 3 months? They could be hung out to dry.
This is all about fear. Fear of losing LONG before a first primary is even at hand.

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:43 AM

Hannity and Colmes is not part of the news section, they are editorial in content.

Though it doesn't surprise me that our resident liberals can't tell the difference.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:51 AM

You only go on Fox when you want a large audience.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:59 AM

No Donkey,

You can go back throughout any news organizations history and find stories that turned out not to be true. The tailwind thing CNN issued a 56-page retraction on.

With Iraq, they were basically faced with keeping some journalistic activities active inside Iraq or none. They did make a deal with the devil, and it may not have been the correct one.

Now fox news still has this page on the Web, even though this story was shown to be completely BS (both the Madrassa part and the Clinton angle).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245582,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842036/site/newsweek/

As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough for both Clinton and Obama to blow off Fox.

And this paragraph shows why I believe CNN is a better news org than Fox:

"True or not, this bit of grade-school innuendo proved irresistible to Steve Doocy, know-it-all host of “Fox and Friends,” Roger Ailes’s idea for a right-wing morning chat show. Doocy garbled the story into a reference to Obama “spending the first decade of his life raised by a Muslim father.” After John Gibson of Fox repeated this yarn, which managed to slime two campaigns simultaneously, CNN dispatched a reporter to Obama’s old school in Jakarta, where he revealed it to be a normal public school with religion classes only once a week and no indication of Wahhabism, the Saudi-inspired extremist philosophy. (Indonesian schools were even more secular 40 years ago than they are today.) The whole underlying tale was untrue."

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:01 AM

I think the dems' decision is typically silly and self-destructive, but it's really similar to conservatives refusing to subscribe to the NYT or watch C-BS due to their biases. Voting with the pocketbook, as you might say.

O' course, one wonders what the dems hope to accomplish. In satisfying their nutroots base, they make themselves look petty, silly, and (dare I say it?) hyperpartisan. Americans routinley see Republicans on the major news outlets, but they're being treated to a bunch of democrat no-shows on the eeeevil Fox Network. Gutless.

chsw wrote (April 10, 2007 07:39 AM):

You and every other blogger and media outlet are approaching this story from the wrong angle. This is a tremendous disrespect shown to the Congressional Black Caucus by MoveOn.org and other Jackass organizations, as well as by the candidates. This tells the CBC that they can be taken for granted.

If the Republicans did something like this (i.e. boycott a debate sponsored by the CBC or any other black organization), you can bet your bottom dollar this is how it would be portrayed!

Posted by tommy1nut [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:07 AM

First off I don't know who this poster who calls himself NoDonkey is but hopefully his views are embraced by the wingnut section of the G.O.P. Because if they are us Dems will control all 3 branches of the Federal government for the next 50 years. Secondly on topic FOX NEWS is simply not a credible news organization. I do not blame anybody serious candidate boycotting them. Their bias against the left is plain for everyone to see. Don't forget it was Bill O'Reilly who said that q 12 year old child who rather stay with a pedophile than go home and go back to his family. How anybody takes FOX SERIOUSLY IS A TOTAL MYSTERY TO ME.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:14 AM

The majority party is doing the right thing not supporting Fox just like GW Bush does not support the NAACP. It's a hostile audience made up of viewers that still think that Saddam had something do to with 911. I have no problem personally with Fox and recognize the GOP's need for such a mouthpiece. Except for that squirlly looking Colmes there is no other host on any of their shows that is even remotely "moderate" ... and Colmes only co-hosts but obviously takes a back seat to Hannity.

If we are being truthful in calling CNN and MSNBC democractic mouthpieces and the MSM for the Democratic party, than one could only draw the same conclusions about Fox and it's obvious bias towards the GOP.

Only the blind would not admit as much.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:17 AM

tommy1nut wrote: "How anybody takes FOX SERIOUSLY IS A TOTAL MYSTERY TO ME."

You're right. Only people who take "Fly-over" America seriously take Fox News seriously.

Posted by heldmyw [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:24 AM

I wonder what the point of the boycott is?

It's a slap at the Congressional Black Caucus, shows fear of anything less than a totally submissive news channel (and presumably the audience), and reflects a cowardice that is particularly disturbing in candidates who imagine they are fit for leadership.

The idea of a CNN softball game dolled up as a "debate" has all the potential for cutting-edge political give-and-take that a Teletubbies marathon does.

Cue Lala, Dinkywinky and Po!

Posted by krm [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:25 AM

I agree with the idea of going on with the debate and letting whoever shows up appear.

There should simply be a picture of each no-show propped on their chair or podium with a nice cowardly yellow border around it.

Has Kucinich bailed on Fox yet? It could be really entertaining to watch Dennis rant along for a whole evening. And it would be just the pperfect impression of the party the Democrats would like the public to have, no?

Posted by heldmyw [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:29 AM

---and if somebody doesn't Photoshop the democrat candidates into the Teletubbies, I'll be very surprised.

It's a stature thing... They just "fit"

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:30 AM

Success speaks volume....


Total day: FNC: 242 | CNN: 146 | MSNBC: 147 | HLN: 91 | CNBC: 80

Prime: FNC: 286 | CNN: 221 | MSNBC: 212 | HLN: 110 | CNBC: 54

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC Gibson: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
208 235 323 373 258 227 347
CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: Roland: King: Cooper: Cooper:
120 227 210 252 247 164 149
MSNBC Matthews: Tucker: Matthews: Countdo.: Investig.: Investig.: Special:
119 77 108 236 197 202 205
HLN HLN: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
49 88 119 195 73 61 86


Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

Simple truth here; Fox News provides the best opportunity for honest & balanced reporting available on television. Liberals hate Fox News simply because "the times, they are a changing". The Liberal dominance of the daily news cycle has ended. In time, Liberals will be forced to win the "minds & hearts" of the people based on ideas & solutions; Liberals resent this reality deeply.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:30 AM

The left's definition of a biased news source is one that they disagree with. The Truth is that all news sources are biased. Somehow the post-World War II media convinced first itself, and then the public, that they were "unbiased." The reality of the news business is that it is unchanged since the days of William Randolph Hurst. Each media outlet pushes its own point of view in the market for ideas. The difference between then and now is that there are far fewer media outlets that are available to the general public and as every social science survey has shown the news media is about 90% Democratic and liberal.

The Democrats can boycott Fox because is the only broadcast or cable news outlet that is biased against them. The Republicans can’t boycott their opponents in the news media because they would get no coverage at all. This really is a free speech/First Amendment issue. The Democrats want to put pressure on the holdout media with intent on closing down any new source that is biased in favor of the Republicans. They want to return to the Clinton era where the DNC could dictate what stories are put out to the public. It only takes one major outlet to put a check on the unlimited power of the Democratic Party to control what information is out to the public.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:32 AM

"You can go back throughout any news organizations history and find stories that turned out not to be true. The tailwind thing CNN issued a 56-page retraction on."

I can? Well, I can't find one story Fox News falsified that even approaches the THREE examples I provided from CNN. Doesn't that count? Or do you give a free pass to a network that completely botched three stories in the past decade at the same time you're condemning Fox News, which you apparently have no actual botched stories to list, just your own bias.

What you posted is NOT A NEWS STORY. It's a meaningless opinion piece. If Democrats want to get their panties in a wad over an opinion piece, how do they feel about Rosie O'Donnell's postulation that our Govt took down the WTC?

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:34 AM

while i have previously mentioned that i think the big money will be in "designer burkas" i think i can safely add "brownshirts" when the hildabeast is president.

in the end dems fears will only drive more viewers to fox. as for the folks that watch cnn you should get some counseling. they cooked their goose in the first iraq war.

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:39 AM

"With Iraq, they were basically faced with keeping some journalistic activities active inside Iraq or none. They did make a deal with the devil, and it may not have been the correct one."

Wow, you are basically giving them a free pass here. Over ten years of ignoring real news stories in an important part of the world "may not have been" the correct deal?

I would much rather have CNN say "we would like to report on Iraq, but Saddam kicked us out because of our reporting." That gives us a clearer picture of what was happening rather than soft pedalled kite flying stories. For example, in North Korea there is precious little reporting coming out of there which tells me things are real bad there as the government doesn't want anything getting out.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:43 AM

Once again, I will ask this question: how can we expect these candidates to face off against America's enemies when they can't bring themselves to face Fox? Do they expect that this demonstration of cravenness to actually impress anyone but the radical defeatists of MoveOn?

Gee Ed, I thought it was a sign of strength to not talk with your enemies given what's been said about Pelosi talking with Assad here previously! This particular bit of spin is therefore pretty silly on your part, IMO. It's no secret that Fox News is a highly partisan friend of the GOP, so it's no suprise to me that a lot of Democrats have decided not to sup with them any longer.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:50 AM

SF Dude

This link is for you...

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Pelosi%27s+diplomacy%3a+She+speaks+only+for+herself&articleId=649f164e-c71a-493d-9b8a-70b31e986b8b

Like it or not, this is how the "Pelosi jumps into bed with the enemy" story is shaping up for you all.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:57 AM

NoDonkey,

Show me one story that CNN "falsified."

And Fox REPORTED that Obama went to a Madrassa AND that the Clinton campaign was behind it. They were so eager to smear TWO democrat candidates with ONE story, that they did no news reporting of their own, but ran with the conservative Insight.com's completely false story... and they used it to good effect:

HANNITY AND COLMES (AND COULTER):

On the January 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity hosted right-wing pundit Ann Coulter for a discussion of, among other things, prospective Democratic presidential nominees, specifically the qualifications of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Coulter compared Obama to former President Gerald Ford, saying, "[E]verything they were saying to point out how little qualified Ford was as this accidental president is surely true … tenfold in the case of Obama." Coulter went on to say: "I do think it does show — it further confirms my point that Democrats are racist, and they're just stunned to find a black man who can walk and talk. And, you know, not being a racist, I'm not really that impressed with a black man who can walk and talk."

MULTIPLE ANCHORS:

Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy pointed out that madrassas are “financed by Saudis” and “teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us,” then declared, “The big question is: was that on the curriculum back then?” Later, a caller to the show questioned whether Obama’s schooling means that “maybe he doesn’t consider terrorists the enemy.” Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade responded, “Well, we’ll see about that.”

The Fox hosts failed to correct the false claim that Obama is Muslim. One caller, referring to Obama, said, “I think a Muslim would be fine in the presidency, better than Hillary. At least you know what the Muslims are up to.” Anchor Gretchen Carlson responded, “We want to be clear, too, that this isn’t all Muslims, of course, we would only be concerned about the kind that want to blow us up.” Obama is Christian, a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ since 1988.


JOSH GIBSON (After the story was shown to be bogus)

On his radio show this week, Gibson refused to back down. He claimed the CNN reporter who debunked the false report “probably went to the very madrassa” as Obama. Gibson implied that CNN’s report had covered up religious extremism at the school:

GIBSON [W]hat did they see when they went to the madrassa where Barack Obama went to school?

HOST: Kids playing volleyball.

GIBSON: Playing volleyball, right. They didn’t see them in any terrorist training camps?

HOST: No.

GIBSON: No. Um, but they probably didn’t show them in their little lessons where they’re bobbing their heads and memorizing the Koran.

HOST: I didn’t see any tape of that, no.

FOX is a JOKE.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:00 AM

So starfleet dude, you equate an American news network, which you sometimes disagree with, with Syria?

Please - if Fox News tortured dissidents, murdered political opponents and sponsored terrorist activities against Americans, Democrats everywhere would be donning burqas in order to appear on Fox.


Posted by negentropy [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:02 AM

starfleet_dude, that comparison is one of the most inane I've read in days.

Do you wear a red shirt on the away team?

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:04 AM

Keemo, given your interest the subject of dealing with the enemy, this item from Kevin Drum is for you:

ABC News has reported that the United States is funneling money to Jundullah, a Sunni terrorist group based in western Pakistan. The New York Times has reported that the United States allows arms deliveries from North Korea to flow to Ethiopia. And now, via Ken Silverstein, CNN’s Michael Ware is reporting that the U.S. military provides protection for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iraqi-based group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department:
“The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization — meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.
“The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.
“‘The trips for procurement of logistical needs also take place under the control and protection of the MPs,’ said Mojgan Parsaii, vice president of MEK and leader of Camp Ashraf.”

Like it or not, the Bush administration is incoherent when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, and to lecture Pelosi about her trip to Syria in light of the above is ludicrous.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:05 AM

Please - you're trying to equate some meaningless opinion piece about where some lightweight politician attended grade school, with CNN's decision to broadcast lies about the US military using illegal chemical weapons against foreign troops, along with their 10 year campaign to conceal Saddam's murderous treatment of the Iraqi people?

CNN is a washed-up, has-been, pack of lies. It would lose even more viewers if it wasn't forced on people in public places.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:08 AM

Hmmm... First Iraq, and now Fox News. Is there ANYTHING the dems won't cut 'n' run from???

Posted by David [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:14 AM

Indonesia, home of the largest majority population of muslims in the world and home of Jemaah Islamiah of Bali bombing fame is a veritable bastion of religious tolerance. The Catholics in Timor might have something to say about living under Muslim dhimmitude.

I wonder how the mullahs in Indonesia explained the wrath of Muhammad after the devastation in Aceh from the Tsunami!

Using Sukarno (The Year Of Living Dangerously) as a reference to being brought up in a normal society is problematic.

This society produced Baasyir and Hambali who are actively subverting Indonesia and the Philippines. Food for thought!

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:19 AM

So starfleet dude, you equate an American news network, which you sometimes disagree with, with Syria?

No, I was merely pointing out what I think is an inconsistency on Ed's part, when on one hand he says it's a sign of strength to not talk with enemies like Assad but on the other hand it's a sign of weakness for Democrats to spurn a partisan opponent like Fox News. Fox News is a GOP friend and it isn't a surprise to me that Democrats are through talking with them.

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:20 AM

The Democrat's fear of appearing on Fox is superb evidence of how much they take for granted their dominance of CNN and the rest of the MSM. Their Ministers of Propaganda essentially set the tone for 'news' presentations. They can 'shape the dialog' and 'control the agenda' and 'make a difference' on all the others, much of the time even on Fox (that's news I'm talking about, not opinion pieces) - but much of the time isn't enough for them, their greed for the megaphone insists on unanimous fealty from the news organizations.

It's been said that there are are more center or conservative reporters on Fox than in all the other news organs combined, but even those reporters are outnumbered by liberals on Fox itself.

But even so, the Democrat's love of freedom of speech is so strong that they'll run in terror from a channel where they aren't sure of 100% message control in 'news' items. Small wonder that on the campuses the controlling lefties feel free to simply suppress or forbid statements and opinions that disagree with Their Holinesses.

Posted by Jeffrey Carr [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:30 AM

The question really isn't why the Dems won't appear on Fox. It's why should they? Based on the election results of 2006, the Dems are in the role of "The Champ". Fox News and other ultra-conservative venues are now in the role of the blustering contender. The Democratic candidates don't need the exposure as bad as Fox needs the event.

So the Dems decision is the correct one. F' Fox. Let em beg for a little attention from the Champ.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:31 AM

starfleet dude - How can you have an inconsistency when you admit Syria and Fox News are vastly different entities?

Astonishingly, even though Syria is a murderous, vile regime that no sane individual would want to live under, i would postulate the Syrian Government is held in a much higher esteem among Democrats, than is Fox News.

Isn't that slightly disturbing to you? At the same time you have the Speaker of the House merrily donning a headscarve to cannoodle with a thug like Assad, other Democrats indignantly refuse to appear on the "evil" Fox News.

Just goes to show "It's all about me!" for the Democrat Party. "Torture and kill Syrians/Lebanese/Iraqis? Whatever floats your boat, dude. Let's smoke the peacepipe." "Fox News! They sometimes represent a point of view that differs from mine! Je refuse!"

Never listen to what Democrats say, watch what they do. Which is always the wrong thing for America.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:37 AM

If Fox is so "fair and balanced" why are its defenders, to a man, conservative?

And aren't they embarrassed by Fox's ugly, cheap graphics, its sensational tone, its tabloid approach to the news? Aren't they the least bit curious that it needs to keep using "FAIR AND BALANCED" as a slogan while wrapping itself in red, white and blue?

Our people actually proud of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity being the voice of conservatism in the United States? What happened to the George Wills and William F. Buckleys?

Yes, this is deliberate attempt to de-legitimize Fox. I believe it may yet work - televising empty podiums will only heighten Fox's isolation and continue to make it look silly, and cutting away to the usual gang of neo-conservative commentators while doing so make it look buffoonish and partisan.

Fox News is a bit of a joke, and I wish the conservative movement would disown it.

DU

Posted by syn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:38 AM

No surprise that the Slave Plantation Party would restrict it's underlings from stepping out of line.

Heaven forbid the Black Causus be allowed to hold open debate freely on any network of their own choosing, why moveon.org says that's down right 'uncle tomish' of them.

The Collective driving identity politics is heading towards a massive quagmire of epic groupthink doublespeak.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:47 AM

So the Democrats have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, and now they want to close down Fox News, too?

Democrats ignore and denigrate anyone who says the previously mentioned alphabet soup is biased. But conservatives are supposed to "disavow" Fox News? Why, because Democrats say so?

I never watch Fox or any other cable news network, but to say that Fox is biased when the others are not, is just idiotic.

The examples of MSM errors are far too numerous to mention and they always (gosh oh gee, sorry!), seem to unfortunately occur in a way that benefits (or tells) the Democrat side of the story. The "unbiased" MSM, never seems to make an "error" that favors the side of any issue which Democrats oppose.

The credibility of the Mainstream Media is nosediving and Democrats whining about Fox News is a pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Posted by exhelodrvr [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:05 AM

The Republican leadership and candidates (not always the same!!) should use this to their advantage by "poking fun" at the Democrats for not doing this, and should bring up the point raised above that this is a slap to the face ot the Congressional Caucus.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:17 AM

"Please - you're trying to equate some meaningless opinion piece about where some lightweight politician attended grade school."

The madrassa story was NOT opinion. It was reported as fact and used to infer that Obama may not view terrorists as the enemy of the US, among other things.

And again, show me one story CNN falsified.

Fact is, FOX took a dubious, politically-slanted news story and ran with it without doing any reporting of its own.

Fox has a former political strategest for Reagan and Bush (and working partner of Lee Atwater) as its news chief. One of its anchor "transitioned" from Bush I speechwriter to Fox News Anchor to Bush II spokesman.

It's just a joke of a news organization.

Posted by dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:21 AM

Keemo:
“The Liberal dominance of the daily news cycle has ended.”

Here’s a good example of this statement:

Friday afternoon at 2:31 pm, Reuters put out a story on fighting that had occurred in the Iraqi city of Diwaniya titled “Forces Sweep through Volatile Iraqi City”. In that story was the following quote:

“Bleichwehl [a US military spokesman] said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSPAR34073020070406?pageNumber=1

These “EFP’s” are the infamous “shaped charges” that the US accuses Iran of supplying to fighters in Iraq. The Reuters story quotes the US military as saying they found a factory IN IRAQ that produces these weapons. That sounds like a story!

Reuters put out the story again at 9:27 pm on Friday. The article was identical to the original at 2:31 pm except for the identification of Bleichwehl early in the story. Only 3 words different:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL06480947

Saturday morning at 9:14 am, WaPo put out a version of the Reuters article (Reuters byline) titled “US Air Strike Hits Volatile Iraqi City”. The title is slightly different, but the article does contain much of the content from the original Reuters article. Problem is, the article is completely rewritten (and still with the Reuters byline), and the Bleichwehl quote about finding an Iraqi factory producing EFP’s is curiously completely missing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/07/AR2007040700397.html

Not only is the “bad” Part removed, but the following was added as well:

“One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi Militants.”

They remove the part that says the US military found an Iraqi factory that makes these weapons, and replace it with a quote saying a US soldier died from one of these weapons, and also make sure to accuse Iran once again. Nice.

Later Saturday, at 6:38 pm, Reuters puts out the “sanitized” version of the article, which matches the WaPo article word for word:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPAR34073020070407

Someone found the “problem” with the original Reuters article, rewrote it to exclude the “offending” quote, published the “clean” version in WaPo, and Reuters obediently follows suite. History is rewritten, and nobody will ever again hear about an EFP factory in Iraq.

This certainly not the way a liberal media conducts itself. I guess you’re right.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:28 AM

FWIW, it's pretty hard for the Congressional Black Caucus to get much sympathy when they were told in no uncertain terms by lots of Democrats beforehand that they shouldn't treat with Fox News. Now that one of their own star members with tons of clout, Senator Obama, has declined to appear as well they're left with pretty much a non-event that may well prove to be an embarassment to Fox News if it even happens. I mean, who will show up now? Lyndon LaRouche?

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:32 AM

You know, this morning I woke up refreshed, energetic, ready to take on the World! Then...i opened the morning paper and the first thing I saw was a picture of Nancy Pelosi.

Okay...a small set back to my energy but not to worry.

A bit later, getting my legs back under me, I turn on the portable tv in my office and who is on the screen? Rosie O'Donnell.

Now...this caused a distinct aura of malaise to creep into mood. Worried at this point.

And then, just now....i see tommi1nut post this here: " us Dems will control all 3 branches of the Federal government for the next 50 years. "

:sigh: I'm going back to bed

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:43 AM

The popularity of Fox News stems from the fact that it does not follow the "blame-America-first" theme that the Democrats and liberals have come to know, love and expect from the other major media outlets. A number of the reporters and commentators on Fox News actually consider America to be GOOD -- and that is precisely why Democrats and liberals absolutely hate it.

The Democrats refusal to appear on Fox News is a confession that they cannot defend their ideas and must, instead, rely on the sort of soft-ball questions that the other media outlets always feed them.

The Democratic party is intellectually bankrupt. Their agenda hasn't changed in decades:

Domestically, the Democrats are dedicated to the continued destruction of the American economy through ever higher taxes, disastrous environmental regulation, the strangling and destruction of the healthcare system through "socialized medicine", and more welfare programs to buy the votes of the various and sundry parasites who want government to give them what they cannot earn in a free market.

Internationally, the Democrats are committed to weakening America militarily and subordinating our interest to other nations like France, Germany, Russian and China and to organizations like the U.N. and the E.U.

To get elected, the Democrats have to demonstrate their commitment to these ideas to their base, while simultaneously hiding and/or disguising these ideas from the moderate, more reasonable voters in the political middle. Thus, they have to stay off Fox News, where someone might ask an inconvenient question, and stick to the other outlets, who know how to phrase questions that let the Democrats hide their true positions.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:46 AM

SF Dude:

You said: "FWIW, it's pretty hard for the Congressional Black Caucus to get much sympathy when they were told in no uncertain terms by lots of Democrats beforehand that they shouldn't treat with Fox News."

Heaven for bid that black people not follow the instructions of their white masters. Looks like the Klu Klux Klan still controls the Democratic Party.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:53 AM

Why is it so important that the democrats appear on Fox news at any time? Honestly, is it going to make any difference to the people who watch Fox?Won't the extra time free up space for more anna nicole or michael jackson dramas? i did think the timing of Chris Wallace feeding Mitch McConnel his hypocrisy sandwich regarding executive privilege to be interesting. Let me ask you this would you think Tom Delay should have to go on Air America?I think it's about the huge ad bucks Fox will be losing, not about" Meet the Democrats".

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:00 PM

The Mechanical Eye asked:

If Fox is so "fair and balanced" why are its defenders, to a man, conservative?

Becasue ANY effort at fair and balanced coverage is a vast improvement over the treatment conservatives get everywhere else.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:07 PM

Tom Shipley,

During the last hour, I noticed that CNN devoted about 50 minutes to that hard-hitting, Imus/Rutgers basketball story.

Devoting that much time to a story about what some senile has-been said about a sport no one watches, I guess for you, shows how superior CNN is to Fox News.

Let's see, I've shown:
- CNN broadcasts the same amount or more worthless pap than Fox does
- CNN lied about No Gun Ri
- CNN lied about Tailwind
- CNN traded truth for access in pre-war Iraq

About your silly story about Obama: Who is John Gibson? Was this "story" aired opposite a Magic Bullet commercial? Who cares wear some political lightweight went to grade school?

Ever hear of Dan Rather? The "fake but accurate" "journalist" who one month before the 2004 election, saw fit to run with a story that:

- Asked us to believe that a 1972 typewriter located at a backwater Air National Guard base, produced a document that looked exactly like one produced today by Microsoft Word?
- That COPIES of the document in question, were passed to an avowed hater of the President by a mysterious woman at a County Fair? And that was the basis of their hit piece on the President?

Even if you believed that story, it was at best (BEST) very, very flimsy. Please tell me that you believe that CBS would have ran with a story that flimsy about a Democrat 30 days before an election.

But Fox isn't nearly as good as CNN and CBS, right? Just give up while your way, way behind.

Posted by capitano [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:16 PM

I won't rest until I see all the Democrat Presidential candidates playing ping pong on Fox, while their staffs are forced to wear double knit leisure suits and sit on the floor eating a picnic lunch.

Posted by dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:20 PM

Keemo:
BTW, I predict that the first two links I gave above will mysteriously dissapear in a week or so, and all that will be left are the "sanitized" versions of the story. When the US attacks Iran, one of its justifications will be that Iran is supplying Iraqis with weapons, including the "shaped charges". When the CQ thread comes up containing that charge, I will say that the US military found a factory inside Iraq that made these weapons. I will not be able to link to the story any more, because the links will be gone. Then everyone will claim I'm a conspiracy theorist and making things up. It's amazing how malleable history is.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:23 PM

For all you conservative out there, two questions:

1. Do you believe that one or more of the major network new programs (i.e. CBS, NBC, ABC) has a liberal bias?

2. If 'yes', do you believe that Republican / conservative candidates should not appear on those programs, or in debates moderated / sponsored by those networks?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the VAST majority of conservatives would answer, respectively, 'Yes, I think they have a liberal bias' and 'No; of course conservatives should appear on those networks'.

We conservatives are not afraid to speak about our values, beliefs and ideas, even in front of a hostile audience (witness Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, et al, who have been assaulted by "open-minded" liberals when they've spoken).

Can liberals say the same?

Given that they run crying, "They're MEAN to us! WAAAHHHH!!!" from nasty ol' Fox News, I'd have to say that they can't. What a pack of crybabies.

I think that this sorry episode also underscores liberals' totalitarian bent, and why we should be worried lest they try to bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine. Read the liberal comments above, and you see quite clearly that, not only do they detest opinion that differs from their own (who doesn't?), they want it suppressed.

1. Fox News has a conservative bias.

2. Therefore Fox News is dishonest and wicked.

3. Therefore right-thinking people should not watch Fox News.

How much longer before we hear:

4. We can't allow the American people to be lied to like this, therefore Fox News should not be allowed on the air.

We already see it with the Imus episode, and others like it. Somebody says something that is objectionable to liberals, and they get fired (or, at least, suspended) in short order.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:29 PM

Dave, as far as your links about the targets, I'd have to say it's all about bombing does a party good. Neocons love to bomb stuff and destroy all evidence, sorta like Waco or the Pentagon on 911. Yep, pulverize everything and then salt necessary incriminating items.Plus it looks good to the macho conservatives to see their Lockheed Martin Northrup Grumman Raytheon Hughes stocks go up.

Posted by owl2 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:30 PM

Terrified that anyone except their very own Dem MSM Army will ask them questions. I hope FOX does the debate without them with some really hard hitting questions aimed at empty seats and then let a recorded voice do a verbal dodge, over and over. Let the questioner keep repeating the same question. BTW, did Kerry ever sign the form and release the info to all media or his very own secret MSM?

I have watched all of the ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN and FOX. Only one will permit any opposing view. One. But where did all the broadcasters on the other channels work before their day jobs? For Democrats.

For all the uninformed, FOX has more liberals than conservatives but you can no longer even tell the difference. Neither Hann/Colm nor Gibson nor O'Reilly are The News. They are opinions. No, FOX lets something like a Sheppard Smith bill as news. So liberal he makes me smoke. So what? I can name you the liberals on FOX and they number many of the so called experts.

The Democrats and their MSM can no longer tolerate any dissent. They intend to shut it down and considering the way Repubs fight, I expect them to beat the crap out of us before we ever raise a dust. Someone is going to have to get in the mud with them or forever hold their peace.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:38 PM

The Democrats refusal to appear on Fox News is a confession that they cannot defend their ideas and must, instead, rely on the sort of soft-ball questions that the other media outlets always feed them.

Have you ever watched that bastian of moderate and fair and balanced journalism in Bill O'Reilly? How would one even know if the opposition even has an opinion? He allows no one to speak that disagrees with him. Give me a break, it's not about defending ideas, it's about being able to even discuss them against an irrelevant person like Ann Coulter and the host who are usually teamed up as one against the opposition.

All I would like to hear you say is Fox is biased and slanted. Even an idiot ... no check that ... even a deaf dumb blind idiot can see it.

Posted by dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:40 PM

The Fly-Man:
"Neocons love to bomb stuff and destroy all evidence..."

IMO, plain old conservatives and Democrats as well enjoy doing this as much as Neocons. It's the American way, and not the techique of a particular politcal group.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:43 PM

Man i can't believe all you supporters of having the debates on Fox without the candidates. Do you honestly think that this country is not polarized to the nth degree? Do you really want potential swing voters actually watching Democrats debate with articulation and substance and potential sway them to the democrats side in the general election. If i was you I'd be happy, but to question why they wouldn't want to appear on Fox news because you don't get how putrid the Channel is to liberals cracks me up. Hey what about a Fred Thompson, Clarence Thomas ticket? Run out of heros yet?

Posted by Gaius Livius [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:58 PM

In all the debate about the qualities of Fox News, what I don't see addressed much is that by running away from a debate in that forum, the donks in question are mainly running away from themselves.

Isn't the point of these cattle-call debates for the candidates not so much to square off against the moderator, but against each other? Let Obama, Clinton and Edwards go head-to-head and distinguish themselves from one another. That'd be illuminating. Let them deal with some hardball questions - see how they hold up under fire. That'd be informative.

It's understandable that Clinton avoids the debate: as the presumptive nominee-in-waiting, she has no incentive to share the oxygen with any of the second-class contenders. It also reduces the risk of her making an unforced error, by letting her stick with her scripted remarks and her bland, canned campaign strategy.

She can use the "Ooooh! It's icky Fox News!" excuse as a cover for what she wants to do anyway - avoid engaging in debates.

But If I'm Obama or Edwards, trying to stave off the "inevitability" of Clinton's nomination to the donkey party ticket, I'd be looking for any opportunity to get face time in the media - especially if it's not something I'd have to pay for from my campaign funds.

I'd want to challenge Clinton on each occasion that presents itself. And what better way to call her out than by saying, in effect, "Hey, Hillary, I'm not afraid of the Big, Bad Fox - what are you afraid of?"

But instead, they run away.

One can easily conclude that Edwards and Obama are so insecure in their own positions, so afraid of and so in thrall to the moonbat crowd, that fleeing from opportunities to tackle Clinton is preferable to being revealed as empty suits too early in the primary campaign.

And they are empty suits. Edwards has already proven that, to everyone but his deluded self. And Obama ... it's only a matter of time before the electorate figures out that there's nothing of substance beneath the slick articulate exterior.

Ultimately, the only thing we learn from this episode is what we already know about the donkey party leadership as a whole: take them outside of their comfort zone, confront them with the prospect of having to confront tough issues and answer tough questions, and they run away.

But Fox News! Oh, the horror!

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:04 PM

Tom Shipley,

The exact quotation from Fox News that you are ragging incessantly on:

WILLIAMS: And I think in terms of Obama and race, I still think that there's -- and don't forget the idea that, you know, he comes from a father who was a Muslim and all that. I mean, I think that, given that we're at war with Muslim extremists, that presents a problem. And I think there's a lot of -- for all the openness to Obama and the whole idea of a fresh new start, I think race continues to be an issue.

Now, who is Juan Williams, the guy who said this? Nothing more than a contibuting editor to Fox, whose real job is the Senior Correspondant on NPR's Morning Edition.

And what was Williams pointing out other than things he thought Obama would have to address to gain traction as a candidate? It's been three months since that interview and Obama has definitely had to address those issues, in addition to others (such as membership in a black separatist church) which have shown up since then.

In addition to being a discussion panelist on Fox News Sunday, your nemesis Williams has held jobs with the Washington Post, hosted NPR's Talk of the Nation show, and has been co-host of CNN's Crossfire. In addition to being a liberal, he is an African-American, and certainly brings that viewpoint to his journalistic endeavors.

So, once again, three fingers point back; get it?

Here, for the record, is the article in Insight Magazine which set things off with regard to Obama.

And, buried at the bottom of the CNN article "debunking" the Fox article, is this gem: Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.

So, who are we to believe, CNN's "debunk" (which takes, completely uncritically, the Hillary campaign's plausible denial), or Insight and Fox and Obama? Seems to me that CNN is definitely not the horse to bet on here.

Posted by Immolate [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:08 PM

Fly-Man,

DKos bans truthers, no questions asked. It's a good thing there are still a few good conservative sites around that won't ban you for wearing your tinfoil hat, ain't it?

Killing the debate between democratic candidates for president on Fox will not have a huge impact on the primaries imo. The dems will reach their core constituency just fine through the classic media venues. Where the pain sets in is post primary, where the winner of those democrats will have to open a new conversation with many independants and moderate republicans who watch Fox. That may or may not be a problem for them. My question is this: When Fox hosts a debate for GE candidates for presidents, will the D candidate then refuse to attend? If not, why not? What would be the rationalization for rejecting Fox in the primary, but accepting them in the general? That'd be hypocrisy wouldn't it?

Appeasing your left-most base is as distasteful as appeasing an enemy. It makes you craven and opportunist.

Posted by TWood [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:10 PM

Go to Media Matters and enter either Fox, CNN or MSNBC in the search box. Over 800 hits for each, many documenting instances of biased reporting.

http://mediamatters.org/

Also, Google on "Fox effect" AND election to get a list of articles similar to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302299.html

"Does President Bush owe his controversial win in 2000 to Fox cable television news?

Yes, suggest data collected by two economists who found that the growth of the Fox cable news network in the late 1990s may have significantly boosted the Republican Party's share of the vote in the 2000 election and delivered Florida to Bush.

"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University."

Given all that, why would Democrats want to give Fox any credibility? Fox has long since blurred the line between their hard news segments and their opinion segments. The line was erased when Tony Snow left Fox to be the Republican White House spokesman. They are simply not a credible news source.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:16 PM

I'm not sure you folks get it. What possible demographic portion of the electorate do you think the Democrats would be addressing if they went on Fox? They should go on to shore up what section of the electorate? This is about winning folks, they don't need Fox viewers' votes. Why legitimize a hostile venue? They don't have the benefit of James Dobson to announce his"Personal" decision of anointment. Honestly would any of you vote for any of the candidates you have already committed to the opposition's side, you know the empty suits and trial lawyer types that you ALREADY despise? Sounds like most of you are just whiners because your Ronny clone hasn't shown up and the Left has 3 great choices already. Go ahead stay home if your guy just isn't right, the Left will aquisce to" anything but GOP" as far as the Move on folks go. This all about the Supreme Court kiddos. Please be principled and stay home in Nov. of 08 rather than hold your noeses, and show some discipline will ya.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:24 PM

TWood,

"The line was erased when Tony Snow left Fox to be the Republican White House spokesman."

Oh really? But it wasn't erased when George Stephanopoulus to leave the Clinton White House to appear on ABC and for Chris Matthews to leave Tip O'Neil's staff to appear on MSNBC? That was just hunky-dorey, right?

Do you lefties not understand when you've been utterly destroyed in an argument?

Not saying Fox is perfect, but it's certainly no worse than any other cable or network news source.

For Democrats to boycott fox just goes to show how Democrats want to play hardball, but cry like little girls when they get winged by a wiffle ball.

And we're supposed to put these sob sisters in power during a time of war? What are they going to do if America is attacked again and they are in the Oval Office, break down in a crying fit and resign? What a bunch of wet noodles.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:28 PM

Immolate, my gripe with the GOP is the kind of non transparent abuse of resources and civil liberties we have endured with the GOP. At least the Democrats allow the public to hear their arguments and intentions when it comes to spending my tax dollars. All I care about is how my tax dollars are spent and after the recent troughing fest the GOP did after duping their own iunder the ruse of smaller government and real social security reform, and then burying any accountabilty under the guise of national security all for the sake of concentrated power I'm not convinced the Democrats won't bring back the beautiful features of divided government. Yes I'm very glad to be able to comment here and I take it as privlidge so I don't abuse it. I just ask questions.Thank you for engaging me.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:42 PM

Monkei said:

Have you ever watched that bastian of moderate and fair and balanced journalism in Bill O'Reilly? How would one even know if the opposition even has an opinion?

You are conflating two entirely different formats: O'Reilly's show and the debates are two different things.

The Democrats are afraid of certain questions that will reveal their true anti-American, anti-freedom agenda. They know if they stay with their traditional allies in the MSM, they won't be confronted with those questions -- so that's where they will stay.

Fly-Man said:

What possible demographic portion of the electorate do you think the Democrats would be addressing if they went on Fox?

In other words, potential democratic voters are so infantile they won't listen to their candidates views if they're broadcast on the wrong frequency.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:52 PM

"potential democratic voters are so infantile they won't listen to their candidates views if they're broadcast on the wrong frequency."

But if they put Democrats on the Cartoon Network where they belong, their base will confuse John Edwards with Sponge Bob.

Posted by Count to 10 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:06 PM

legitimacy.

So, this whole boycott of Fox is because the myths various bloggers repeat about Fox News will be undermined if the Democrats hold a debate there.

...

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:09 PM

Michael Smith, precisely. The risk is just too great not to reinforce the "perceived" bias against FOX. Sorry if you think it's not a fair notion but i assure you the democrats' ace in the hole right now is websites like this. Ed questions each of the GOP's possible candidates in a very thorough fashion based on principles and merit, which is extremely noble BUT, the main change in the democrats strategy, IMO, is the let's just come together and WIN. If alienating a few moderate voters who happen to watch Fox news is an expense it has been calculated to be a minor one. BTW the Fear mantra as Kryptonite won't work this time. The GOP is going to have to address it's taste for pork in recent history and convince people there is more than just a healthy stock market as a result of their policies. I think the notion of authoritarian mandates pedantically projected at the opposition is a antiquated nerf bat. Reform as a corrective course would be a good start with me. Why is Al Gore so popular, single issue folks. ranting and calling the democrats pussies because they don't want to go on a blatantly hostile, warranted or not, venue is just an excuse making weasle clause. Seriously, why not just nominate Fred Thompson and then at the convention nominate justice Thomas. the President would get to nominate a younger version of him, he's antiseptic beyond and the country needs a less aggressive VP anyway and he'd be next in line, with virtually a spotless record. The debate issue is about the road we're on not about where we're going.

Posted by BD [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:12 PM

"PBS is pretty much the only station I watch for national news." Tom Shipley

"Fox is a joke." Tom Shipley

It's hardly surprising that someone who would make the first statement would believe the second.

Tom, you wouldn't know "fair" if it bit you in the butt.

Posted by Paul A'Barge [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:17 PM

we don't need both parties to act like shrieking little children at the sight of a mouse

And thus, the pussies win.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:43 PM

The fear mantra as Kryptonite? Authoritarian mandates pedantically projected at the opposition?

Fly-Man, I think it's time for your meds.

Look, if your point is that the Democrats are willing to do anything to win the presidency -- including dodging the tough questions and lying to the voters about their actual agenda -- I quite believe you.

Posted by syn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:43 PM

Wow the Fly-Man,

IMO your paranoid delusion about FOX News is delightful to witness, it is as if your entire being is consumed by one media outlet which has only been in existance for about ten years.

I mean really now does the free market of ideas freak you out so much as to make it the sole focus of all your problems?

May I suggest a Keith Olbermann chill pill to relax your brain cells.

Posted by dave_rywall [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 2:52 PM

Captain you're a smart guy - you cannot possibly be suggesting that FOX News is a credible, fair and balacned news source.

If the rest of the MSM get D minuses, FOX News is a solid F minus.

They provide knee jerky trashy tabloid ambulance-chasing journalism that always aims for the lowest common denominator. Journaltainment is not news.

The current BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE on FOXNEWS.COM:
"Court to Announce Anna Nicole Smith Paternity Results: Watch Live"

The current main photo: movers upset after dropng a piano.
HEADLINE: OOOPS!
CAPTION: Movers in Devon, England, gasp after dropping a rare Bosendorfer grand piano, valued at $88,000.


MOST READ STORIES:
*Family Claims Wide-Awake Surgery Led to Minister's Suicide
*Rutgers Women's Basketball Team Agrees to Meet With Don Imus
*Colorado Inmate Dies When Baggies Filled With Drugs Rupture Inside of Him
*Court Expected to Rule Tuesday in Anna Nicole Smith Paternity Case
*Georgia High School to Try Integrated Prom
*Texas Law Could Force Infant's Life Support to Be Pulled
*Pop Tarts: Did Britney Spears Have Liposuction?
*Bad Note Sounds as Movers Drop Piano Off Truck
*Coyote Bites 20-Month-Old Boy Outside New Jersey Home
*'Girls Gone Wild' Founder Joe Francis in Federal Custody
*Police: Texas Mom Used MySpace to Solicit Kidnappers for Son
*Two Sides to Imus Story?
*Study: Dieting Useless, May Damage Health
*Republicans Battle Democrats Over Funding U.S. Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan
*Maggie Gyllenhaal Wanted for 'Fear of Flying'
*Naval Academy Midshipman Faces Up to 10 Years for Sex Abuse Conviction


Iraq is the 14th story, can't beat out Girls Gone Wild or a coyote biting a toddler.

BUT HEY MAYBE THE "LATEST NEWS" IS MUCH HARDER HITTING AND RELEVANT:

*Anna Nicole DNA Results Expected
*U.S. to North Korea: Time Running Out
*'Girls Gone Wild' Founder Surrenders in Fla.
*NFL Suspends Pacman Jones for Full Season
*FDA Questions Safety of Successor to Vioxx
*9-Day Stay Granted on Pulling Baby's Plug
*Citigroup May Cut, Reassign 26,000 Jobs
*KFC Rat Complaint: Rodent Fell From Ceiling


Oh. I guess not.

Nothing about anything beyond America's borders. Just fluff about football players and a food complaint at KFC.

FOX News IS a joke.

Posted by bayam [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:00 PM

Tom is right- Fox News is about as bad a news organization as you'll find anywhere. Although it's a great propoganda machine. It's a perfect source for people who want to listen to the news with their heart instead of with their head.

Captain will go apeshit if anyone in the 'MSM' misses the smallest fact about one of the righteous, such as the judicial prejudices of Giuliani. Dan Rather loses his job for basing a report on fraudulent documents, even when his underlying story was never disproved.

However, when Fox launches a nasty smear campaign that would certainly destroy less formidable politicians than Obama, it's time to ignore the facts. Every Democrat, especially Obama, has every right to tell Fox to go screw itself.

This kind of behavior is completely inexcusable from any organization that claims to be in the news business, especially one with the tagline 'fair and balanced':

If you don't read enough to know the real, underlying facts- which Captain choses to ignore- just watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:02 PM

Um, dave, what topic are you writing about? The newsworthiness of FoxNews.com? What does this have to do with anything?

I actually WATCHED CNN at noon and they did 50 minutes on the Imus-Rutgers story. Does this mean CNN is a joke too?

CNN FAKED the No Gun Ri story, FAKED the Tailwind Story and exchanged "truth" for "access" in Iraq.

CNN is a joke.

MSNBC allows Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews a microphone. MSNBC is a joke.

So, since we've established all Cable News as a joke, why don't Democrats boycott CNN?

Because it's not about what's a joke (all cable news pretty much is), it's about the Democrats being driven by their lunatic, totalitarian base.

BTW, CBS' Dan Rather published a joke of a story ("fake but accurate") about the President, 30 days before an election. The flimsy story led to the firing of the Producer and the resignation of Dan Rather.

Does that mean Republicans should refuse to debate on CBS? Or do things only work ONE WAY in Democrat-land?

Talk about jokes, look at what passes for Presidential material in the Democrat Party. Let's see, we have Surly Professional Doormat, Inexperienced Lightweight and Shyster Fop. Great choices you Democrats are giving the country.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:03 PM

All, it's not me, I certainly have nothing against Fox news, I'm the one with control of my TV, not any corporation. I'm just trying to put it into an opposition mind set for you to grasp. Like I've said, you don't get it. i firmly believe the idea not to engage Fox news is a Strategy not a foolish notion. You know, stand up to the Bully kinda thing. Go ahead laugh and think I need medication but watch and see how galvanizing the gesture will be in the long run. Rest on your laurels of common logic and you'll be saying Wat happend? What is Rush good at ?Shaping perception. The playbook for winning elections has been exposed and it's take no prisoners for the Democrats this time. You think the Moveon folks are going to split the party, no way, they'll cave when it comes to "Anything but the GOP" Give Independents a reason to vote for you, not just against the democrats. The GOP had the reins for 86 years and are proud of what promise kept? Shame has to kick in sometime.Thanks for your time.

Posted by Captain Ed [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:09 PM

Bayam, I'm disappointed. You read my blog, but you missed this post?

Posted by bayam [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:11 PM

MSNBC allows Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews a microphone. MSNBC is a joke.

The very big difference is that MSNBC also gives conservatives a mic- both Tucker Carlson and Newt protege Scaraborough have prime time shows that I watch on a regular basis, along with Matthews. Believe it or not, some people want to hear both sides of the story.

But I'm sure you already know this. MSNBC has promoted 'Scarborough Country' as heavily as any of its other programs.

It's interesting that you think people who read this blog are stupid enough not to notice that you don't care to be very honest.

Posted by dave_rywall [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:13 PM

No Donkey -

I gave the others D minuses and Fox an F minus, Einstein.

Conservative bias or not, FOX News is far more Mickey Mouse than all the other news outlets combined.

But hey - they're smart - they appeal to the unwashed masses, who happily drink it all up.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:19 PM

bayam - what am I not being honest about?

MSNBC does give Obermann and Matthews a microphone.

Fox News has Mora Laison, Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustran, Susan Estrich and Alan Colmes - all liberals.

So what is the difference? I've said all along that Fox is pretty much the same as the other cable news networks.

It's the Democrat's position that Fox News is entirely different wildly biased against Democrats. That's just nonsense. If anything, CNN and MSNBC are more biased against Republicans than Fox is against Democrats.

Meanwhile, utter silence from the Democrats on Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" "story" before the election. Telling. I'm sure if the President decided to not appear on CBS, Democrats would support him? Yeah, right.

Democrat politicians are pretty clear that they only want to hear one side of every issue and that is their side. They want the "Fairness Doctrine" (and guess who will decide what's "fair" - Democrats).

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:28 PM

"I gave the others D minuses and Fox an F minus, Einstein."

Ooooh, your grading system carries a lot of weight, Einstein.

So do you think Democrats should boycott Fox but appear on the "D minus" networks?

Because that's what this topic is about, Einstein, not your nonsensical grading system.

"they appeal to the unwashed masses, who happily drink it all up."

As opposed to the well-scrubbed, professionals who swallow the yellowish bile erupting from Lou Dobbs/Jack Cafferty, or the regurgitated Oprah put out by rapidly aging diva Katie Couric.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:31 PM

You are conflating two entirely different formats: O'Reilly's show and the debates are two different things.

You missed the point ... I am merely showing you that when you have "stars" like Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, and the complete idiots who sit around the coffee table set in the morning spewing half truths, complete lies, and total biased journalism, then it makes no matter what the "format" is. Fox news is fox news.

The most important part of the debate and why the Dems were right to skip the "fair and no doubt balanced debate" (chuckle) that the foxholes would give us is that NO ONE watching would vote for any of the Dems anyway! It's a GOP network for GOP voters. It's the network whose viewers support GWB with positive approval ratings, where Iraq had/has WMDs, where we are winning the war, where Saddam did in fact bomb the WTC on 911 ... it goes on and on ... a network for uniformed viewers.

Have all the GOP debates you want on Fox ... gee, how many softball questions will Shawn Hannity be able to tee up in 90 minutes anyway!

When the GOP has their debates hosted at the next NAACP convention, then come talk to me about the dems running away from Fox.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:31 PM

You are conflating two entirely different formats: O'Reilly's show and the debates are two different things.

You missed the point ... I am merely showing you that when you have "stars" like Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, and the complete idiots who sit around the coffee table set in the morning spewing half truths, complete lies, and total biased journalism, then it makes no matter what the "format" is. Fox news is fox news.

The most important part of the debate and why the Dems were right to skip the "fair and no doubt balanced debate" (chuckle) that the foxholes would give us is that NO ONE watching would vote for any of the Dems anyway! It's a GOP network for GOP voters. It's the network whose viewers support GWB with positive approval ratings, where Iraq had/has WMDs, where we are winning the war, where Saddam did in fact bomb the WTC on 911 ... it goes on and on ... a network for uniformed viewers.

Have all the GOP debates you want on Fox ... gee, how many softball questions will Shawn Hannity be able to tee up in 90 minutes anyway!

When the GOP has their debates hosted at the next NAACP convention, then come talk to me about the dems running away from Fox.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:31 PM

Fly-Man said:

i firmly believe the idea not to engage Fox news is a Strategy not a foolish notion.

Oh, I see, it's a STRATEGY!! Why didn't you say so before? If it's a STRATEGY, that CHANGES EVERYTHING!

Man oh man the GOP is in real trouble now! Those crafty Democrats are gonna use a STRATEGY!

And what a brilliant STRATEGY! Stand up to the Bully! Its David versus Goliath! I can hear the theme music from Rocky! I can see Hillary jogging up the steps of the Fox News building to land a haymaker right on Murdoch's kisser!

Posted by bayam [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:32 PM

Captain,

You didn't mention Fox's enormous smear campaign anywhere in today's post, although it led Obama to severe all relations with Fox News. It's the kind of context that completely changes the story. I think it's misleading not to even give it a sentence of web time.

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:32 PM

fox news with brit hume and sunday's show with steve wallace are the best news shows on TV.

that's the reason the stalinists are all jumping ugly here and in dem political circles. their lock on spooning feeding their trite to a declining viewership has them in panic mode. just read the comments above.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:41 PM

"Fox's enormous smear campaign"

Oh please, when did it air, opposite the Magic Bullet commercials at 4:00 a.m.? Did anyone hear or care about where Borat Obama went to grade school?

Yes, it was at least a 30 second news story, two years before the election.

Was it based on a 1972 document mysteriously typed in a format that matches MS Word 2000, handed over by a mysterious woman at a 4H show? Because then, it would have been real.

Or, if CNN would have done the story, I'm sure they would have issued a scholarly 58 page retraction, like they did after the Tailwind Story. That's a real news network for you. CNN puts together long, boring documents to explain why they lied to everyone.

By the way, when did Borack graduate from grade school, last year? Congrats there, Borack.


Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:45 PM

Monkei said:

The most important part of the debate and why the Dems were right to skip the "fair and no doubt balanced debate" (chuckle) that the foxholes would give us is that NO ONE watching would vote for any of the Dems anyway!

That is NOT what you said before. You said before that Democrats CAN defend their ideas but wouldn't appear on Fox because people like O'Reilly wouldn't permit them to speak long enough to offer a defense.

NOW you are making the same claim that Fly-Man made: namely, that potential democratic voters are so infantile they will not listen to their candidates views if they are broadcast on the wrong channel.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:49 PM

Michael Smith, once again you have hit the nail on the head. as ludicrous as it seems from a logic point of view, that's it. You cannot project logic on an illogical situation. So would you admit there is or is not a Bubba vote or a Nascar vote? Why is so hard for you to perceive that an identity based on flimsy unsubstantiated claims could not manifest itself into a concrete group think mentality? Like I said earlier don't bash the democrats out of pity for foolishly contrived notions, because they are foolish only to you. The depth of contempt for Fox news is as deep as, well as deep as the right's contempt for George Soros. I just have been trying to make the point that I think it's a big waste of time to resort to even addressing the Democrats exclusion of Fox news regarding the debates and spend more time actually telling the independent voters why they should accept another republican leader. I know Rush despises the perceived clout of Independents but it will be more than just a perception in the next election. If the next President, as I think he or she will, get to appoint the next few Supreme Court Justices it will have a generational enduring effect on the country, which will outlast the aging electorate., who as Rush says believes The way it ought to be, is still obtainable.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:59 PM

By the way, Monkei, if you can provide one quote from a Fox News reporter or commentator to the effect that "Saddam did in fact bomb the WTC on 911", I'd like you to post a link to it.

I've never heard any conservative claim that Hussein bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11 -- and I don't think you have either. It's just a convenient, if lame, straw man for you to include in your list of things many conservatives DO believe -- things such as the fact that Hussein did possess WMDs in the past -- and by throwing in your straw man, you hope to discredit those other beliefs without having to actually address them. Nice try.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 4:02 PM

Here's a story from today on the "unbiased" PBS:

Producer: PBS dropped 'Islam vs. Islamists' on political grounds
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0410crossroads0410.html

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

Hey, Democrats, how would you feel about Fox News if you had to fund it with your tax dollars? About the same as I feel about PBS.

Posted by bayam [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 4:08 PM

bayam - what am I not being honest about?

MSNBC does give Obermann and Matthews a microphone.

Fox News has Mora Laison, Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustran, Susan Estrich and Alan Colmes - all liberals.

I think you know the difference because you clearly have watched Fox News. Mora Liason and Juan Williams simply have the opportunity to stand in the face of Britt Hume's flaming right-wing commentary for several hours every week. It's not even clear that Fox is trying to introduce 'balance'- or merely give Britt some 'liberals' to denigrate for pure entertainment value. As a one time Republican, Liason isn't very liberal. Juan is certainly not a heavyweight debater.

Greta talks about crime news- I've never heard her talk about anything remotely interesting from a political standpoint. Alan Colmes is the goofy looking, unimpressive punching bag for Hannity. It's very clearly an uneven match. Estrich is a total unknown.

And you claim that Fox is comparable to MSNBC, where two very articualte, smart, and telegenic conservatives have prime time programs shows that are heavily promoted? To many viewers, Scarborough and Tucker are the face of MSNBC.

I don't think you're being honest, you know better. I won't even bother to bring up the well-documented existence of daily talking points within Fox News that show clear and unmistakable intent to bias their 'news' coverage.

Fox's enormous smear campaign. Yes, it was at least a 30 second news story, two years before the election.

It was more than a single negative story linking Obama to Islamic extremism, and much more than a single 30 second spot. Watch the video. Planting a highly publicized, destructive story that attempts to define a largely unknown candidate, even a few years before the primary, isn't a small feat.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 4:29 PM

Fly-Man said:

So would you admit there is or is not a Bubba vote or a Nascar vote? Why is so hard for you to perceive that an identity based on flimsy unsubstantiated claims could not manifest itself into a concrete group think mentality?

Before I respond to this, what, exactly, are the" flimsy unsubstantiated claims" on which the Nascar and Bubba "identities" are based? And just who is included in each of those groups?

Posted by MrBuddwing [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 4:40 PM

To NoDonkey: I don't mean to take this thread off topic, but what do you mean, CNN lied about No Gun Ri? Chapter and verse, please (this is a sincere, civilized request).

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 4:50 PM

The defensive posture of those defending Fox News leaves one to think its more about emotion than anything else.

"These people are saying what I think! Alright!"

If you look from the perspective of others its not clear why Fox deserves some status different from any other tabloid organization. It's not famous for its in-depth reporting, its famous for Bill O'Reilly. It's not particularly insightful or perspective. It merely flatters your own point of view.

It's television to nod your head at.

Don't pretend this is about intellect.

DU

Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 5:31 PM

The choice of network may be meaningless for the candidates, but it is NOT meaningless in one important sense: money. I don't know what moveon.org's motive is, but this will cost Fox a great deal. Also, why should moveon.org get to dictate which network(s) are permitted to host debates? This is undemocratic and disgusting. And it would be perfectly appropriate for Republicans to retaliate in kind. Screw CNN, and screw BO, HRC, and the whole gang that is tagging along behind them.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 5:33 PM

dave,

Great comments; thanks for the links....

Patrick,

Of coarse you are absolutely dead on target with your analysis. The paranoid lectures by the lefties on this thread are very revealing; but yet they give their loved ones a complete pass for fabricated stories. What's worse; they have nothing to say about the likes of CNN being used like the sock puppets they are by Saddam back in the early 90's, or the entire leftist media being used like sock puppets by the enemies of America on a daily basis. These people wonder why we refer to them as anti-American scum... Not a logical thought amongst the entire batch of them posting here today.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 5:53 PM

MrBuddwing,

Here's a link to a good article in the San Francisco Gate on No Gun Ri:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/19/ED42590.DTL&type=printable

Also goes into CNN Tailwind's debacle. No Gun Ri was a fraud perpetrated by sloppy reporting by AP and subsequently picked up and futher "reported" on by ABC's Nightline.

"The fiascoes of No Gun Ri and Tailwind can't be dismissed as rookie mistakes or attributed to the time pressures imposed by editors' deadlines. AP's report on No Gun Ri received accolades from the highest levels of the profession with Pulitzer and Polk prizes, while Tailwind was approved through a vetting process that went to the top of CNN."

Fox News is not perfect, but neither is any other network news source. Democrat Politicians though, are convinced it's all about them and they are due special, preferred treatment, especially when goaded by their lunatic base.

The airing of terrorist propoganda by CNN (http://www.examiner.com/printa-355332~Officials_criticize_CNN_footage_as_terrorist_propaganda.html) is cause enough for any decent American to appear on that jihad shill of a cable cast.

Fox News aired a questionable story about where some political lightweight went to grade school - CNN aired terrorist propoganda, featuring US soldiers getting shot by terrorists.

It's telling that Democrats feel the grade school story far outweighs the terrorist propoganda.


Posted by dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 6:43 PM

NoDonkey:
"Um, dave, what topic are you writing about?"

Although not related to FOX news directly, the issue I brought up relates to media bias, which is part of the discussion here. It is very significant that the media would censor such a crucial piece of a story. You should be able to recognize that.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:18 PM

Fox Faux) News is basically THE PROPAGANDA ARM OF THE GOP. Anybody with a brain can see that. Roger Ailes runs Faux News, he's a former Gop operative! Fair and balanced? Thats hilarious. Why are you wingers so rabid about the dems cancelling their debate on Faux? We've figured out that lying network. Do you think if you taunt us like school children on a playground we'll run to faux just to show you guys. Faux is the biggest joke ever. Where do deadeye dick and dubya go when they want softball setup questions? To their partners at Faux. Be careful wingers, America is waking up to all your bs. You got a little taste in 06, you'll get a full dose in 08.

Posted by richard mcenroe [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 8:23 PM

'If Fox is so "fair and balanced" why are its defenders, to a man, conservative?'

ummm... because there's no such thing as a "fair and balanced" "progressive?"

Every modern school of "progressive" political thought, whether classical Commie, home-grown Sol Alinksky radical, by-any-means-necessary 60's activism or then-we'll-just-have-to-win mainstream Democrat, is about two things: controlling the message and the perfect acceptability of lying to control the message. Nothing more and nothing less.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:07 PM

constipated dhimmicrat,

"Anybody with a brain can see that."

Do you "see" with your shriveled, misfiring little brain, or do you just use it to warm your highchair?

"Why are you wingers so rabid about the dems cancelling their debate on Faux?"

I'm shooting for ZERO Democrats on TV. This decision represents a step towards my goal. So it's all good.

"You got a little taste in 06, you'll get a full dose in 08."

Did the bully who gives you wedgies on the special-ed playground, teach you that one?

And why is it that you lefties can't seem to grasp this new, wonderous concept called PARAGRAPHS?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:13 PM

CD,

Do you really think that if you blab that crap long enough, some of us will actually start to believe it? What happened in 06 was extremely "WEAK" for Democrats as compared to historical "mid-term" elections.

Weak, Weak, Weak..... Democrats should have cleaned the entire house, based on historical data, based on the mere fact that this mid-term cycle was during a time of war. You fools actually think you accomplished something... What you accomplished is a simple opportunity to show the American people how Liberals govern;how you operate; how you handle corruption within your own ranks; how, how, how.... You might fare well by showing the American people that your people really meant what they said when they ran on a Conservative platform; then again, you might show the American people that your people lied their way to victory. You might fare well if your people show the American people that you will deal with internal corruption better than Republicans did; then again, you might show the American people how to promote party members despite having been busted "red handed". You might fare well by showing the American people how strong you are with National Defense & the protection of the American homeland; then again, your people might continue on their path of surrender & defeat, while taking the side of every sworn American enemy, bowing at the knees of the United Nation and their 80% voting record of voting against American interests.

Yes CD; much will be revealed before the 08 elections...

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 9:57 PM

The kicker is that a debate is supposed to be a forum for a candidate to present his ideas and justify how they are superior to his opposition's point of view.

The major players in the Dem field are running away from an opportunity to reach a wide audience. Such a pity!

The Congressional Black Caucus recognizes the value of reaching out.

"The Black Caucus has a different agenda (from the DNC's), which is to win elections and hold the Democratic majority in Congress. A spokesman for the CBC Institute, which organizes these educational functions, says the goal is to reach the "broadest audience possible." This seems sensible enough, especially because Fox's market research shows that more than half its audience is Democrats and independents."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009921

So much for the received wisdom of the Soros-move-on puppets who don't understand what the CBC does as far as reaching out ....and who don't distinguish between news and editorializing/opinions.

Some twit over at HuffPo wrote a column likening Fox News to a cancer. That hyperbolic metaphor is typical Lefty "thinking" for "kill the messenger".

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:10 PM

onlineanalyst,

Very well stated; it's the "politics of personal assassination", and the Liberals have developed a powerful machine for this purpose. Tom Delay describes this policy very well in his new book.

What we want is a debate of ideas and solutions; what we get is a debate of personal assassination, where the Republican is forced into a defensive posture and the Democrat is simply on attack; result, a debate void of ideas and solutions.

We will continue to talk about this, while making sure the American people have this game plan in mind when the debates fire up.

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:33 PM

One can be certain that if the Marxists didn't fear FoxNews they wouldn't subject us to their harangues against it.

The wacky Left whines about whatever they cannot control whether it is their parents' refusal to buy them Woodstock tickets or an inability to control the questions on a FoxNews debate.

They've become accustomed to Clinton brown-nosers and toadies like Russert, Stuffinenvelopes, Bob Schieffer, Jim Lehrer and the late night verbal Lewinskies given by Letterman, Leno or Charlie Rose.

Anyone who witnessed the pathetic love-fest between worshipful Letterman and Obama could plainly see the Fruit of the Loom label perched over Letterman's left eyebrow every time he puckered up with another scripted question. I sure hope Dave got Hillary's permission first.

Do the cardboard cutouts idea one better. Borrow the Conan O'Brien idea of morphing an animated mouth onto the cutout photo. Then add guest voices to impersonate answers to the questions. Jackie Mason could parody Obama, Rich Little could do a Pat Buttram (Mr. Haney on Green Acres) voice for Edwards, and a Lotte Lenya voice (butch, volatile soviet villainess in From Russia with Love) could be the Hillary impersonator.

If the Left's clowns are too timid to debate on a network featuring positive audience growth then they should get the full treatment for sticking with the old poseur networks featuring projectile negative growth like CNN and See-BS You'd think lightweights like Edwards and Obama or deadweights like angry Hillary would greedily seek any camera time available. It's abby-normal for the hippie Left to pass up on free stuff !!

Especially, urp!, Osama yada llama yo mama hamina hamina . That's, uh, "Obama" Senator Kennedy.....

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:44 PM

"The eventual President represents the entire nation, not just a party -- or in this case, a faction of a party"

is that right Captain?????? I guess you forgot to tell Bush.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:54 PM

(04-10) 18:42 PDT -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.

Maybe the American people will agree with this method of governing, maybe not. Meddling with policy while the Commander in Chief is directing a war; is this the platform Democrats ran on across our nation last November...

Meanwhile, it doesn't seem to bother Miss Nancy one bit that the funds for our soldiers are about to run out... If fact, it doesn't seem to bother any Democrat one bit... Oh, but wait a minute; Democrats support our troops, silly me...

It's no wonder why these fools won't dare go on Fox News...

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 10:58 PM

" tommy1nut wrote: "How anybody takes FOX SERIOUSLY IS A TOTAL MYSTERY TO ME."

You're right. Only people who take "Fly-over" America seriously take Fox News seriously."

guess that leaves Bush out - since he flew over New Orleans witout a clue or concern to his People below digging out from Katrina.

toomy' right - and you koolaid drinking nuts will be banished in the wilderness for 50 yrs with such fanatical attitudes as I see here on this blog.

you could just install Bush as King for life and be done with it. good luck on that blessed dream drinkers.

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 11:30 PM

The scatter shot rages of the Left can be so entertaining.

It should be noted that those venting wildly while calling others "nuts" or "fanatics" tend to get bumped to the front of the institutional line for straitjacket fitment.

Anyone know how much FoxNews ratings are up this year compared to, say, Perky Katie's consistently third of three and dead last of the dinosaur alphabet three yet still declining nonetheless?

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 6:31 AM

Michael Smith, sorry had to go eat:The flimsy claims , here's one. How could you possibly square the notion that the President spoke to his base, Bubba if you will, about being tough on the terrorists and then turn around and allow the management of our ports by the UAE? Stooges for exploitation at any moment, that's the way they've been treated for their loyalty. Nascar, we support the troops, no future spending for veteran's affairs, folks this will be the single largest new entitlement program that the PRESIDENT created, that our kids will have to pay for. How about Water Reed, wanna go there? Troop resting times and redeployment of Natl Guard units. I doubt Fayetteville NC is the bastion for Democratic politics.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 7:09 AM

Man, I'm glad I got out of this one yesterday or else I would have had to shower off No Donkey's froth last night.

So, NoDonkey, CNN didn't "lie" about Ni Ro Gun?

Again, my point in saying CNN is better than Fox is that it's a REAL news organization that doesn't run Internet story without checking them (and not only run, but then have anchors speculate that it means Obama may not believe terrorists are his enemy).

And I found the point in which No Donkey's eyes started to spin like pinwheels:

"No Gun Ri was a fraud perpetrated by sloppy reporting by AP and subsequently picked up and further "reported" on by ABC's Nightline."

"Despite the new questions," the Times wrote, "senior Defense Department officials said yesterday that an Army investigation has confirmed the central element of the [AP] report, that American troops fired on refugees, resulting in what the Pentagon calls the 'tragic death of hundreds of civilians.'"

And the part of the story that is in question -- whether or not US ordered troops to fire on the refugees -- has a lot of credible evidence behind it. To learn more, read this:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1043

unclesmrgol,

Where did you get the impression that I was talking about a Juan Williams quote?

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 7:27 AM

Sorry Tom, I had a hard time keeping straight which liberally biased news organization botched which story.

CNN completely botched the Tailwind story, and that story (if you read the SFGate link), was vetted to the top of CNN.

The AP botched the No Gun Ri story (the source they relied on wasn't even there at the time) and ABC ran a follow up news story which perpetuated the fraud.

Meanwhile, how do you feel about your esteemed news network, CNN, running footage of US soldiers being assassinated by terrorists. Is that snuff film Tom Shipley's idea of "hard hitting" journalism?

CNN is staffed with left wing advocate hacks and terrorist cheerleaders.

It also goes to show where Democrats place their loyalties - outrage because Fox News runs a story about Borat's grade school.

When CNN runs a film of US soldier getting shot by terrorists? Applause by the worthless traitor Democrats. Did the DNC kick in a few extra bucks to reward the camraman?

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 7:37 AM

No Donkey,

I don't have a problem with CNN showing that footage in that they preficed it with a warning and didn't sensationalize it.

The main reason I don't have a problem with it is because it provided a glimpse of what our soliders are up against over there. It was a reality of the war -- one that we may not want to see (and viewers were given that option through the warning) -- but a reality none-the-less. So, no, I don' t have a problem with it.

Also, the witness who wasn't at the scene was not the main witness the AP relied upon and indeed have numerous other witnesses who were there tell a similar story.

The shooting occurred, the US government admits that. The question is whether or not the troops were ordered to fire on the refugees. The US government does not denies that, but if you read my link, there is plenty of evidence to back that claim.

Back to the Fox Obama story. Just found this Chicago Tribune op-ed which closely reflects my view on the story, though I do think ideology may have come into play. But as this piece points out, that's pretty much impossible to prove:

"In that context, what Insight did on its Web site, and what Fox News did in repeating the report, was not ideological at all. It was unethical, unprofessional and shabby, a trifecta, if you will, in the world of journalism."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0701270205jan27,1,3148984.story?

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 8:10 AM

"The US government does not denies that, "

That should read, "The US DOES deny that."

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 8:15 AM

"The main reason I don't have a problem with it is because it provided a glimpse of what our soliders are up against over there."

Really? Since the Iraq War started in 2003, over 40,000 people have been murdered in our inner cities. Does CNN run footage of them being murdered, to show "what we're up against"?

Does CNN run footage of our policemen and firemen perishing in the line of duty, to show "what we're up against"?

How about CNN running footage of that poor woman who was shot on CNN's grounds, to show what battered women "are up against".

CNN's decision was that of a vulture. They paid a terrorist for footage of a terrorist killing a US soldier.

How would you like the death of one of your young family members, to be broadcast on CNN? Or friends? Or neighbors? To be used as a backdrop in airports, bars and other public places? Pretty dignified, right?

US Troops are not props and pawns for the lunatic left to use to score political points.

Back to the main issue - I'm not saying Fox News is a whole lot better than CNN, et al. But I've provided multiple examples of where CNN and other networks have made grave journalistic errors. Fox's journalistic standards are the norm for broadcast news.

Besides, the Democrats aren't refusing to debate on Fox because it's any worse than CNN, etc - they're doing it because it pleases their hardcore base and because they have thin skins, as they are not used to being criticized.

I really don't care whether Democrats debate on Fox or not - I just think the "Fox is not up to our standards" is just nonsense. It's a petty, partisan decision.

Posted by emjem24 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 11, 2007 12:00 PM

What I find most amazing is that most of the libs on here don't address the question: Why won't the dems debate on Fox? Why was Fox good enough as a debate site in 2004 but not in 2008? What is the difference....mmm, perhaps selling one's soul to certain special interest groups? Nah, couldn't be.

As a military spouse, and perhaps a constitutent that dems would be interested in (if they really cared about me), I find it fallacious and foolish to "boycott" Fox News because they said bad things about moi. We are such an insipid, PC-driven, hyper-partisan society and all of us know it.

There is one crucial thing that most of the liberals contributing on this blog cannot accept: people (like myself) watch Fox News because it's such a refuge from the PC-driven, partican hyped garbage aired on the MSM. It's already indicative in the marketplace because Fox News is first place in ratings...people are tuning out CNN and MSNBC and have chosen somewhere else to view/listen to the news.

Given that Fox News is a ratings king, will liberals equate its success with that of The View? To say that CNN or MSNBC has no bias is like saying that Rosie O'Donnel is a journalist. It's plainly obvious that most who fiercely belittle Fox News don't watch it and why should you? You get all your dem dynamics from other broadcasts. Or perhaps because CNN is so much more "intelligent," airs "different" opinions (as does MSNBC) it's not biased. I think many of you have your definition of bias confused.

It's interesting how libs/dems apply standards to news but can't seem to stick to them. It's interesting how you will defend freedom of speech to the nth degree for someone like Imus but you'll slam Ann Coulter for saying something equally as absurd. Standards? More like double standards.

To say that only one network has bias but the rest are perfect angels is ridiculous. However, that is how libs/dems color our world today...it's explainable in their words/terms only but nobody else can take a crack at it.

I'm sure you feel safe in your glass houses. It's so much easier to say Fox News is the problem than get at the actual nitty gritty. There is no bias, only the dems know the truth and what's the ideal path of the country. Oh, I'm sure when you "control" all three branches of the government you will cut off the dialogue as you see fit. Dialogue is all right for Hilary as long as it's on her own terms not when those terms are set by those who disagree with her. How typical.

It's time for a REAL third party because the two party system is a wreck and the founders knew it even before we did or we wouldn't be arguing like 3 year olds over the new "it" toy.

Posted by Chimpy [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:57 AM

NoDonkey:
Sorry Tom, I had a hard time keeping straight which liberally biased news organization botched which story.

WOW! That’s all you have to say after your false/(confused?) accusation about the story being false? I had no problem keeping up with the article. And I’m only a HS grad.

The AP botched the No Gun Ri story (the source they relied on wasn't even there at the time)

You make it sound like there was only 1 source. It’s obvious you didn’t read, or most likely comprehend the in depth article about all the reporting and editorials of No Gun Ri, at the link provided by Tom Shipley.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1043

It also exposes the myth about the so called bias of the MSM. Did you read the contrasting editorials? There’s bias all right, but in the opposite way you think there is.

It also appears you didn’t read this earlier post in this thread and follow the links there. It shows exactly where the bias is.
Posted by: dave at April 10, 2007 11:21 AM
What do you have to say about this changing story to make it comply with what the admin is saying about where the formed/shaped IED’s are coming from?


You kool-aid drinkers also conveniently forget the MSM were cheerleaders for the war in Iraq pre invasion. They were basically stenographers for the admin, repeating what was feed to them without checking the facts for themselves. Now you have a problem with them since they acquired some balls. Funny how that works!