Spoiled Democrats and Debates
We've now finished the first two presidential debates, both on MSNBC. Pundits are debating whether they will make a difference in the race, but one thing is very clear: It's business as usual for the media moderating these things. The Democrats were treated to an amiable chit-chat among friends. The Republicans took round after round of hostile fire from enemies. Nothing ever changes. The Democrats are spoiled like rotten kids, and the Republicans are invited to sleep on a bed of nails â?? and do so willingly.
But the dynamic now has been made even worse by the petulant petitions and protests of the censorious left, the ones who claim to be "democrats" but want to remove Fox News Channel from the news media. Leftists believe in a media strategy with all the sophistication of holding your breath and turning blue. Fox hatred is required. On the Huffington Post, author Carol Hoenig argued the Democrats should debate on Fox. Even so, her article was headlined "Fox News: A Cancer on Society."
It's about time the GOP put an end to this charade by refusing to debate on CNN or MSNBC when they employ left-wing political pundits who throw roses at liberal politicians while they hurl invective at Republicans. So why don't they take a stand? Because they're afraid of the consequences. The Democrats can refuse to debate on Fox News, and the other networks chortle. If the Republicans refuse to debate on MSNBC, they infuriate NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS and NPR.
So what? What are these networks going to do in retaliation? Stop covering them? The news media need both parties as much as the parties need the news media. Conservatives and Republicans should stop taking this longstanding injustice sitting down â?? and if they take a stand, their supporters will cheer.
The left-wing campaign to "unseat" Fox News (as the anti-Fox "News Hounds" blog calls it) should be a rallying cry for the GOP. If the left wants to assert that Fox is not a "legitimate" news channel, then the right should go to the mattresses to reply that the so-called "mainstream" media are an illegitimate gang of shameless Democratic partisans with James Carville on their speed dial.
The left is deadly serious, making it crystal clear that it's not a joke when radio hosts warn about them cracking down on conservative speech with a new "Fairness Doctrine" if the Democrats take control of both Congress and the White House. They will go from merely turning down Fox invitations to turning off conservative talk radio.
What should conservatives do? Start with the debates. Conservatives probably cannot expect to face moderators who don't have Democratic politics on their resume, from Tim Russert to George Stephanopoulos to Chris Matthews to even Brian Williams (if you count being an intern in the Carter White House). This should not necessarily be a disqualifier. Let's remember that some anchors without party jobs in their past (Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill, both of PBS) have regularly leaned left in their debate performances. But Republicans and conservatives ought to be more forceful in demanding fairness and balance in the questioning these moderators provide.
The first line of defense has to come from the contenders themselves. On several occasions in the GOP debate, Mitt Romney mildly protested the premise of liberal questions that emerged. Chris Matthews asked, with a straight face: "Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?" "You have got to be kidding," Romney replied, a good answer that exposed this for what it was: a question straight from the liberal template.
The Washington Post refugees at Politico.com asked Romney another loaded question: "What do you dislike most about America?" One might argue that the ex-Posties were merely forwarding the Voice of the People, but of course they're choosing from a flood of e-mails, and to select something that dopey reeks of bad, and partisan, judgment. Can you imagine the uproar if Fox asked Howard Dean that one in the 2004 cycle?
Next, the GOP debate negotiators should start playing hardball and protesting up front when potential moderators are suggested. They ought not to suggest, but demand, a Brit Hume or a Chris Wallace as moderators. Further, they ought to do more to press for a panel of questioners to allow more diversity in questioning.
In fact, why don't the Republicans just have a presidential debate on radio with talk-show host moderators? Invite Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and so on to be the questioners. Why do Republicans always insist on playing by liberal media rules, on their field?
Finally, Republicans should mock the Democratic withdrawal from Fox with a loud, continuing question: How will Hillary and Co. handle Osama bin Laden when they don't have the courage to handle questioning from Brit Hume?
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates - Yahoo! News
Typical "cut and run" tactics by the Dems again.............
The Republican candidates had their debate on MSNBC or "Tree Huggers R Us", now the Dems show their TRUE colors of being yellow instead of blue.
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
In recent weeks, Democrats, including the front runners for the party's presidential nomination, have blasted the Bush Administration for the purportedly political firings of 8 US Attorneys. (Nevermind that Hilary Clinton admits, that if elected she would replace all of Bush's appointees to the position.) The scandal, if it can be such when the public largely yawns, is the latest in a line of (sometimes valid) charges that Bush eliminates dissent. Yet there is a limit to the dissent tolerated by Clinton and her fellow Senators Edwards and Obama-if they don't like it, it's not okay.
Accordingly they have decided they just can't appear at a Fox News (and Congressional Black Caucus) sponsored debate. Edwards, the first to withdraw, said, "There's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending to be objective." He then said that CNN would be a better debate venue. (Evidently, he feels that being a hero of the blogosphere will make up for the fact that according to Nielsen ratings, Fox draws nearly twice as many viewers as CNN.)
While Fox is clearly more than a right-wing muckraker, there is little doubt that it has a conservative orientation. Yet, there is also no denying that much of the rest of the media, including CNN, has a liberal bias. This fact is so obvious, that Pew Institute surveys reveal that among Independents, certainly not the President's core constituency, a full 1/3 believe the press treats Bush unfairly. Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch might be an arrogant, outspoken, conservative, but change conservative to liberal and you have a very accurate description of Ted Turner (CNN's CEO).
Beyond the troubling fact that Democrats still feel the best way to score points in the primary is to bash all things Republican, it is unfortunate that presidential candidates would ignore the millions whose main news source is Fox. Will they next refuse to speak to millions of gun owners or Evangelicals? "Even" President Bush eventually spoke to the NAACP, adding his own voice to that forum despite its bias. He kept listening and he certainly kept talking. For once, Democrats should follow his lead.
In a society that is often politically apathetic, it is the duty of leaders to go to the voters and citizens-or at the very least, to make the effort. Franklin Roosevelt, one of the first modern Democrats, perfected that notion with his fireside chats and America responded. What if he, objecting to the political leanings of radio producers in Hawaii, had refused to be heard there? If Democrats want to talk about real solutions for Iraq or health care or anything at all, they need to talk to those Americans affected by those issues, many of whom do watch Fox News. Unfortunately they have decided not to do so.
America was built on diverse political opinions-the Federalists and Anti-Federalists make Republicans and Democrats look like friends-and it will continue to find strength there. More diversity of opinion would certainly have been beneficial regarding Iraq. When the next "Iraq" occurs, will the Democrats allow any more diversity of thought than the man they criticize so fervently? (Joe Lieberman has an answer.)
Bias is not inherently bad, as long as it is equally distributed and not disguised. Fox's much maligned slogan, "We Report, You Decide" is true. That's what Americans should do-take in news, evaluate it, and then make a decision. For three years that's been my goal for this column, to spread knowledge, provoke thought, and encourage discussion. I don't deny bias, but hope I've always been fair-minded. Thanks to those who have "listened" and then spoke out. I hope you will do the same both in Ripon and beyond. So adieu, farewell, and may God continue to bless America-with both strong leaders and those who are worthy to challenge them.
Fox silences chicken Democrats - Opinion
"Accordingly they have decided they just can't appear at a Fox News (and Congressional Black Caucus) sponsored debate"
Ignoring the Congressional Black Caucus.........tsk, tsk..........won't they let Hillary speak in her Southern Drawl as if she were visiting with Al Sharpton?
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
They will go from merely turning down Fox invitations to turning off conservative talk radio.
We can only hope they'll get rid of venemous assholes like Rush Limbaugh. He sure lived up to his name, "Rush" I'll bet he was gettin lots of rushs from his oxycontin addiction,and that from an anti-drug asshole that used to rant and rave about drug dealers gettin light sentences, and didn't get any jailtime himself for his illegal activity, Hypocritical nonsense at its peak.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Here's a bit of liberal bias courtesy of Jon Stewart. Seriously though, is liberal bias the best defense repubs are coming up with following the uninspiring debates? If the Right is looking for another Ronald Reagan to rally their much damaged party, they won't find him in that line up. But why face the truth when you can Spin. It seems to be a common theme, when you can't do something yourself (even with both houses of congress, the judicial AND the executive branches controlled by one party) blame it on the Democrats.
Crooks and Liars » Jon Stewart Analyzes The Republican Presidential Debate
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
DEMS refuse to debate on FOX and this is the best excuse you people can come up with? It would surely would be an issue if the Republicans refused to debate on MSNBC though...right?
I think it's healthy for each party to take a beating just to "try" to find out where they really stand. Hell, the republicans answered to questions about abortion rights, stem cell research.........what is it that the Dems are so damn afraid of?
I suppose they could limit questioning to womens rights and black rights so they don't cry foul.
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
:S2: BUMP!:S2:
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
RamblerGambler;1428342 "If the Right is looking for another Ronald Reagan to rally their much damaged party, they won't find him in that line up."
Actually Jim Gilmore supports the Reagan Values, and wants to return them to the rebulican party. Plus he is an nra board member which is a plus in my book.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
But do you agree none of them possess the same charisma? The line up is even more tired I've ever seen before, and I used to be a republican!
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
But do you agree none of them possess the same charisma? The line up is even more tired I've ever seen before, and I used to be a republican!
At least they're out there on BOTH scheduled debates....
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I think it's healthy for each party to take a beating just to "try" to find out where they really stand. Hell, the republicans answered to questions about abortion rights, stem cell research.........what is it that the Dems are so damn afraid of?
you don't show your hand when you're bluffing:
with their party riding high in a wave of media driven bush hatred, the last thing the dems want is for the public to get a good look at nuts and bolts of their agenda. with their recent history of temporary band-aids and whining defeatism, the last thing they need is for the voters to see the yawning void behind the rhetoric.
meanwhile:
with the current administration's bungling of everything they set their hand to, the reps are desperately trying to get the message out that they are more than just a one trick pony. they must use every venue to distance themselves from bush and company's futile tactics and bring attention to some of their more profitable ideas.
in short:
if this election is centered solely on our fiasco in the middle east, then we are doomed to at least four years of do-nothing social programs and ivory tower theatrics. if the public is more interested in the workings of government than its pie in the sky facade, then we might be stuck with more of the same two faced piety that has brought us to this sorry pass.
somebody please tell me:
how do you choose the lesser of two evils when they are both equally insane?
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
you don't show your hand when you're bluffing:
with their party riding high in a wave of media driven bush hatred, the last thing the dems want is for the public to get a good look at nuts and bolts of their agenda. with their recent history of temporary band-aids and whining defeatism, the last thing they need is for the voters to see the yawning void behind the rhetoric.
meanwhile:
with the current administration's bungling of everything they set their hand to, the reps are desperately trying to get the message out that they are more than just a one trick pony. they must use every venue to distance themselves from bush and company's futile tactics and bring attention to some of their more profitable ideas.
in short:
if this election is centered solely on our fiasco in the middle east, then we are doomed to at least four years of do-nothing social programs and ivory tower theatrics. if the public is more interested in the workings of government than its pie in the sky facade, then we might be stuck with more of the same two faced piety that has brought us to this sorry pass.
somebody please tell me:
how do you choose the lesser of two evils when they are both equally insane?
Vote for the one that will stop the war!!! It's obvious you have no party that will change the world, so get off your high horse and live with the facts.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinal
Vote for the one that will stop the war!!! It's obvious you have no party that will change the world, so get off your high horse and live with the facts.
Can't tell ya which one would for sure since they're to uppity to debate on TV. So how many of the recently elected dems stated that only to approve nothing more than non-binding resolutions?
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Facts speak for themselves. Who controlled every branch of government, from the executive to the judicial for years, and yet still still acted like a minority party by blaming the Democrats for their inability to accomplish anything of substance. Tax cuts for the wealthy, a surplus turned to the largest national debt in our history, record high gas prices as Oil company's post record earnings. I'm not even going to go into the almost daily scandals that seem to plague the Grand Old Party.
How about we chose a candadate that won't fill oversight positions with members of that industry. Someone that won't use creative names on bills to pass "No Child Left Behind" and the "Clean Air Act" come to mind. Forget stay the course, it's time for a change.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
Facts speak for themselves. Who controlled every branch of government, from the executive to the judicial for years.
During the Fifth Party System after 1932, the Democrats controlled the House from 1932 to 1994, with two exceptions (1946 and 1952), as the New Deal Coalition was successful. In terms of legislation, however, the Conservative coalition usually blocked liberal legislative proposals, except in 1964-65 when President Lyndon Johnson had the majorities to pass his Great Society proposals. The most important leader was long-time Democratic Speaker Sam Rayburn. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich returned to a majority in the election of 1994, as part of the Republican Revolution that gave the party both houses and a majority of governorships that year.
The Democrats gained 30 seats in the 2006 elections, regaining control and electing Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker. Voter response to the war in Iraq and numerous Republican congressional scandals were most influential to Republican losses.
History of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The chart in this link shows that the Senate has been under Dem. control more often than not.
Party leaders of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT, can you explain why they won't or shouldn't debate on Fox; Something that is sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? Doesn't this show the American public a side of arrogance that could come back to haunt the party? What it shows is that they aren't prepared or willing to answer tough questions. Not an "electable" feature.
"a surplus turned to the largest national debt in our history"
We haven't had a surplus since the 1800's.......a more accurate account of debt is how it relates to the GDP. Chart below:
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Thanks to the quality work of Devilstower, the main debate of this thread can be put to the test. If I have it straight, weak democrats are tossed softball questions by the "liberal media" while stoic rupublicans stand up to a pummeling by the liberal elite. Maybe toss in how unfair it is that fox news won't get a debate any time soon, how things would be even then.
Here then are the first three questions asked in each debate. The questions alternate starting with Democrats and are followed by Republicans. Summary is bold. Again, this is courtesy of Devilstower.
Quote:
Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would "wipe his boots" with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?
In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?
Okay, in round one, a Democratic leader is declared a treasonous weakling based on a misquote and ravings from a LTE. A former Republican leader is seen as the goal to which we should aspire. Certainly "fair and balanced" so far.
Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?
Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. What would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?
In round two, a Democratic senator is shown to be a hypocrite who doesn't respect the troops, while a Republican senator is asked what he needs to dispel public gloom and seize victory. Nothing to see here.
Senator Edwards, you made a high-profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, quote, "We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake." Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?
Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?
And in round three, Democrats are invited to wallow in their past mistakes and take pot shots at each other, while Republicans are given another opportunity to win, Win, WIN! All good.
Yes, truly the republicans are victims of America's savage liberal media.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
Yes, truly the republicans are victims of America's savage liberal media.
Rounds? Those were the first three questions directed at the dem candidates:
South Carolina Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com
So since they caught a lil' heat on the Dems R Us news channel they don't feel that they could handle themselves on Fox? LMAO!!
Also, weren't the Republican candidates grilled on abortion rights and stem cell research?
Face it, the Dems punked out by not debating on FOX.
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Rounds? Those were the first three questions directed at the dem candidates:
South Carolina Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com
So since they caught a lil' heat on the Dems R Us news channel they don't feel that they could handle themselves on Fox? LMAO!!
Also, weren't the Republican candidates grilled on abortion rights and stem cell research?
Face it, the Dems punked out by not debating on FOX.
Have a good one!:s4:
If someone had a made up audience that were cued to boo after your responses and cheer when the moderator ask a question, would you want to go on there. I believe it was the most intelligent thing to do, refuse those monkeys on fox. They might as well have that great right wing god, Rupert Murdoch, ask the questions and have geriatric right wing nutcases in the audience that will applaud on cue and boo any democratic explanation of the skewed questions. Fox news has outlived it's usefullness. It is seen by most as right wing rhetorical bullshit spouting hatemongers. And if you can't see that, then you're one of them!
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
The audience is told both on MSNBC and on FOX not to applaud, etc. in order to get in more questions with the time alotted.
I would think that the dems would WANT to debate on FOX in order to get the attention of those that are more middle of the road. That would be like the Republican candidates banning MSNBC due to the majority of the tree huggers in charge.
Colmes is a VERY prominant figure on FOX and he's further to the left than Obama.........
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPd9yjvF7Mw
Fair and balanced? Torture is back on the table according to the candidates last night. And listen to the fox crowd go wild.
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
And this has "what" to do with spoiled democrats?
Have a good one!:s4:
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Lets examine it, shall we? As we keep hearing from you P4B, Fox should be considered a respectable, "fair and balanced" news source instead of the partisan right wing noise machine that it is. So sit back, light up a fattie, and follow me below the flip.
-Flip-:stoned:
Here we have a candadate for the highest office in the land tacitly approving the torture of suspects who "theoretically" posses information of vital import. This is strong stance on a slippery slope, especially for someone who has had no personal experience with these chilling practices.
Quote:
Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number.
Here we have it, another chickenhawk following in the mold of our commander and chief. Never mind the cost others will pay for this tough talking candadate to pose and posture in front of the cameras. According to Giuliani, this country will do whatever it takes to stop "Terrorists" even if it means throwing the constitution out the window.
How does the crowd respond to further attacks on our already weakened constitution? Is it as you said P4B, where
Quote:
Psycho4Bud: The audience is told both on MSNBC and on FOX not to applaud, etc. in order to get in more questions with the time alotted.
Listen for youself, and you be the judge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPd9yjvF7Mw Call me crazy, but I'd say no.
Perhaps the opinion of someone who has seen first hand the personal atrocities man can inflict his fellow man should have a say in this. Surely the crowd would respect the views of someone like John McCain, considering his service to the United States.
Quote:
Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
How does the peanut gallery respond to his condemnation of torture as approved policy? He is greeted with stony silence. After all, god forbid someone with credentials offer their informed opinion to the FOX crowd.
Which brings us to the conclusion, the thread point that ties this into the thread. This is why the Democrats made the right choice in refusing to debate on FOX. It is neither Fair, nor Balanced. And it certainly is not a respected news source. It panders to its base. Fox is nothing more than a propaganda arm pandering to the neocons and their ultra ritght wing psuedo religous base.
But there's someone who illustrates this better than I. Someone I'm sure we all identify with and listen to. And that "person" is Lois Griffin. Lets simplify how these republican speeches go (bonus points for identifying the actual clip from a real live speech) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1epPU0ypFc8
Spoiled Democrats and Debates
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
Lets examine it, shall we? As we keep hearing from you P4B, Fox should be considered a respectable, "fair and balanced" news source instead of the partisan right wing noise machine that it is. So sit back, light up a fattie, and follow me below the flip.
They are DEFINATELY a right wing news source but what other ones are there? Surely not MSNBC!
I'll hold to what I posted though, in all three debates in the beginning the moderators instructed the crowd to keep silent during the debates in order to maintain time for the questions.
They picked the most far left and far right news sources to hold the debates on........just seems strange that the Dems feel that THEY don't have to step up to the plate.
Have a good one!:s4:
