This is why the Democrats Suck Too

[@_@ Artman]

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and now Dodd (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/30/16520/1733) have passed on the Fox/CBC Debate.

That leaves Biden (who was prompted to leave by moveon.org, but declined (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0507/Bidens_debate.html)...for all the wrong reasons IMO), Kucinich, and Gravel. "Passed" is not a good term, more like bailed.

First I thought it was because it was Fox News, but I really feel that the upper tier candidates don't want to debate the issues anymore (had they even tried in the last one?). At least with their opponents. Ah, that could be why. They know they can't debate the mavericks.

They have great poll numbers but I feel they have fear of losing them. Over what, debate? Fox News? Hell, this would be an opportune time to sway some Foxtards over to the other side.

I don't know. Seems that it's all the same old campaign bullshit again. Let's hope that BidenK, ucinich, and Gravelcan prove that debating/discussing the issues are what matters to voters and not talking points and "appearances".

Last thought:

They should cancel this thing. What kind of debate would it be when all of the fake talking heads are out and the only three candidates who have any intelligence are left?

[BRussell]

Nah, they'll have plenty of debates. The internet kiddies didn't want them to debate on Fox, so they pulled out.

[screener]

Fox puts a right spin on everything including the news, not just their "opinion" programs
According to a friend, that has access to all American programming, says the "Fair and Balanced" motto isn't being said as much anymore.
They must know the jig is up and just throw it out there less and less until it's gone and hopefully the public won't notice.

It's a good thing Dems won't appear on any Fox debate.
Marginalize them, with a little chuckle, or snide remark, just like Hume and others on Fox do to them.

Swaying Foxtards to the Democrats is almost as entertaining an idea as Democrats expecting fair and balanced treatment from any of the Fox bunch.

[@_@ Artman]

Nah, they'll have plenty of debates. The internet kiddies didn't want them to debate on Fox, so they pulled out.

Yeah, the Internet is all well and good, but television is still the choice of zombie info-tainment. Whether it be Fox or MSNBC it is still a communicative medium. Ron Paul was a nobody until the 9|11 remark on Fox. The walk-outs here don't have my vote now (if they ever were, that's debatable). How about that?

[BRussell]

The walk-outs here don't have my vote now (if they ever were, that's debatable). How about that? Seems like liberal candidates not catering to a conservative network is a silly thing to base your vote on, but I suppose I've heard sillier.

[groverat]

They would be idiots to go to a FOX debate.

[addabox]

Yeah. The Republican candidates have refused to do a debate moderated by Al Franken and Arriana Huffington.

Definitely lost my vote there.

[@_@ Artman]

Seems like liberal candidates not catering to a conservative network is a silly thing to base your vote on, but I suppose I've heard sillier.

Well, I'll be blunt. They are pussies. It isn't Fox they are scared of, it's Kucinich, and Gravel (even eh...Biden) that they are scared of. Kucinich, and Gravel have balls, the others don't. They think they can pass this by, but I won't.

[addabox]

Well, I'll be blunt. They are pussies. It isn't Fox they are scared of, it's Kucinich, and Gravel (even eh...Biden) that they are scared of. Kucinich, and Gravel have balls, the others don't. They think they can pass this by, but I won't.

Well, that's an interesting theory, but I don't see it. When they passed on the earlier Fox debate they were very clear that it was a matter of "Fox is an adjunct of the RNC, why would we want to subject ourselves to a grilling by an adjunct to the RNC?"

To which I believe the answer is "You wouldn't."

[midwinter]

Well, I'll be blunt. They are pussies. It isn't Fox they are scared of, it's Kucinich, and Gravel (even eh...Biden) that they are scared of. Kucinich, and Gravel have balls, the others don't. They think they can pass this by, but I won't.

Hogwash. The frontrunner Dem candidates are trying to deny FOX legitimacy by refusing to appear alongside its badge. I imagine that if FOX News became less an unabashed piece of GOP noise machine and more of a news outlet, the Dem candidates would gladly appear. As BRussell said, it's largely because of pressure from the "netroots" lefties.

Kucinich—and keep in mind that I looooove him—and Gravel have nothing to lose by going on FOX. This is, what, Kucinich's second or third bid for the Dem nomination?

[@_@ Artman]

Hogwash. The frontrunner Dem candidates are trying to deny FOX legitimacy by refusing to appear alongside its badge. I imagine that if FOX News became less an unabashed piece of GOP noise machine and more of a news outlet, the Dem candidates would gladly appear. As BRussell said, it's largely because of pressure from the "netroots" lefties.

They would fall over each other if it was any other network. Ratings wise and support wise this is a huge gamble for them. Fox gave Ron Paul a lot of leeway, even providing him more air-time after the debates to discuss his claims. And don't say it was because he's on "their side", he's not. You know that.

Kucinich—and keep in mind that I looooove him—and Gravel have nothing to lose by going on FOX. This is, what, Kucinich's second or third bid for the Dem nomination?

Second? I hope it does lift their recognition too (Go Gravel!)! Screw the others. They can take their money, egos and their flip-flops and go watch their pols drop like rocks.

This won't happen, but one can hope... :\

[BRussell]

You're probably right Artman, Clinton and Obama and Edwards are scared to death of Dennis Kucinich.

[midwinter]

They would fall over each other if it was any other network.

Well of course. that's kind of the point. FOX isn't any other network, and by refusing to debate on its waves, the Dems call it out. If it's going to be a mouthpiece for the GOP, then why pretend that it's not?

Ratings wise and support wise this is a huge gamble for them.

Nah. It's still MAY, for Christ's sake!

Fox gave Ron Paul a lot of leeway, even providing him more air-time after the debates to discuss his claims. And don't say it was because he's on "their side", he's not. You know that.

"A lot" compared to what?

[midwinter]

You're probably right Artman, Clinton and Obama and Edwards are scared to death of Dennis Kucinich.

I know I would be. Did you hear his Donald Duck impersonation on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me last week?

[addabox]

I did. It was chilling.

[@_@ Artman]

Well of course. that's kind of the point. FOX isn't any other network, and by refusing to debate on its waves, the Dems call it out. If it's going to be a mouthpiece for the GOP, then why pretend that it's not?

Fox is the network that they should not attack but "embrace". Use them to your gain. Use the skills that you should have as a politician to get your policies heard. You make it sound like there will be stormtroopers positioned next to each candidate just waiting for anything Un-Foxed being said. Fox knows they are being watched too. I'll show some examples later...

Nah. It's still MAY, for Christ's sake!

And the attentions spans of Americans is on par with the average goldfish. Maybe that's why Gore's waiting... (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/233230/066)

"A lot" compared to what?

Ron Paul Rips Hannity & Fox a New One, intelligently and rationally (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYD658fr2U4).

Where are the fair and balanced on Fox News? Because you (the viewers!) asked... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyH4Bol944)

Fox viewers wanted more of Ron Paul after his remarks. He stood his ground and got what he wanted. Truly a victory for himself and for any person who has the balls to do so. Something the main Democrats seem to lack.

[midwinter]

Fox is the network that they should not attack but "embrace". Use them to your gain. Use the skills that you should have as a politician to get your policies heard. You make it sound like there will be stormtroopers positioned next to each candidate just waiting for anything Un-Foxed being said. Fox knows they are being watched too. I'll show some examples later...

I don't 'think you quite understand. This isn't about FOX moderators saying mean things. It's about what the anchors say. It's about the crawlers. It's about the kind of crap that FOX allows to go out over its airwaves.

Dems can control none of this.

And the attentions spans of Americans is on par with the average goldfish. Maybe that's why Gore's waiting... (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/233230/066)

I suspect Gore will announce in the Summer. If he announces at all.

Ron Paul Rips Hannity & Fox a New One, intelligently and rationally (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYD658fr2U4).

Where are the fair and balanced on Fox News? Because you (the viewers!) asked... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyH4Bol944)

Fox viewers wanted more of Ron Paul after his remarks. He stood his ground and got what he wanted. Truly a victory for himself and for any person who has the balls to do so. Something the main Democrats seem to lack.

Of course FOX viewers wanted more of Ron Paul. FOX viewers are largely conservatives.

[screener]

[QUOTE=@_@ Artman;1088704]Fox is the network that they should not attack but "embrace".

Not attacking, ignoring.
Fox viewers will never abandon their view of Democrats.

Waste of time.

[BRussell]

I know I would be. Did you hear his Donald Duck impersonation on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me last week? Uh, midwinter, I've got news for you. That wasn't an impersonation, that was his actual voice.

You know, I don't believe that money and popularity are perfectly correlated with actual merits, but neither do I think they're perfectly inversely correlated. In the case of Kucinich, his utter irrelevancy is truly deserved.

[screener]

[QUOTE=midwinter;1088707] It's about the kind of crap that FOX allows to go out over its airwaves.

That 99% of it's viewers gobble up and 1%, like me to get our chuckles.

[franksargent]

How many times have HRC, Obama, and Edwards appeared (e. g. interviewed or provided commentary) in total on Faux Noise?

Just curious, you know. :D

[SDW2001]

Nah, they'll have plenty of debates. The internet kiddies didn't want them to debate on Fox, so they pulled out.

Perhaps...but I really just think they're trying to score points by standing up to Big Bad Biased Fox News.

Fox puts a right spin on everything including the news, not just their "opinion" programs
According to a friend, that has access to all American programming, says the "Fair and Balanced" motto isn't being said as much anymore.
They must know the jig is up and just throw it out there less and less until it's gone and hopefully the public won't notice.

It's a good thing Dems won't appear on any Fox debate.
Marginalize them, with a little chuckle, or snide remark, just like Hume and others on Fox do to them.

Swaying Foxtards to the Democrats is almost as entertaining an idea as Democrats expecting fair and balanced treatment from any of the Fox bunch.

Fox does lean conservative, but comparitively it is much more balanced in its news coverage than the Used-to-be-Big Three. You'll never be convinced of that though, content to spew your knee jerk reactions, just as Moveon and Media Matters have told you to do.

And really...you want to to talk about fair questions? The first GOP debate was an abomination. The questions sucked. They delibrately torpedoed Guilani. The Fox News debate with them was far tougher. did you even watch it? Chris Wallace slammed two of them directly with snide remarks :err: for not answering the question. Maybe if you'd actually base your opinion on what happened instead of what you're "supposed" to think, you'd be better off.

Seems like liberal candidates not catering to a conservative network is a silly thing to base your vote on, but I suppose I've heard sillier.

As I said, political points. That's all it is. They're just trying to silence all forms of conservative media, talk radio inlcuded. It's just another way to do it.

Well, I'll be blunt. They are pussies. It isn't Fox they are scared of, it's Kucinich, and Gravel (even eh...Biden) that they are scared of. Kucinich, and Gravel have balls, the others don't. They think they can pass this by, but I won't.

I don't think that's it. They're not scared, they just want the debate on their terms. They refuse to be asked real questions and engage in a real debate...not out of fear of the lefties, but out of fear of a non-softball throwing debate moderator.

Hogwash. The frontrunner Dem candidates are trying to deny FOX legitimacy by refusing to appear alongside its badge. I imagine that if FOX News became less an unabashed piece of GOP noise machine and more of a news outlet, the Dem candidates would gladly appear. As BRussell said, it's largely because of pressure from the "netroots" lefties.

Kucinich—and keep in mind that I looooove him—and Gravel have nothing to lose by going on FOX. This is, what, Kucinich's second or third bid for the Dem nomination?

1. GOP noise machine? That's a little extreme. They just won't appear on the network because it's not extremely biased to the Left.

2. You love him. Wow. :wow: Seriosuly...you think this guy should be President? . Honestly, I rather see Hillary Clinton become President than him. No shit.

I don't 'think you quite understand. This isn't about FOX moderators saying mean things. It's about what the anchors say. It's about the crawlers. It's about the kind of crap that FOX allows to go out over its airwaves.

Dems can control none of this.



I suspect Gore will announce in the Summer. If he announces at all.



Of course FOX viewers wanted more of Ron Paul. FOX viewers are largely conservatives.

1. Whatever.

2. Boo hoo. And the GOP can't control networks using fake documents to embarass the President 45 days before an election either.

3. Perhaps. This is the year to do it, if he ever does. If he does announce, he'll be drafted so to speak. I don't think he's hell bent on it anymore, which is one reason he might win if he runs. In my judgment it depends on the polls for the general. If Obama and Hillary are seen losing to the GOP nom...he might get in. If either is strong, he likely won't go up against the Clinton Machine.

[SDW2001]

Artman, in addition to everything else already said, let me point something out to you.

Literally *no one* but Republicans watch Fox News. No single group votes more reliably Republican than Fox News viewers-- not even conservatives and the religious right vote more reliably Republican than Fox News viewers. The idea that Democrats can "sway" this most reliably Republican demographic is unconvincing to say the least.

So they shouldn't even try? And you're convinced your "stat" is supportable even for a Dem debate?

[franksargent]

So they shouldn't even try? And you're convinced your "stat" is supportable even for a Dem debate?

Except that, in this case, they'd be handing the "gun" over to the pukes at Faux Noise! :lol:

[screener]

So they shouldn't even try? And you're convinced your "stat" is supportable even for a Dem debate?

Would it sway you or trumptman?

Not that you would ever watch Fox.

[midwinter]

1. GOP noise machine? That's a little extreme.

Sez you.

They just won't appear on the network because it's not extremely biased to the Left.

Prove it.

2. You love him. Wow. :wow: Seriosuly...you think this guy should be President? . Honestly, I rather see Hillary Clinton become President than him. No shit.

Hi, SDW2001. We've been butting heads on this board for what, 6 years now? Apparently it hasn't sunk in quite yet that WE DISAGREE ABOUT POLITICS.

1. Whatever.

Shit. Such a withering comeback, I don't really know what to say.

2. Boo hoo. And the GOP can't control networks using fake documents to embarass the President 45 days before an election either.

Yeah. That worked really, really well, didn't it? Let's see, Rather and his producers/investigators didn't do their homework on what would have been a newsworthy item, and the result is that Rather lost his job, we all became armchair font experts, and the GOP won the election.

Boo hoo, indeed.

3. Perhaps. This is the year to do it, if he ever does. If he does announce, he'll be drafted so to speak. I don't think he's hell bent on it anymore, which is one reason he might win if he runs.

I agree completely. Have you watched him on Charlie Rose? Rose actually makes the same point you did, which is that people like him now that he's "free." His response about being a candidate is quite interesting, as well (he noted, to my ears only half-jokingly), that he's realized that he's simply not very good at politics. He may be right. He really does seem like he doesn't want to run, though. And if he doesn't, that's fine.

In my judgment it depends on the polls for the general. If Obama and Hillary are seen losing to the GOP nom...he might get in. If either is strong, he likely won't go up against the Clinton Machine.

I think the other issue is that now that the GOP has sort of scrubbed the team it fielded and pushed Thompson into the race, everything changes. I need to poke around on Thompson. I have a vague recollection of liking him during some Clinton scandal/hearing when he ripped a new one on somebody.

[franksargent]

I think the other issue is that now that the GOP has sort of scrubbed the team it fielded and pushed Thompson into the race, everything changes. I need to poke around on Thompson. I have a vague recollection of liking him during some Clinton scandal/hearing when he ripped a new one on somebody.

Your last point is a good one wrt Thompson.

I wanted to start a new thread on him, IMHO he's the Republican's best chance to win in '08.

I'd also like to see AG give it another try, what the heck.

[@_@ Artman]

Artman, in addition to everything else already said, let me point something out to you.

Literally *no one* but Republicans watch Fox News. No single group votes more reliably Republican than Fox News viewers-- not even conservatives and the religious right vote more reliably Republican than Fox News viewers. The idea that Democrats can "sway" this most reliably Republican demographic is unconvincing to say the least.

This is why I still think they should grow balls (& with Hillary, Uber Tits) and do it. It's a fuckin' TV show. Take the gamble. Three others are because they need to and could be able to receive more attention. What is it with Fox? On one side you have their Nazi-Newz and on the other you have Cartoon/Rendition/T&A Central. Very strange.

Reminds me of the Simpsons clip... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFtsfDjOGjs) :err:

Oh, and another thing...

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/asian-indian/dennis-kucinich-and-wife.jpg

Do lawn ornaments make better lovers? :wow: :rolleyes: :D :smokey:

[screener]

Have you ever noticed how the Fox talking heads make fun of the way Democrats look?

Why give them more ammunition?

[Northgate]

Have you ever noticed how the Fox talking heads make fun of the way Democrats look?

Why give them more ammunition?

Yup. While giving a complete pass to Romney and his totally manufactured (and well paid for) coiffed look.

That kind of derision is reserved for John Edwards only.

I'm waiting for someone on the right to start talking about how big Hillary's hips have gotten lately. :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm sure Coulter's working on book about the topic. Or maybe John Gibson could go on a rant about that fatty bitch-cunt HRC.

[jimmac]

Hogwash. The frontrunner Dem candidates are trying to deny FOX legitimacy by refusing to appear alongside its badge. I imagine that if FOX News became less an unabashed piece of GOP noise machine and more of a news outlet, the Dem candidates would gladly appear. As BRussell said, it's largely because of pressure from the "netroots" lefties.

Kucinich—and keep in mind that I looooove him—and Gravel have nothing to lose by going on FOX. This is, what, Kucinich's second or third bid for the Dem nomination?

In a nutshell!;)

[SDW2001]

Sez you.



Prove it.



Hi, SDW2001. We've been butting heads on this board for what, 6 years now? Apparently it hasn't sunk in quite yet that WE DISAGREE ABOUT POLITICS.



Shit. Such a withering comeback, I don't really know what to say.



Yeah. That worked really, really well, didn't it? Let's see, Rather and his producers/investigators didn't do their homework on what would have been a newsworthy item, and the result is that Rather lost his job, we all became armchair font experts, and the GOP won the election.

Boo hoo, indeed.



I agree completely. Have you watched him on Charlie Rose? Rose actually makes the same point you did, which is that people like him now that he's "free." His response about being a candidate is quite interesting, as well (he noted, to my ears only half-jokingly), that he's realized that he's simply not very good at politics. He may be right. He really does seem like he doesn't want to run, though. And if he doesn't, that's fine.



I think the other issue is that now that the GOP has sort of scrubbed the team it fielded and pushed Thompson into the race, everything changes. I need to poke around on Thompson. I have a vague recollection of liking him during some Clinton scandal/hearing when he ripped a new one on somebody.

1. Yes, says me.

2. Listen to what they say about the network and look at the fact that they've....pulled out. They've basically said as much.

3. No, I realize that. But really...Kucinich? forgetting that Bush is president for a second (and that will be a nice trip to fantasy land for you I imagine), why do you support him?

4. A come back you yourself have used.

5. But they tried...and that is the point. They kept trying even when those documents were proven to be outright forgeries. Time to do the Bias Dance.

6. Agreed. Though I have wondered if it his plan to appear like that. I heard him on the radio one morning locally, and I was thinking how relaxed and real he sounded...at ease with himself. But I wonder...if he really is the way he acted in 2000, where his whole life depended on winning, then perhaps it is all a strategy. He was seriously criticized for micro-managing and being wrapped up in the election..."doing anything to win," etc. Perhaps he noticed it and it has been his plan all along to run. Or maybe it's what he claims and other claim: His campaign was a disaster because he listened to the wrong people tell him to be something he wasn't. I don't know. I'm very cynical about Gore after his conduct during the Election Debacle. I would like to be proven wrong, not that I agree with Gore on any numbers of issues.

7. I like Thompson too. I think he and Guilani are going to suck the air out of the room when he announces. It may be the end of McCain and Romney right there.