Skip to main content

Lame:

“FOX News’ viewership in Western states and across the country does not always get to hear directly from Democrats in an unedited and uninterrupted fashion. The August debate in Reno will allow the Democratic Presidential candidates to speak to the Fox audience who may be hearing from them for the first time for ninety minutes unfiltered and directly.”

“The Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project believe it is critical for Democrats to engage people, especially those who have heard too little from Democrats in the past. We believe the more people hear from Democrats, the better chance a Democrat will win the White House in 2008.”

Fox viewers aren't going to vote for our guy. Why not go to MSNBC and Keith Olberman, who is picking up much of Fox's dying viewership, or any of the other cable news networks who don't have a polarized hostile partisan audience? Any presidential candidate who does the debate will further validate the conservative machine's propaganda machine. At a time when Democrats should be doing everything to destroy the network's credibility, they are planning to do the opposite.

Stoller:

I'm sure that banner in the background that says 'Democrat Party' will be nice.  And hopefully, this time Fox News won't cut off the final few minutes of the debate and go directly to William Bennett to spin it before any Democrat has chance to weigh in, like they did in the January 2004 primary debate.

Fox News is a partisan Republican propaganda shop that hosts 'news anchors' that call Democrats traitors on a fairly regular basis.  This is not a channel that deserves legitimacy.  They will screw us.

If Nevada Democrats think Fox News is the path to electoral gains, that might explain why they performed so poorly in 2006 despite the national pro-Democratic wave that swept across the rest of the country.

Update: MoveOn will organize against Fox airing this debate.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:54 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nevada Dems are crazy like a... (5+ / 0-)

    ...well, not a FOX.

    Just crazy.

    Forget your stupid theme park! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack! In fact, forget the theme park! --Bender

    by catzilla on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:55:41 AM PST

    •  Foolishness, (8+ / 0-)

      thy name is the "Nevada Democratic Party"

      This "we want to reach out to Fox News viewers" is a canard. I remember seeing some sort of poll that showed that Fox News Viewers, more than any other group, were most likely to vote Republican.

      What genius decided that it was a good idea to hold a debate for a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY election before an audience made up nearly entirely by the REPUBLICAN BASE? And to do so in a partisan news outlet that is politically toxic to the Democratic base? Real smart guys. Real smart.

      You know, this argument MIGHT have a TAD bit of merit for a debate during the general election (but only a tad). But for a Democratic Primary? It is inexcusable.

      So, fine, let them have their debate. I, for one, will not watch it and I hope no one else on our side of the aisle does either. If the NV Dem Party wants to hold a debate for the Republicans to mock, then I'm going to reward them for their stupidity.

      •  NOT going to reward them, even. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leonard145b, madgranny
      •  How dense is the Nevada Democratic Party to (0+ / 0-)

        not project the consequences of this debacle? Faux can use Dem sound bites from the debate to play as ledes for every Republican candidate, and as fodder for every right wing show Faux airs!  UGH!

        Is stupid now spelled N E V A D A?

        "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by maggiemae on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:30:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the Nevada Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

        ... considers it a good idea to have a "news" channel that accused one of the party's rising candidates of being educated in a terrorist training school in Indonesia. WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MORONS RUN THE PARTY UP THERE? WHY ISN'T THE HEAD OF THE NEVADA DEMOCRATIC PARTY UPDATING HIS RESUME RIGHT NOW?

        "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

        by crazymoloch on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:50:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Western Majority Project DOES NOT EXIST (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NearlyNormal, mlv1055

      Google search, "Western Majority Project" (136 results)

      Google search, "Western Majority Project" -debate (0 results)

      This mystery group exists solely to partner Fox News and the Democratic Party together for this debate.

      Does the Western Majority Project = Harry Reid?

      I'm happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate.  Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular.

    •  No! Dems Should Accept Debate & Attack Fox (0+ / 0-)

      All the candidates should accept the debate and then spend all of their time not responding to the questions asked, but merely attacking Fox for its lies and propaganda.  The candidates could all coordinate their responses.  If each candidate gets 10 questions, each candidate should have a Power Point presentation with ten instances showing the bold-faced lies and double-standard of Fox.  The candidates could then end with a joint closing statement saying that Americans deserve more from their media, but Democrats are willing to give Fox another chance.  If Fox changes its coverage to a truly a fair and balanced, objective view of news, the Democrats promise to be back for a real debate in January before the Iowa Caucuses.  

      It is so crazy, it just might work!  Not.

      BTW, when Hillary breaks the agreement by accusing Dems are soft on terrorism, she will be contractually bound to wear a sandwich board that says "GOP Whore" for the next debate.

  •  How many of FOX's shrinking audience (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cheez Whiz

    will still be alive in November 2008?
    .

  •  Can't agree with your attitude. (6+ / 0-)

    Like it or not, a lot of people watch Fox News. Your name-calling won't change that. In fact, you come across as the childish one in this case.

    •  Lot's of people... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, munky

      And all (or at least most) are freakin Wingnuts... bottom line is that Fox screwed us in the past, screwed us in 06, and will screw us again.

      If you have a problem with that, then maybe you should go write Bill O about it.

    •  Not at all (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, esquimaux, madgranny

      Fox News takes more blatant partisan swipes and spreads more false information than any other "news organization" out there.

      And appearing on their programs is not going to change the opinions of those watching. Most of those watching do so because they like the message it is spreading and don't watch it for objective analysis.

    •  Lots of people watch porn, too. (14+ / 0-)

      Should we put the candidates in that?

      Fox News should be identified for what it is. Refraining from "name-calling" -- or as most people call it, "identification" -- won't change things, either.

    •  oh pleez (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DuvalDem, Joe B, Miss Blue, zombie, esquimaux

      First, there is no "fox news."  There is only Faux Nooz.  Nothing on fox is "news".  It is edited and selected based on propaganda purposes alone.  This "debate" is not a venue designed to inform voters.  It is a venue designed to make Democrats look bad.  That is ALL Faux Nooz cares about.  Not even making money matters more than that goal. This is not contestable.

      Secondly, a lot of really old people who won't vote for Dems anyway watch Faux Nooz.

      Third, Faux Nooz deserves any insult it receives, childish or no.  Faux Nooz "reporters" should be spit upon.  Faux Nooz executives should suffer a similar fate, but with a subsitution of the letter "h" for "p".

      Fourth, what motivated you to make your first ever reply to a Dkos story such a spirited defense of Faux Nooz?

      Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

      by Cheez Whiz on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:06:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with this... (5+ / 0-)

      GWB's approval ratings have gone from, what, 60-70% or more to about 30% over time? At least some of the 30-40% who've flipped must watch FOX Noise, even still. There's only so much filtering that FOX can do, unless they've come up with some kind of technology to literally change the words of the candidates as they come out of their mouths.

      The bastards can be beat on their home court. Wes Clark working as FOX's military analyst was a brilliant move, IMHO.

      -8.25, -6.26 "Joe Scarborough - not retarded. Tucker Carlson? Jury's still out." - Stephen Colbert

      by snookybeh on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:12:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe Nevada knows better than this blog (4+ / 0-)

        on what trips the locals' triggers. I'm tired of people that don't live in my state (Colorado) telling us how and what we should do, what candidates we should offer, what strategy we should partake of.

        Part of Dean's 50 state strategy is acknowledging that individual states know a hell of alot more about what to do and not do in their own backyard than a bunch of politicos on the East/West coast.

        I know plenty and I do mean plenty of folks that voted Dem in the last election. They also watch Fox.

        I realize that is not a scientific statement backed up with links. It does happen to be the truth. Just maybe not the truth that backs up this diary.

        "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Edward R. Murrow

        by Pager on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:25:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The implication is that if Fox and not, say MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

          hosts the debate then FOX viewers will watch it - but of course we're talking FOX viewers - will they really watch the debate or will they flip to NASCAR or Smack-down Wrestling or even CNN to watch more Britney shaving her head or whatever?

          The point is that FOX will screw us one way or another with their coverage. They will wrap Republican frames all around our candidates. It will, in the long run, be bad for us.

          Potential primary voters will turn to whatever channel is showing the debate if they want to see the candidates.

          There is no good reason to believe that putting it on FOX will appreciably increase the reach of the debate.

          Democracy is a contact sport...

          by jsmagid on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:49:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Fox is going to run a hatchet job. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DuvalDem, esquimaux, madgranny

      They're going to light the stage with flourescents, put extra feedback in the microphones and ask questions like "You've said in the past that you hate all Americans and love all terrorists.  My question is when do you plan to stop hating Americans just to get ellected?"

    •  No, a lot of people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, Miss Blue, madgranny

      are going to watch FOX carve up the content to trash the Democrats.  

      That was the point.
      .

    •  name calling??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CalifSherry, Miss Blue

      They are, in fact, a Propaganda machine.  Actually, agitprop is a more accurate term.

      What, you didn't hear about the Hillary/Obama madrassa incident?  

      Let me fill you in:  about a month ago, Moonie rag Insight Magazine published a smear, a double swiftboating, claiming that Hillary had put them onto a "lead" that Obama had been taught in a radical Islamic madrassa while living in Indonesia with his mother and his stepfather, when he was in grade school.  Fox took up the smear and ran with it, spilling the bile all over their newsroom floors and pundit pulpits.  They even persisted a bit with the libel after CNN reported, a few days later, that they had investigated and found the school Obama attended to be a secular institution, one that had all kinds of kids at it and totally not a madrassa.

      Fox never apologized and Obama subsequently refused to be interviewed by them.  They are a wingnut agitprop organ and should be treated as such.  

      I remember when Lamont shellacked Lieberman in the Dem primary last year and they went live to listen long and reverentially while Lieberman announced that he would run as an indie (GOP standin) and then the talking head proudly proclaimed that, since they were "fair and balanced" they would go listen to Lamont's victory speech.  They had him on for a few minutes of a rousing talk that covered a wide range of social and political ills that need to be addressed, and the anchor cut him off just when he was getting going, saying basically "well, that isn't very interesting, let's go back to our guy at the Lieberman event."

      The ulitmate irony is that the madrassa scandal is the ideal opportunity for the Dems to isolate and neuter Fox and the Moonie publications.  That the Dem leadership hasn't monopolized on this is indicative of the straits we are in, even after a resounding electoral victory.  Reid and Pelosi should have weeks ago called for a Dem interview-boycott of Fox and the NY Post because of the scurrulous Obama smear and they should have made it a headline that Fox would spend the rest of the campaign season trying to live down.

      Instead, we have them carrying their petitions to Fox, wearing sackcloth and shuffling on their knees to the Temple of Murdoch.  

      What the Fuck?

      Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

      by nailbender on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:21:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't agree with YOUR attitude (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, sabishi

      Name calling?  This is the media outlet of Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin and your response is "....Your name-calling won't change that." (!?!?) Oh yes, and let's imagine what Brit Hume's first quesiton will be, "Which one of you aren't a supporter of terrorists?"

      Going on this station is like a spouse enabling a drunk to keep drinking.  This audience for Faux News is not going to vote for these guys.  They will watch to get the spin.  I can just see the runner now throughout the debate: "Democrat candidates explaining their cut and run strategy."  Lovely.

      This is a fake news organizaiton.  It's like professional wrestling before they finally admitted they were fake.  Some of their demographic still believed it was real.  They are a propaganda arm of the GOP.  When will you people realize this?  Ever?

      TrumanDem,....posting from the Bush Banana Republic of Florida

      by DuvalDem on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:22:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Name-calling? (0+ / 0-)

      Murdoch himself said Fox helps set the republican agenda.

  •  "Fox viewers aren't going to vote for our guy" (7+ / 0-)
    You know what?  Give them a chance.  There are a lot of dissatisfied conservatives out there- especially the libertarian types.  

    They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow." -Jon Stewart

    by Plays in Traffic on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:56:36 AM PST

    •  Let digruntled conservatives change the channel (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, crispycreme

      There are other venues and channels for conservatives to get the news and learn about the world.

      "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." - Abe Lincoln

      by munky on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:01:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To what? (0+ / 0-)
        Not everybody gets MSNBC.  But if you want to win the West, I think putting Democrats out there is the way to do it.  Remember, you're actually going to have to change a lot of peoples' behavior.  Instead of getting high and mighty and saying "they should be forced to watch our channels to see our guys", let's just force them to change one thing at a time: first realize your party isn't serving you well, then realize your TV news channel isn't serving you well.  

        They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow." -Jon Stewart

        by Plays in Traffic on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:06:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  TVs out west get one channel now? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boadicea, Miss Blue, Blackacre
          •  Harry Reid: (0+ / 0-)
            "With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008."

            Harry knows we need several hundred thousand conservatives in the western states to SWITCH if we're going to win out there.  It's basic marketing- go to where your non-customers are, rather than expecting them to come to you

            They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow." -Jon Stewart

            by Plays in Traffic on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tell me this: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bree, My Philosophy, esquimaux

              How would Harry Reid's comment make any less sense if you scratched out FOX News and put in NBC?

              Dems have the market on NBC viewers cornered now?

              And FOX viewers won't change channels to see a Democratic debate?

              Those that won't may, in fact, be beyond hope. Honestly.

              Tell us all how someone who refuses to watch anything but FOX -- I mean literally refuses -- is reachable for us.

              •  people are creatures of habit, KX (0+ / 0-)

                I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who are no longer in the irrational 30% approval base but who still watch FAUX out of habit. They're not as media savvy as we are, and sure, maybe they're still getting propaganda from FOX but events have made them a bit less susceptible to it.

                I think, unless the Dems completely cede all control over the event to FOX, that this could be a good thing. We don't need to preach to the choir, we need to reach the people in the other church who are growing skeptical of their own.

                Or, as Adlai Stevenson said, when told that "all thinking people are behind you, sir": "That's not enough, I need a majority!"

                I'd feel better if it weren't being carried ONLY on FOX, though.

                -8.25, -6.26 "Joe Scarborough - not retarded. Tucker Carlson? Jury's still out." - Stephen Colbert

                by snookybeh on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:47:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can change channels by remote control now. (0+ / 0-)

                  If they want to hear what the Democratic candidates have to say for themselves, technology has provided a remarkably convenient method.

                  If they can't break the Fox habit for even an hour, how are they going to get off the couches to go vote?

                  The biggest immediate problem with having the debate on Fox -- leaving aside the question of whether it legitimizes a propaganda outfit -- is that we'll have no say in what frames the debate on either side.

                  Suppose they bend over backwards to pretend they're asking fair questions, but then give over the post-debate spin to a panel of wingnuts?

                  Any channel could do that, of course. But seriously, who's the single most likely to do so?

                  You know the answer is Fox.

              •  To add to this... (0+ / 0-)

                How much of the "willfully ignorant" vote (ie, people who literally refuse to flip the channel to anything but Fox) does this guy think we're gonna get?

                And second, even if we did manage to chip off some percentage of the willfully ignorant vote, do we really want these to be the people voting to decide the outcome of the Democratic Primary??

            •  Can't we all just get along and sing songs... (0+ / 0-)

              That's the attitude you have to have to even approach agreeing with your view here... I for one have a long memory...

              And the moderator for this so-called debate will probably be Bill O

            •  Tell me this: (0+ / 0-)

              What old boy in the local Nevada affiliates of Fox is a buddy of Harry's? Nevada is a small state with a tight knit elite. Bet this is local back slapping without a thought for the national picture. All the rest is just words.

              Anyone know?

        •  Fox viewers are already migrating away from Fox (3+ / 0-)

          Ratings show Fox viewership is down and MSNBC up. I think a minority of viewers (the liberal Republicans and moderate conservatives) are migrating away from Fox because they know it's all bullshit. The only remaining viewers are people who will never vote Democrat, the kind of people who are trolls at Daily Kos.

          "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." - Abe Lincoln

          by munky on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:10:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good Point. We should not help revive FoxNews (0+ / 0-)

            This is an attempt to make Fox News relevant and get back some viewers.  No Democrat should be propping up this RW propoganda tool.  Only Democrats would even consider it.  This is nuts and all the candidates should pass on this.

            It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

            by pioneer111 on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:19:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Plays in Traffic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux

          Not everybody gets MSNBC.  But if you want to win the West, I think putting Democrats out there is the way to do it.  Remember, you're actually going to have to change a lot of peoples' behavior.  Instead of getting high and mighty and saying "they should be forced to watch our channels to see our guys", let's just force them to change one thing at a time: first realize your party isn't serving you well, then realize your TV news channel isn't serving you well.  

          Appearing on Fox News as a democrat, even if you have all the right answers, is NOT going to change the behavior of these people - especially when the network is run by Rupert Murdoch who openly admits they try to shape agenda:

          Link: Murdoch Admits Trying To Shape Iraq War Agenda

          Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don’t think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."

          News organizations are NOT here to "shape agenda" - that is something a Ministry of Propaganda would do.

          Keep that in mind next time you think we need to use that "news outlet" to reach out. It is not worth it.

          •  Hate the shepherd, not the sheep (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            renaissance grrrl
            Not everybody who watches Fox is a bad person.  If this debate gets 5000 Fox viewers to consider voting for one of the candidates then it's worth it to me, and apparently it's worth it to Harry Reid and the Nevada Democratic Party

            They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow." -Jon Stewart

            by Plays in Traffic on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:31:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sagebrush Bob

              that just going on there we are saying that Fox News is a worthy network. And the way issues are framed and questions angled it will not help any democrats.

              I understand your point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

              •  Is ABC a worthy network? (0+ / 0-)
                No- but I guarantee there will be Democratic appearances and commercials there.  I really think that going on Fox is a bold move- going aggressive to get voters from their viewers.  Can you imagine that happening 3 years ago?  It's a sign of strength, a sign of confidence by the Nevada Democrats.  Maybe in addition to the 50-state strategy we need a 500-channel strategy: CONCEDE NOWHERE.

                They said I wasn't being funny. And I said to them, "I know that, but tomorrow I will go back to being funny, and your show will still blow." -Jon Stewart

                by Plays in Traffic on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:43:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  as I more or less said above... (0+ / 0-)

        given how much GWB's approvals have plummeted, at least SOME of the people who've changed their minds have watched FOX, and maybe some of them still do.

        If the Democrats can control things more or less instead of letting FOX control every aspect of the broadcast, this could actually be a good thing.

        -8.25, -6.26 "Joe Scarborough - not retarded. Tucker Carlson? Jury's still out." - Stephen Colbert

        by snookybeh on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:23:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They will have to stop watching FOX first (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree

      and they will not stop until they realise that FOX is propaganda boycotted by Democratic politicians.

      Obama/Clark 2008

      by Joe B on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:22:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Station of Ann Coulter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111

    Should not be hosting a single Democratic event.  Fox News should not being covering Democratic events until Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the other hate mongerers apologize for their smears on Democratic candidates over the years.

    Today's Kossack - fighting charges of anti-semitism one Jew at a time.

    by dmsarad on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:57:04 AM PST

  •  I think this post is naive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Asak, mcronan, haveaduff2

    First off, Murdoch and Hillary aren't making these deals in some cabalistic back-room in order to piss off all the bloggers. These negotiations are low-level affairs.

    Besides, how do you know that other nets were willing to carry the debates? Fox may have offered the most attractive package.

    Also, most Americans do not perceive Fox News as partisan. Crazy, I know, because it's so painfully obvious. But the blogosphere is way ahead of Middle America on this and I suspect will continue to be ahead for many elections to come.

    •  wrong (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe B, bree, nailbender, esquimaux, pioneer111

      Harry Reid endorsed the deal, it wasn't just low-level people.  And Fox did not offer the most attractive package: it comes with a Fox-appointed moderator and a Fox-appointed panel, and furthermore Fox was already given a chance to sponsor debates in the past, and when it did it demonstrated anti-Democratic bias.

      As to your point about Americans not perceiving Fox News as partisan: to change that, all we need to do is stop pretending that they are a real news organization. When Democrats boycott them, it will become obvious.

      •  at least I get the joke (0+ / 0-)

        about your Fox-inspired handle.

      •  exactly, and they have a perfect opportunity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bree

        in Madrassagate.  Here we have a double swiftboating by Fox and the Moonie publications that was almost immediately proven false by CNN, a smear that attacked the two leading Democratic candidates for President, Hillary and Obama, in one swipe.  Up to this point, Obama is the only one to step up and refuse to be interviewed by Fox.  (Hillary, on the other hand, is tight with Murdoch, having been feted by him at a fucking fundraiser a year and a half ago.)  Every single Democrat should, on the basis of this obvious, unrepented smear, refuse to be interviewed by the perpetrators.

        It is indicative of how the Dems are still in the thrall of DLC manipulation that they can't get off the dime and organize a boycott of Fox and the Moonie publications.

        Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

        by nailbender on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:38:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sabishi, pioneer111

      C'mon.  Most American's know exactly what Faux Nooz is.

      Play a John Stewart joke about Faux to anyone on the street.  Most will laugh.  And they're laughing because they know its true.

      Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

      by Cheez Whiz on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:08:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The other side (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, TexDem, LostInTexas, sherlyle, DW Dawg

    I wrote in UVa's law weekly that I think it's disgusting that candidates - even in the most gerrymandered districts - routinely ignore 40% of their constituents.  

    As a result, many people - even Democrats - believed me to be an asshole when I went to Allen campaign events to ask him questions I had on my mind...

    I want the democratic candidates raked over the coals.  In the end, the hotter the crucible, the better - we'll have a battle-tested candidate at the end of the process.

    All of that said, this is a bullshit move by Nevada Dems.  Murdoch is openly supporting Hilary.  Murdoch owns Fox.  I don't expect a level playing field for all of the candidates.

    And it sucks to put the field in this position.  Nevada will be a battleground state and no candidate can afford to snub the Nevada Democratic party.  Harry Reid should provide some cover here.

  •  I Already See It (8+ / 0-)

    "Senator Clinton, the next question is for you. If elected, you've promised to surrender to all terrorists while closing churches and block-granting billions of dollars to the gay sex industry. How would that differ from Senator Obama's plan to raise taxes by a trillion dollars and replace the American flag with a giant condom? Any daylight between your positions?"

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:59:45 AM PST

  •  Disappointed in Reid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuco35, esquimaux, Sagebrush Bob

    I was disappointed in Reid's, over-enthusiasm in having Fox as a partner:

    In making the announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "This is more great news for Nevada. I'm happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate. Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular. With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008."

    I mean, I know he has to say it, but Harry: eh.

    -- Stu

  •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, esquimaux, pioneer111

    Appearing or even dealing with that organization is only further validating them.

    Every true democrat if they are concerned about the future of our country should simply avoid that network and let it go about it's own business spewing lies and misinformation.

    •  It's attitudes like this... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcronan, Muir Woods

      ...that cost us elections. Use your head, not your heart.

      •  No (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, sherlyle, pioneer111

        What costs us elections is when we compromise our progressive values and become more like "them" - if people have to choose between the real deal and an impostor they go for the real deal.

        Fox News is NOT a credible news organization. Period.

        By appearing on that network, people are basically lending it credence - and doing so when the network has folks like Bill O among others is akin to supporting hate speech.

        And this IS using my head thank you very much.

      •  Have you ever actually watched Fox News? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bree, mango, pioneer111

        They do NOT ask questions in such a way as to elicit information from Democrats.  They do not "discuss" anything.  They insinuate.  They smear.  They accuse.  They cut off debate.  They twist and distort.  They are purely a tool for the Republican party in general and the Bush administration in particular.  All questions will be slanted and then ridiculed.  

        •  yes, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle

          they are also not the sharpest tools in the shed, and are capable of being upstaged and/or made fools of by smart liberals. Wes Clark vs. Bill Orally comes to mind...

          -8.25, -6.26 "Joe Scarborough - not retarded. Tucker Carlson? Jury's still out." - Stephen Colbert

          by snookybeh on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:18:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes attitudes like mine cost you elections (0+ / 0-)

        I smell a republican.

        "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

        by Quanta on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:58:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  we can't just... (0+ / 0-)

      click our heels together and wish them into the cornfield. (sorry for the mixed metaphor.) Much as I hate those bastards, they're going to be around, and still have influence, regardless of our boycotting or ignoring them.

      I say  better to take the fight to the enemy. they can be beat, they're not that clever. I hope they DO have Orally involved somehow - easy pickings. but Even Brit Fumes would be easily played by most anyone in the Democratic field.

      -8.25, -6.26 "Joe Scarborough - not retarded. Tucker Carlson? Jury's still out." - Stephen Colbert

      by snookybeh on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:46:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    It. Isn't. A. News. Channel.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:02:42 AM PST

  •  That's.Just.Fucking.Stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    Oh well...we may just survive bush's presidency after all...except the piece of shit is putting missiles in Poland (remember Poland?) as "defense" against an Iranian strike (huh?)...anyway, this should get Putin into high gear for the next arms race, and Nevada Democrats will be the last thing on peoples' minds.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:02:59 AM PST

  •  Obama had it right!! (6+ / 0-)

    When they helped put up that factually challenged hatchet job on him, he froze 'em out. And other Democratic candidates would be wise to follow suit...

    •  I agreee 100% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle

      That's the exact same thing the Bush administration did to the media to get them to "behave."  The media is dying to get next to popular candidates.  They can pick and choose the media they will court.  That, in turn, affects both the media outlets credibility and ratings.  If they're locked out by a candidate then they don't have anything more to say than any other media outlet and have nothing new to offer.

    •  right on (0+ / 0-)

      see my posts, above.

      Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

      by nailbender on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:50:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Leverage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CalifSherry, pioneer111

    Here is the issue-

    There is no evidence the Nev. Dems are making any DEMANDS of FOX... i.e. who is the moderator?  It would actually not upset me if it were just Brit Hume up there- much as I despise him- at least he's an outed conservative.

    They could also demand seating arrangements and title (i.e. Democratic Debate)--

    If they were smart at all they'd place the blame on the candidates "Hillary, Obama and Edwards won't participate unless you...")

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:05:11 AM PST

  •  90 minutes of ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle

    So, when did you stop beating your wife?  Questions.

  •  Not that I would ever imply a fix in Nevada, (0+ / 0-)

    but, given the increasingly friendly relationship between Murdoch and the Clintons, plus:

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/...

    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    6:23 p.m. February 18, 2007

    WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, but his son has.
    Rory Reid is signing on as Nevada chairman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid. He will be senior adviser on Western issues including public lands, transportation, resources and conservation, growth and affordable housing, the New York senator's campaign said in a statement Sunday.

    Reid, 44, is chairman of the Clark County, Nev., Commission and a former chairman of the Nevada State Democratic Party...

    Forget your stupid theme park! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack! In fact, forget the theme park! --Bender

    by catzilla on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:05:58 AM PST

  •  Phoney Baloney (0+ / 0-)

    Kos is frantic because he thinks Fox will favor Mrs. Clinton, who is on good terms with Rupert Murdock.  And Kos loathes the Clintons.

     

    •  I Don't Know Of Your Use Of "Frantic" - "Loathes" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pioneer111

      But I don't see what's wrong with that. Shoot, it makes the debates even more potentially dangerous -- a most influential wingnut (Murdoch) meddling in our primaries.

      "One thing we want during this war of terror is for people to feel like their life moving on." George W. Bush, 1/07

      by chuco35 on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:18:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Kos (0+ / 0-)

    I read your diary yesterday about this, and I was disgusted.  Thanks for this update, but sheesh, I'm still disgusted.  You say

    Fox viewers aren't going to vote for our guy.

    Truer words have never been spoken.  That's the beginning and end of the argument as far as I'm concerned.  So why the hell are they still going ahead with this lunacy? WTF?

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed." Abe Lincoln

    by mdgarcia on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:06:22 AM PST

  •  'Fox's dying viewership' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mango

    That's funny, heh, heh...

    In a morbid way, of course...

    Israel has one legitimate and urgent demand to make of the Palestinians: that they not attack Israelis.

    by litho on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:07:14 AM PST

  •  Kos...i think you are misguided about Olberman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eddie Haskell, rainmanjr

    look, i love watching Olberman. he's funny, entertaining thoughtful and...he agrees with me all the time. he is hardly the middle of the road guy who you think should be hosting the debate...he is the liberals answer to Fox news (a more intelligent and honest answer, that is)

    •  Huh... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree

      "he is the liberals answer to Fox news"

      That may be true.  But you would never hear Keith asking a candidate questions like "when did you stop beating your wife".  He has a decidedly liberal bias, so what.  Why would you want someone with a conservative bias as the host of a Democratic debate?  The fact of the matter is that you would be hard put to find any news commentator (you notice I didn't say journalist) who isn't biased one way or another.

      •  when did you stop beating your wife? (0+ / 0-)

        Olberman is the only MSM tv personality with a clear liberal bent. that is why i said he is the liberals answer to fox news. would he ask someone about beating their wife? no...thats why i said he was a more honest and intelligent answer. But kos made the point that:

        Why not go to MSNBC and Keith Olberman, who is picking up much of Fox's dying viewership, or any of the other cable news networks who don't have a polarized hostile partisan audience?

        Im sorry, but you would be hard pressed to find a cable news show with a more polarized hostile partisan and liberal audience than Countdown. Just because we are liberals, doesnt mean we cant be polarizing, hostile and partisan.

        Why would you want someone with a conservative bias as the host of a Democratic debate?

        i didnt say that.

        you would be hard put to find any news commentator (you notice I didn't say journalist) who isn't biased one way or another.

        yes, and what a shame it is. Might i also add that the quality of intelligence is also lacking in this group...

        and btw,
        who asked whom about wife beating?

  •  One station TVs in West? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mango

    Fox viewers lost the remote?  Come on, that is a very lame excuse.  And all Fox is going to do is make fun of  all the candidates.  So no votes to be gotten with their viewers.

    The candidates should do like Obama and boycott Fox.  It is not a legitimate news station.

  •  So, why did Clinton (Bill) appear on Fox? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcronan, malharden

    He wiped the floor with Chris Wallace. Let's see more of that.

    Running away and hiding from Murdoch and his goons won't stop them.

  •  Olbermann, man! (0+ / 0-)

    2 'n's - don't piss him off now!

  •  Obama bans Fox, skips Fox News "debate". (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, Eddie Haskell, rainmanjr

    Nice to see one candidate putting Fox in its place.

    Obama has taken on Fox, refusing to do interviews for Fox News. He is also skipping the Fox News/Nevada appearance.

    However, we have seen netroots (well the Edwards supporters mostly) criticize Obama for skipping the Nevada/Fox News debate.

    Perhaps other candidates should follow Obama's lead in dealing with Fox?

  •  Sigh...god dammit (0+ / 0-)

    just as it seems as though the party is on the right path...

    Obama? '08? Oh yea!

    by Skulnick on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:16:00 AM PST

  •  Though Fox veiwership is (0+ / 0-)

    predominantly conservative Republicans to argue that they are 100% partisans who will not vote for a Democrat is an inaccurate portrayal.  In 2003, PIPA found that roughly half of all Fox viewers were self-identified Republicans.  Though that respresents a predominantly Republican bias, it is an overexaggeration to say that all of Fox's viewers are partisan Republicans. The rest were Democrats (20%) and Independents (24%).  Though I understand your concerns, the Nevada Democratic Party's response is valid.

    -6.13 -6.15 There are lies, damn lies, accounting lies, statistical lies and Republican lies; nothing tops the GOP

    by ecostar on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:16:33 AM PST

  •  Our candidates should simply refuse to appear on (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sele, IndyScott, LordMike, 0wn

    Fox News.  Ever.

    And the sooner this policy is implemented, the better.

    Look how Fox News freaked out when Obama cold-shouldered them a few weeks ago.  They knew that cost them a lot of viewers.  Imagine how they'd feel if each and every Democratic candidate, consultant, and pundit did the same thing?

    First, it would correct any vestigial sentiment that their motto is anything other than "We Report and Decide For You What's Right," for those few people who aren't yet clear on that.  Second, it would create a huge firestorm of publicity from every other media outlet in the world for all of the candidates who do choose to ignore Fox News.  Third, exactly how many Fox News viewers are there who could be swayed by any amount of debate among Democrats?  I imagine it's a very, very small percentage.

    Fox News is no more credible as a news organization than was Pravda in the Soviet era.  There is no reason for any of us to treat it as any more than Pravda.

    Dividing is easy. It's sticking together that's hard. - jotter

    by Eddie Haskell on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:22:26 AM PST

    •  I used to believe the opposite... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sele, Eddie Haskell, 0wn

      ..but seeing how successful Obama's freezeout has been, I'm convinced!

      No democrat should participate in this sham of a debate.  They will get my support and my $$$ if they do so.

      Thanks,

      Mike

      •  I used to believe the opposite, as well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sele

        I've worked in broadcasting almost my whole adult life and have always, until recently, believed that it was best for both the public and the candidates to get exposure on as many media outlets as possible, whether or not the outlet was deemed "friendly."

        No more.  

        Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republic Party.  Any appearances by Democrats on Fox News, even in "favorable" or "nonpartisan" settings, aids and abets the network in putting forth its lie that it is a real news organization.

        Morever, imagine the amount of money that Democrats will spend on advertising this year and next.  It will be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.  We should work very hard to make sure Fox gets almost none of that.

        • No appearances.
        • No advertising.
        • No debates.
        • No commentaries.
        • No quips.
        • No comments, period.

        Now, we know that the Fox News derives a large portion of its revenue by catering to rightwing viewers.  But some percentage of that comes from Nielsen counting some of us, too.  What percentage is that?  Maybe 15 or 20%?  No broadcaster can survive if it loses 20% of its revenue base.  The profit margins are not that high.  So, LET them cater to the 33% of the potential audience comprised of wingnuts, flatearthers, and global warming denyers. If the rest of us simply refuse to participate, the whole news group goes down the tubes, pun intended.

        Every other news organization in the world would be carrying the huge news of how one of the two big American political parties has decided to tell a whole network to stuff it.  How would Fox spin that?  The only thing they could do with a story like that is further marginalize themselves, moving further and further to the right.  It would be an absolute riot to see it happen.  The trick for us would be to resist the temptation to tune in to watch the implosion as it happened.  

        Then, as 2009 dawns with a new Democratic administration in the white house, watch how fast Rupert fires the current crew of rightwing cronies and puts some fairness and balance back in Fair and Balanced.

        Dividing is easy. It's sticking together that's hard. - jotter

        by Eddie Haskell on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:01:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Markos, I AM YOU!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111

    Ah, I love it when you tell it like it is! It's just what I would say! Damn, I'm riled!!!

    The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. -Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Joshua Lyman on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:22:35 AM PST

  •  Power (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats need to learn more about the nature of power.  Part of being in power is exercising that power, and part of that power is cutting off unwanted messages, and closing centers of opposing power(s) out of the loop.  By allowing Fox to host a Democratic candidate debate, Democrats are diluting their new-found power and giving it to the opposition.  A very unwise move.

  •  Grrrr....... (0+ / 0-)

    Although I think Chris Wallace has become less partisan.

    His hard hitting interview with Doug Fieth was well done, imho and he asked him some really tough questions.

    I would vote for MSNBC.

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:25:01 AM PST

  •  Fox needs to be TOTALLY marginalized as (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyScott, Sagebrush Bob, 0wn, pioneer111

    a cartoon channel. Olbermann's addition of a laugh track to Brit Hume's rants is genius. How about showing Hannity's head on a stick?

    Everybody over the cliff? Let's do it together, then!

    by waltoon on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:25:54 AM PST

  •  As much as I hate the Faux Noise Channel (0+ / 0-)

    This isn't a new thing as they also had a Democratic debate for the 2004 election. Faux co-hosted it with the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Kyle Orton for Bears QB '07

    by TheJohnny on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:33:55 AM PST

    •  Yeah, and part of the reason (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, 0wn, lisastar

      there's such outrage THIS time is the record of how the Democrats were treated by Fox's coverage of that '04 debate.

      No one is saying this is new. That's not the issue. The issue is that we have what is called a "memory", that based on that same "memory" Fox is now viewed as firmly in the opposition's camp and is politically toxic to our minds, and for our own party to give them any further legitimacy at this late hour is simply outrageous.

  •  How do you square a FNC boycott (0+ / 0-)

    with a 50 state strategy?  I mean to just ignore the biggest cable news outlet is flat-out stupid.  Even if 80 percent of their viewership is die-hard 100% never vote Democrat, that leave about the same number of malleable minds as we're likely to find on CNN and MSNBC (remember to subtract the votes we already have in the bag among those demos).  Ignore FNC at your own peril.  Better to go on there and call bullshit early and often.

    "The only difference between me and the Surrealists is that I am a Surrealist" S. Dali

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:38:52 AM PST

  •  I don't think that (0+ / 0-)

    Many of the Faux Noise Groupies will change their minds after the debate.

    I wonder what phrases they will smear after the debate?

  •  Obama is right to fight Fox News (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lisastar

    "Still it isn`t a bad idea to get coverage on fox because the democrats will reach an audience who never hear their side."

    No freaking way!  

    They don't "hear" any side except Fox News yellow journalism because that's what they want to hear. Sane people don't watch O'Reilly or Cavuto for anything other than validation of their right wing views. Screw 'em.

    Obama is totally right for freezing out Fox News.  Nevada Democratic Party is wrong for giving Fox News anything.

  •  they are sleeping with the enemy (0+ / 0-)

    I dont watch fox anything, keeps my blood pressure down.

  •  my dream (0+ / 0-)

    All Dems boycott fox.
    As elections heat up, fox berates Dems for boycotting network.
    Caveman viewers wonder why Dems like rockstar Obama are boycotting fox.
    Caveman viewers tune into other networks to see what the brouhaha is about.
    Caveman viewers hear other viewpoints.

    Remember to call Congress and call often

    by lisastar on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:07:45 AM PST

  •  Kos's Reasons for boycotting Fox News (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with Kos in that the Nevada Democratic debate should not be on Fox, but for vastly different reasons.

    1.  I do not think it is the Democratic Party or Liberals' job to "destroy" Fox News.  They do a tremendous job of doing that to themselves.  I do no think we should mollycoddle them either.  We should praise them when they do good and boycott them when they do bad.  We should not act with purpose to destroy them.
    1.  I don't think the Nevada Democratic Debate should be on Fox because I do not think they will accurately portray the debate or the participants.  Just because Fox News will broadcast it in its entirety does not mean that Fox will not be able to add a conservative frame of reference or even conservative propoganda to the ticker at the bottom or in the commercials it decides to run during the debate (or before and after if no commercials are run during the debate).
    1.  I do think that Nevada Democrats are mostly right in attempt to use a traditionally conservative news outlet, in that they are more likely to reach a large audience of people that they normally wouldn't.  However, in this case, as I previously stated, due to past experiences, I do not think that Fox will air the debate without bias.  The Nevada Democrats are trusting Fox to be unbiased and comprehensive in their coverage, and they probably will not.

    So, for me, it basically comes down to this question:  Stay with unbiased news outlets that have a mere percentage of the viewership of Fox, or go with the news outlet that has huge coverage but will almost guarantee to cast aspersions on the debate and its participants?  It's tough to ignore that huge audience, so I definitely empathize with the Nevada Democrats.

  •  Traveling across the great basin (0+ / 0-)

    half a dozen times in the last couple of years I've found that there is very little alternative to Fox news and the various jesus channels across the region.  This might be the only venue that some will see democratic candidates on.  I'm surprised that we did as well as we did through the mountain west given the lack of progressive voices compared to the subsidized right wing blather prevalent wherever radio reaches.  Onc can literally go for hours at a pretty good rate of speed and hear nothing but Rush, Hannity, right-wing angry jesus and maybe some bad country music on the radio.

    "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

    by NearlyNormal on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:17:08 AM PST

  •  Shouldn't be on FNC or MSNBC. (0+ / 0-)

    As you say, Kos, Fox will only reach a Rethug audience who aren't interested.  But MSNBC will only reach a Dem. public who are already in the fold.  It should be carried on CBS, CNN, or CNBC in order to reach both parties and Ind's.  We are not likely to win without picking up some Rethug voters.  So, we must reach them, too.  It's true that Fox is losing viewers, and MSNBC is gaining some, but it's not clear if those lost viewers have gone to MSNBC.  The rise in ratings could be from people who've become sick of CNN.    

    "Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?" - The Joker

    by rainmanjr on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:17:40 AM PST

  •  Democratic Debate on Fox (0+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that there are obvious reasons why this is a bad idea.

    It gives Fox the opportunity to claim that they are fair and balanced.

    It brings people who don't watch Fox to the Fox network.

    Regular Fox viewers won't vote Democratic anyway and probably won't bother to watch.

    Fox has all the advantages in this arrangement.  The Nevada Democratic Party will lose some and gain nothing.

    The last thing that Democrats should do is bring viewers to Fox.

  •  Freeze Faux (0+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why any Democrat would be seen on Fox.  I think the only way to fight them is to freeze them out.  All Democrats should refuse to be seen on Faux Noise until such time as Faux Noise proves themselves to be even somewhat "fair and balanced".  

    No one who watches Faux Noise is going to vote for a Democrat based on anything they see on Faux.  If a Democrat appears on any of their shows they are either talked over, ignored and/or belittled.  Plus the stupid cyrons that show under the pictures are always misleading or outright lies.

    Freeze Faux!  

  •  Fox News had some of the best debates last time (0+ / 0-)

    As partisan and as crappy as the channel is, last cycle Fox News had some of the best debates.  I remember the ones from CNN being especially terrible.  Fox News can be competent and even halfway decent when they try to be.  I really think this is much ado about nothing.  

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:47:08 AM PST

  •  Let the Tomatoes and Vegetables Fly! (0+ / 0-)

    At the risk of being pelted, I'd like to by the contrarian of that position.  I agree that Cheny has been no good to the country, and frankly no good to Bush or to his party.

    However, don't we always dream about an elected official that would do the 'right thing' as opposed to the 'politically correct thing'?  With Cheney, it's clear he's not doing the right thing, but he's also not letting the implications to his party bear on him one bit.  He's not doing the politically correct thing either.  

    A tax hike is a perfect example of this...very likely to piss off voters, but in some situations the right thing to do.  Cheney and Bush might feel that they are doing the country good.  Cheney is pretty clear about paving over Congress (and the judiciary), and up until Nov. 2006, he was doing a 'heckuva of job' (not in the Brownie way).  What president wouldn't want more power?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site