Skip to main content

View Diary: Fox News debate is officially dead (397 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a releif to know. (13+ / 0-)

    It means Bush never got the Presidency, and this has all been a bad dream.

    I'd ask Americans to serve. I'd ask them to make other sacrifices, but I wouldn't want to raise their taxes just because we're in a war. --John McCain

    by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:08:13 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually it has been reailty (0+ / 0-)

      A reality that a move like this will only be allowed to continue

      George Bush won TWICE. Or at least got enough votes that he lives in the White House for the second term.


      Because he was NOT perceived as one who would run away from a fight. Rhetorically, or, unfortunately, physically.

      •  Really? (15+ / 0-)

        I haven't heard him on Air America. I haven't seen him go on Olbermann's show. I haven't read any diaries of his here on dKos.

        In fact, how many times has he even bothered to have press conferences? He avoids those like the plague.

        •  Forget it, kos; it's I'mLivingInAGOPFrameTown. nt (0+ / 0-)

          And now, ladies and gentlemen, good luck for the last tango!

          by iconoclastic cat on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:26:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Who? (0+ / 0-)

          That was actually a reference to your "Big winner" in all this.
          Berkely is not a swing voter populated area as far as I understand it.

          Ultimately, the problem is that this was engaged before it was backed away from, and will add to the existing reputations that the party has, like or not, or not, outside of the 18 states that are reliably Democratic.

          They DO listen. They lean "Strength".

        •  What if... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          Could you please explain your comment?
          I understand your overall point, but your comment compares democrats not attending a Fox debate to that of George Bush avoiding certain venues.  George is not right, so what makes democrats right for doing the same thing in this instance?  It does not make sense.

          What if: what if the democrats attended the Fox debate and were able to show a powerful and vigorous debate?  That might be a good thing for our Country.  What if, democrats used the debate as an opportunity to expose the hypocrisy that is Fox?  What if, the democrats challenged Fox by advocating for the Troops?  Certainly they could use a voice in the debate.  What if, when confronted with bullshit during the debate the democrats stood up against the bull and called them out?  Talk about a victory.  I’m just asking, what if…..

          I can’t know the right or wrong way – to attend or not to attend.  But my “feeling” says if done properly, with confidence, with truth telling, with intellect it might be a good thing.

          •  Faith (0+ / 0-)

            You're demonstrating too much faith in the democratic, unbiased reporting of Fox "news".  The issue here is that having a Democratic debate on Fox "news", a network that has repeatedly, and without any doubt by pretty much anyone, demonstrated that they are willing to distort the news to the benefit of the Republican party, to the benefit of corporatism and authoritarianism, they LIE and DISTORT all reporting, having this Democratic debate on their channel gives them some semblance of impartiality where it is most definitely not deserved.  They are not legitimate and hosting a Democratic debate gives them a tiny sliver of legitimacy, which they will user to further LIE and DISTORT the news and attack Democrats and Populists.

            The Democrats are able to have a powerful and vigorous debate anywhere, sponsored by anyone, and it is definitely a benefit to our country to have those debates.  The Democrats have repeatedly advocated for our troops and it has been continuously biased and distorted by Fox "news."  The Democrats absolutely do not need Fox "news."  Fox "news" needs the Democrats for legitimacy.

            Democrats can debate with confidence and by telling the truth anywhere, and any time, but they should not support the propaganda arm of the Republican, authoritarian, neo-con wing of this country when they do.

            Anyplace but Fox.

            Chairman Conyers, you may call your first witness.

            by rabel on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:05:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Opportunity lost? (0+ / 0-)

              If I may follow up:
              I understand your point but several things occur to me.

              -Democrats not appearing on Fox does not make Fox go away.
              Fox is part of the equation, like it or not.  One must not ignore their enemy.

              -The debate would be in real time, would it not, what’s to distort?

              -Jay Leno, David Letterman, Oprah, etc., are not legitimate political venues, yet candidates show up on these types of shows, even to go as far as announcing their candidacy.

              -Democrats accepted Fox’s invitation to debate, and then backed out, that does not look good either.

              -Fox continually berated General Clark while he was running for president.  Yet, General Clark is currently a commentator on Fox, and it appears to me at least, Fox commentators don’t dare mess with the General too much now, because General Clark has learned how to handle the enemy and even bite back.  He uses Fox as an opportunity to reach a certain audience, all the while advocating for our Troops and our Country and especially our Democratic principles.  Bare with here on this one, didn’t Sun Tzu, in The Art Of War, suggest that the best and most effective way to attack your enemy is to be in their camp, as one of them.  This is a legitimate strategy.

              Finally, as I stated above, I certainly cannot say one way or the other what is the right approach.  But political life goes on and on, and we will never know what might have happened.

      •  Of course, (0+ / 0-)

        that "won't run away from a fight" attitude ensures that he would not win a third term even if he was eligible to run. He wouldn't even win a third nomination, except as the candidate of Connecticut for Lieberman. Bellicosity and stubbornness are virtue less often than you think.

        Congratulations to the Class of '06 | All glory to the HypnoToad

        by Desroko on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:27:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bush doesn't run from a fight? (8+ / 0-)

        Then I suppose all those "protest zones" where his thugs would cordon off all opposition was for their own protection?
        And somebody better remind the Air National Guard they have an AWOL pilot in the White House...

        Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning. - Joseph Campbell.

        by Archangel on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:42:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's easy not to fight (7+ / 0-)

        When you handpick your audience.

      •  I don't know about that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Cheerleaders are not admired for their toughness...

        "The waging of war, by its nature, is total - but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial." -- Daniel Berrigan

        by Rico on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:12:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site