Skip to main content

(From the diaries. Among other things, it's great seeing grassroots Nevada Democrats speaking out against their "leadership's" brain-dead actions -- kos.)

Over the past week and a half, many of us have been engaged in a very public conversation with the Nevada Democratic Party leadership on their choice to have Fox News host a Presidential forum in August in Nevada.  3500 of you sent emails to Nevada State Party Chair Tom Collins through Blogpac.  Moveon has a petition, and Robert Greenwald has created a video at FoxAttacks where the petition is hosted to demonstrate the partisan nature of Fox News as an information source.

The argument that we've made is not that the Fox News audience is bad in and of itself.  It's important to talk to the whole public; the election of Howard Dean to DNC Chair was about the 50 state strategy, and no one has pushed that strategy harder than the progressive wing of the party.  And it worked, in 2006, as we elected a whole host of members of Congress that seemed unlikely to win when insiders in DC were drawing up their prognostications for yet another swing state strategy.   No, the problem that we have is that allowing Fox News to singlehandedly host the debate gives that channel the legitimacy of claiming to be a real news source.  If the Democratic Party places its highest and most valuable political debate - that over our nominee to the Presidency - on Fox News, we are giving a Republican partisan news outlet the ability to argue that they are not biased.  We force thousands of diehard Democrats to watch a Republican propaganda outlet, and allow Fox News to spin and impute meaning to the debate.  This is a serious problem.

The reaction to our reasonable request has unfortunately not been what we had hoped.  Harry Reid has basically stayed silent, and as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country, and certainly the most powerful in Nevada, he has a part in this decision.  It's hard to believe that he would not take some interest in a Presidential forum in his state.  After a few days, several Nevada union leaders, including Danny Thompson of the Nevada AFL-CIO, D. Taylor of the Culinary Union, and Rusty McAllister of the Firefighters, backed the choice of Fox News by Tom Collins of the Nevada State Democratic Party, arguing that Democrats need to reach out to a diverse audience segment.  Of course, Fox News makes regular and dishonest arguments against the minimum wage, for corporate abuses, and for privatizing Social Security.  Prominent Fox News figures use misleading statistics to bolster the case for right-wing economics, and we can be sure that Fox News is very willing to spread lies about stronger labor law protections.

The reaction was not uniformly negative.  Michael Zahara, a Clark County member of the Nevada State Democratic Party’s Executive Board, bravely and publicly argued that this decision was a poor one, and more to the point, was made in a veil of secrecy.  

In the case of the decision to include FOX News in our partisan pre-caucus debate this August, apparently those who made this decision forgot who and what FOX News is and who and what our opponents are. This was not a NV Dems decision, this was a unilateral move without the consultation of the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of the State of Nevada, nor the executive boards of the other sponsor states.

He went on to point out that grassroots Nevada Democrats are unhappy with this decision:

The overwhelming majority of our State Central Committee and our voters have a big problem with this decision. My email box is filled with the opinions of those who elected me to my position on the Board and others. 75% are in favor of my views on this matter.

Despite various leaders backing the decision with lukewarm calls for diversity, it looks like the majority of Nevada Democrats paying attention to this discussion do not like Fox News's role in the Presidential forum.

Now to be clear, many of us who disagreed with the Nevada Democratic Party's choice of Fox News are not averse to having Fox News broadcast the debate.  We simply object to having Fox News legitimized as a neutral news source by being the sole host of the debate.  As such, some of our allies asked the Nevada Democratic Party if they would allow Air America to co-host the debate and have equal panelists to balance Fox News and their partisan approach to politics.  This would have accommodated their desire to reach conservatives while also making it clear that Fox is not a neutral news outlet.  It would further increase the diversity of the viewership of the debate.  I believe that we're open to other arrangements as well, anything that does not legitimize Fox News as a neutral news outlet.

The Nevada State Democratic Party rejected these requests.  Tom Collins, who is the Chair of the Party, apparently does not think that Fox News's partisan agenda is enough to warrant a reexamination of the debate arrangement, or even a real conversation about how the party handles the Presidential contest.  In fact, it's impossible to find out who made the decision to let Fox News host the debate.  As Michael Zahara said:  

Regrettably, no one is owning up to this mistake and by all appearances,it was FOX that came with their Trojan Horse to those who made this decision. We simply don't know what the truth is at this point, and likely never will.

I'm less concerned with who is responsible and more interested in immediately relieving FOXNEWS of their participation in our partisan event and protecting our candidates and Caucus...

As I said before, none of us on the Executive Board of the NSDP, or the other states were in the loop on this. The outgoing Chair may have felt that he had the authority to act unilaterally, but many of us believe he should have consulted us. Trust that this decision very likely wouldn't have passed a vote of our E-Board, and would not have garnered the support of our State Central Committee here in Nevada.

Clearly something is not right in how this decision was made.  Nevada Democrats do not support it, the Executive Board never voted on it, and I doubt that many who mouthed support for this decision were fully briefed on what this decision meant.

What is needed right now in Nevada is the kind of leadership shown by Democrats like Michael Zahara.  Senator Reid, the most powerful official in Nevada and a key leader in the national Democratic Party, is either part of these decisions or could substantively accommodate our legitimate concerns.  At this point, he's simply being silent and evasive, just like the Nevada Democratic Party (this despite Fox News's constant and baseless attacks on his patriotism and character).

Please call Reid's offices and ask him to not legitimize Fox News as a neutral news outlet.  If you are not in Nevada, use this number: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

If you live in Nevada, use this number, which is restricted to 775 and 702 area codes: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

It's time to let Senator Reid know that we want him to act like a good Democrat and ensure that the candidate forum in August treats the Democratic Party and our Democratic leaders vying for the Presidency with the respect that they deserve.  Treating Fox News as a neutral news outlet by letting them solely host this debate does not do that.

And feel free to leave an account of your conversation in the comment thread.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:15 PM 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

  •  Senator Reid needs vitamins. (7+ / 0-)

    And maybe a workout routine. Come on Senator, we need you, you're on point.

    > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

    by kck on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:48 PM PST

    •  Reid's Failing on More Than Just Kissing Up FAUX (9+ / 0-)

      There's this war going on in Iraq, see, and Reid seems to want to fund it for another couple of years.

      So I am far more pissed about Iraq than I am about a little groveling to FAUX.

      Lefty!!!

      "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

      by LeftyLimblog on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:25:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is more too it that no one seems to be (20+ / 0-)

        talking about.

        Hillary Clinton.

        There is only one candidate who benefits from having Faux News cover this. Hillary.

        I don't think this was an innocent thing on any part of the Nevada Party committee. Nevada has been a backer of Hill's for a long time with a good deal of fundraising and money flow back and forth.

        Add to that, Hillary's newfound "friendship" with Rupert Murdoch...you know the guy that owns Fox...and his promise (I hear, which so far the way they are bashing Obama looks like it is true) to help Hill with getting good press coverage and you have all the mixings of a very well designed strategic move from Clinton and Co.

        Murdoch gets all the ammo to take down her opponents while any criticism of her will be mild, then when she wins and onto the general, he wins either way as long as he has a corporatist (which Hill is one of the biggest) regardless of which Party takes the general. Can we say more media consolidation?

        Obama, Edwards, Kucinich...REFUSE to go to this damn thing. It will only give your opponents ammo. Obama has the most to lose, then Edwards.

        Richardson I didn't include because my sources tell me he isn't a serious candidate but just vying for a VP slot with Hill.

        "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

        by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:54:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Forgot to add (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MontanaMaven, bablhous, blueoasis

          That I don't think Reid is exactly innocent in this too. Yes, partly it maybe that he wants this for Nevada but that would not explain using Fox over more reputable outlets.

          Reid wants a "centrist" Dem. I wouldn't be surprised if the isn't also helping the Clintons on this.

          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:56:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look - Fox Is Bias (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wary, cks175

            but so is most of the MSM in one way or another. Yeah Fox is worse but still - they do offer Democrats a voice ALL THE TIME.

            Diane Feinstein was just on FNS this Sunday. Others recently on include Webb, Rangel, Reed, Levin and others for years now. I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

            How about Bill Clinton tearing Chris Wallace a new asshole of Fox?

            All of these people have had a chance to voice our views ON FOX.

            And again I will mention that Fox broadcast two (2) Democratic Presidential Debates in 2004 and did it fairly with a diverse team of moderators from both sides of the spectrum on each debate.

            I just think it is damned silly to be attacking Reid and the Nevada Democratic party. Damed Silly!

            If we don't like Fox even though people like Bill Clinton and Jim Webb chose to go on there then I suggest a boycott of their sponsors but not an attack on our own.

            Republicans are know for EATING THEIR OWN. Are we now following that shining example?

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:12:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where are the progressive Dems in that line-up? (6+ / 0-)

              The strawman arguments don't work. All the MSM support corporate candidates, sure, but Fox is nothing but a arm of the RNC.

              Fox "debates" were a joke. No real debating going on.

              I have yet to hear a logical argument on why Fox SHOULD be the chosen media outlet.

              I am sticking to my theory. Based on the politics of my state which are very similar to Nevada, I say this thing is rigged for Clinton.

              As far as "eating our own", when they actually ARE our own, I will give that argument more credibility. I don't see too many Democrats acting like Democrats lately, especially on the War.

              Russ Feingold in the Senate and a handful in the House. That's about it for "our own" and I am not chewing any of them up.

              "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

              by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:21:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Come on! (0+ / 0-)

                FNS has been hosting Progressive guests for years now. I guess I should have mentioned Pelosi has been a guest many times but I didn't think I would have to.

                And oh by the way. Feingold has been on Fox FNS.

                If you want to 'write-off' the rest of who I mentioned go ahead - but their voting record on progressive issues is not all that bad!

                "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:37:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bablhous, blueoasis

                  The issue isn't who appears on Faux, the issue is why they are the ones hosting a Democratic debate--for the Democratic Primary, especially since more legit outlets should have been chosen. Congress--I DO check their votes. You and I must have a very different definition of "progressive".

                  "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                  by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:52:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well Everyone Has (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wary

                    their own definition of "progressive". Yours seems narrower than most.

                    Again Fox has hosted our debates in the past with no ill effect. And when they did host twice in 2004 no one complained then. I'm just wondering why people are complaining now and to what purpose.

                    All that I read here is that if our candidates go on Fox they will pay a political price with us. OK so now we are using Extortion on our own candidates. Lovely. That ought to earn their respect for this community.

                    On the other hand if they 'boycott' the event to your wishes then they will pay a political price with the American public for being so petty. Yeah that will win the WH for us!

                    And then there is Nevada. Arguably one of the western states we need to win to win the WH. So do you really think if our candidates 'boycott' the debate that it will help us win Nevada. No it won't. In fact you could write off Nevada at that point and probably a whole bunch of other state.

                    Think about it. Do you want those ramifications just so you can have a "personal" Got-Ya on Fox?

                    If so you are foolishly willing to pay an extraordinary  high price for a petty vendetta.

                    "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                    by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:14:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Mine seems to be narrower? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bablhous, flautist, blueoasis

                      Then why do the majority of Americans agree with me on the war and not the Democrats in Congress who are doing nothing?

                      "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                      by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:29:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Why Do You Have (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Wary

                        a narrower definition of "progressive"? Because you said so:

                        "Russ Feingold in the Senate and a handful in the House. That's about it for "our own"..."

                        So in the Senate you say Feingold is the sole Progressive. Gee I can think of many others but why waste time listing them as you have wrote them off.

                        As for Americans agreeing with you, they also agree with me because we are both against the war. They also agree with me that defunding the war is a bad idea. So the truth is the public would love to see congress do all that is within their power to get us out of Iraq - short of defunding.

                        Maybe that will change but right now that is how they feel and besides we don't have 51 votes to defund it anyway.

                        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                        by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:49:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Reid has been playing to the corporatists... (0+ / 0-)

                          since the beginning, loves the DLC, enabled Lieberman, and thumbs his nose at progressives after he has their votes.  And Talex, you sure are a combative and consistent supporter of Fox news and Rupert Murdoch.  I'm sure they and he appreciate it, although I sure don't.

                          Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

                          by Glorfindel on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:07:48 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Once again you are not addressing the issues (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MTgirl, bablhous

                      This isn't a General election debate, it is a Primary one. Make a legitimate argument on why Faux news should be the outlet for a Primary debate when they are a known branch of the the Republican machine and Murdoch has already had a huge fundraiser for one of the candidates. You keep circumventing the real issue with nonsense.

                      And by the way, we can do any damn thing we want to our elected officials. We elected them. We are paying their salaries. They work for US. When was the last time you let your employee boss you around, act in the worst interest of your company, etc.? They represent us, or we fire them. Simple.

                      "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                      by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:34:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It's Too Late (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm sure that contract has been signed between Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party. So put that to rest. Fox will broadcast it.

                        Now the question is why are so may here insisting that the Candidates boycott this debate and if they don't they will pay a price with the members of dkos? How is that smart?

                        Oh I see. You are the boss. So if they don't listen to you then it is fine that they lose the election in '08. Better to have the republicans in the WH right? War hawk McCain will be the price the country pays because the candidates went on Fox!!!

                        If that is what you are thinking I got news for you...

                        You aren't thinking at all.

                        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                        by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:11:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  When your employee F@#ks up your company (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MTgirl, bablhous

                          You fire them.

                          Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

                          Oh, because you think we work for them, and not the other way around.

                          What did you think Howard Dean meant when he said "You  have the Power"?

                          I took it as he meant we DO have the power--so use it!

                          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:23:50 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Goodbye Cushie (0+ / 0-)

                            You are so far to the Left that you have fell of a cliff and bumped your head.

                            You don't care if the Dem's lose - you have already stated that. Instead you want some mythical party that consists of "Feingold and a handful of others to win".

                            Bye.

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:52:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are allowing your emotions to get in the (0+ / 0-)

                            way of reason.

                            Yes, it's a primary debate.  But the primaries will be over soon after Nevada.  By the time South Carolina rolls around, the way the national Dems have arranged this primary cycle, there will be one contender left standing.  

                            So even while the remaining primaries are held, the primary candidate will have already been decided.  

                            In other words, the general election cycle will already have begun.  And a state like Nevada isn't going to get much attention once it's primary is over.  So the State Dems in Nevada have decided to start reaching out to the GENERAL ELECTION VOTERS as early as possible.

                            On principal, your argument has good standing.  But in practice, it's strategically naive.

                    •  Is talex a troll? (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      alizard, bablhous, blueoasis, dirtfarmer

                      Just thought I'd ask. Note the protective tone toward Fox.

                      "The world has raised its whip. Where will it descend?" -- Virginia Woolf

                      by ivycompton on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:40:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The comments really make you wonder. (4+ / 0-)

                        Seriously, this is an incredibly foolish venue for the candidates.  Hopefully Obama's previous dust-up with Fox News will make him think twice about participating and the other candidates will follow suit.  All except the candidate who benefits from the friendship of Rupert Murdoch.
                        Gee, I wonder who that is?

                        The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                        by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:50:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You Have No Clue (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Wary

                          the damage this can cause. You obviously have not throughly read my posts or you bias has you so blind you are not able to comprehend.

                          If you want to debate me on this instead of making  hollow comments about my posts then take what I have posted and tell me where it is wrong.

                          Let's start by what is to be gained by putting the candidates in a position that whatever they decide they will pay a negative political price for?

                          Answer how that is smart and not dumb.

                          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                          by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:04:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I've read your posts. (6+ / 0-)

                            I happen to disagree with them.  That does not make me biased or blind or unable to comprehend.

                            The main point is that Fox news is a partisan outlet that will NOT spin ANY debate between our primary candidates in a positive light.  It's the classic "follow the money" approach.  Who is really benefitting here?  It's not the candidates (unless you're supporting Senator Clinton).  The people who will be "reached" by this broadcast are NOT the people who will be voting in the Democratic primary.  He who controls the microphone controls the spin, and that spin will be Republican spin, not Democratic spin.  Period.  When has Republican spin EVER helped Democrats in general?

                            The simple fact of the matter is that this is a set-up.  I kind of feel sorry for you that you seem unable to grasp that.  Or maybe you just disagree with me.  You're entitled to your opinion, and it is exactly that--an opinion.  Refusing to participate in a set-up is not going to cause damage to anyone but the people who set it up.

                            You sound like Chicken Little to me, claiming dire consequences for dumping Fox News and yet no real explanation as to what those consequences will actually be.  Get specific, then maybe we can have a real discussion.

                            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                            by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:25:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I got News For You (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cks175

                            Fox will spin a debate no matter what network it is on. That is what they do. In the meantime the debates they broadcast in 2004 were fair and had a balanced moderator panel. That is all one can ask from any network. And most people don't watch the post spin anyway. Hell they don't even watch the entire debate. Ask any politician and that is what they will tell you.

                            As for who will watch this debate I disagree with you. The people who will watch it are not just Fox viewers. They will be people who are interested in seeing the Democratic Candidates and they can care less that it is on Fox. It is also likely that this will be broadcast all over the country and like in the 2004 Fox broadcasted debates a lot of people will watch it - Not everyone is in Rage Against the Machine mode.

                            Specifically people from Nevada will watch it as it is their debate and their primary. Nevada is a State we would like to carry in order to win the WH. If our candidates were to boycott the Nevada debate do you really think that would sit well with the people of Nevada when they learn that the reason our candidates boycotted their debate is because the candidates didn't like the TV station? Nope. They would look at them as petty and foolish. Any intelligent person would. They expect more from their candidates than such foolishness.

                            Given that do you think we would carry that needed State?

                            That isn't Chicken Little sweetheart. That is reality.

                            And if the candidates do go to the debate you and others will not support them. How will that help us win?

                            This is an election. It is SERIOUS business. And it is not a time to be playing Got-Ya with our candidates over a TV Station.

                            Grow-Up.

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:19:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Keeping the powder dry, I see. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bablhous, Dunvegan, blueoasis

                            Sheesh.
                            Really, this is just speculation on your part, isn't it?  I assume you haven't seen the signed contract?  How do you even know there is one?
                            Perhaps you should wait until all the facts are in before you tell me how the people of Nevada are going to respond.
                            They aren't going to give a crap about what station it's on.  It doesn't have to be Fox, unless you know something the rest of us don't?
                            And if it doesn't have to be Fox, why have it on Fox?  Any station, according to you, could accomplish the same thing.  Why your obsession with Fox?
                            When you produce a copy of the contract to back up your hyperbole, let me know, sweetheart.

                            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                            by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:40:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are You Paying Attention? (0+ / 0-)

                            It is highly doubtful that Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party would have announced this televised debate without contracts. Organizations like this are not prone to announcing things until the ink is dry. Even yahoo news and the NYT have publicized it. NYT - - - Yahoo

                            My obsession with Fox? You gotta be kidding. I'm not the one who has been posting this on the Front Page - Markos is. I am not Matt Stoller who is trying to organize a boycott of this and is contacting the Campaigns themselves to convince them not to attend. I'd say they have the obsession. Why would THEY be doing what they are doing if this wasn't a real deal? They and people like you who are screaming about holding the candidates to something that makes no sense are the ones with an obsession. I'm only trying to alert people here who have not thought this out what lies at the end of the path they are traveling.

                            You really have nothing to say but to criticize me do you? Well no worries because you have no idea what you are talking about anyway or you would actually engage in the topic rather that sidestep it.

                            I notice you don't disagree or even mention the very real scenarios I laid out in my post of how this will adversely effect the candidates. Probably because you can't argue with common sense. Instead you try to shift to the topic TV stations. Sorry that ship has sailed as you can see unless a contract is mutually broken and Fox isn't likely to do that. Neither are the Nevada Dem's. After all Fox broadcast two debates in 2004 and they went fine.

                            If you and others don't think a candidate boycott would be a catastrophe for them then just think:

                            'Dean Scream.'

                            "I voted for it before I was against it"

                            Flip-Flop

                            And any number of snafus that have cost people elections...All at the hands of the media.

                            If you don't think the entire media would have a heyday with a candidate boycott you know nothing about politics at all.

                            And if you think that if people here do not support the candidates just because they debated on Fox is not stupid then you deserve another 8 years of a republican president.

                            Me obsessed? Only with one of the biggest blunders I have seen the blogosphere partake in since it's inception.

                            Where is the upside? Can you at least answer that simple question?

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:40:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for making my point. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ivycompton, Dunvegan

                            And any number of snafus that have cost people elections...All at the hands of the media.

                            A hostile media?  Maybe say, Fox News?

                            The upside--standing up for ourselves.  Fox is going to smear Democrats no matter whether they go on Fox News or not.  Why not save our dignity, show a little spine and refuse the most egregious partisan perpetrator of the pack?  A novel concept, I know, but one worth considering and it will fire up the base even more--and frankly, that's where we'll win--the ground game, IMHO.

                            As for contracts, the contract would be between the mysterious higher-up(s) that are moving behind the scenes in Nevada and Fox News.  The candidates are not bound by any contracts that we know of, correct?  If lower-level Nevada Dems find another venue for the debate--perhaps even harkening back to the days of having the League of Women Voters set up a debate in Nevada, we've avoided the whole problem--agree?

                            Stop panicking and start thinking outside the box.  We all want the same things.
                            First, we want the candidates to debate, right?
                            Second, we want them to do it in Nevada for strategic reasons, right?
                            Third, we don't want any candidate to unfairly have the upper hand (or at least not dramatically so).
                            Fourth, we want them to be in the best light possible, right?  That means we need to figure out a way to nix Fox but keep everything else.  Start being productive and help us figure out a way to do it.  You seem to think you know how politics works better than the rest of us.  Get off your behind and do something instead of yelling at people who are only trying to help and who are on your side.  I am just as concerned as you are over the coming elections.  We are just approaching it from different angles.  I think having Fox News run the debate is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.  I don't trust them and I sure as hell don't want to reward Murdoch with higher ratings just when Fox is finally starting to lose viewers.

                            As a final note, you are very busy making assumptions about who I am and what I stand for.  You know nothing about me so stop lumping me into your neat little (false) categories.  Stop calling me sweetheart and implying I'm stupid.  It's called common courtesy.

                            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                            by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:16:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I Didn't Make Your Point At All (0+ / 0-)

                            But nice attempt at trying to use a very over used and cheap rhetorical device. Try it on someone else - it doesn't work on me.

                            The fact is that all the media is hostile if you give them an opening and that is exactly the point I was making.

                            "The upside--standing up for ourselves". Ha Ha. More like standing up for your own anger. And that has nothing to do with winning an election. There are other times for such nonsense but not at the beginning of a very important election cycle. Beating up on Reid and the Nevada Dem's just to satisfy whatever anger drives you? Sorry but you care more about yourself than the election. Railing against Fox does nothing to win the election. Absolutely nothing. Get you priorities in order.

                            "the ground game". Have you ever worked in a campaign? I have. I am co-precinct captain in my district. And the ground game is not pissing away your time at what TV station is going to televise a debate. You leave that up to the people who are charged with that task. And as a side-note here if the candidates themselves did not favor a particular TV Network I am sure that they are fully capable of communicating that themselves - they don't need us to do it for them nor do they need for people to extort them into complying to your desires.

                            "another venue for the debate". No I don't agree. The venue is not the issue. It is the TV network that you are making an issue of. Regardless of the physical venue it still has to be televised for it to reach the maximum audience. Fox has the rights to that locked up in all likelihood as I explained previously.

                            "Stop panicking and start thinking outside the box". Actually I am the only one here along with a few quiet readers who is thinking outside the box. You and the masses here are the ones doing group think - i.e. inside the box.

                            "First" yes.
                            "Second" yes.

                            "Third" - Each candidate is treated equally. They are all allotted the same amount of time. They can all reference another candidates remarks prior to answering the questions they are asked. Your obsession over Clinton having undue advantage is misplaced. She will be treated in the same manner as everyone else.

                            "Fourth" - Fox will put them in a good light during the debate itself. They did in 2004 - I watched both of them. Since then I recently scanned the transcripts of those debates. They were fair in every way with no ideological agenda. Again the moderator panels at each debate represented Left and Right equally and each campaign has people charged with making sure all is equal.

                            "You seem to think you know how politics works better than the rest of us". I don't think so. There are a lot of smart people here. I just don't let my personal agenda get in the way of clear thinking. In this case clear thinks is asking simple questions: If 'A' happens, X will will be the result. What is X? - - - If 'B' happens 'Y' will be the result. What is 'Y'. In this case 'X' is a good part of the community here saying that they will not support attending candidates. Not good. 'Y' is the media having a field day with a candidate boycott. Really not good.

                            "Get off your behind and do something instead of yelling at people..." - As I said I am a co-precinct captain so I am off my behind. And I am not yelling I am just emphatic that people do not go down this path. If anyone should be productive I would start with yourself. Wasting your time on Fox which will have no positive outcome on the election - only a negative one - is not productive. Think about it and couch your misplaced anger until another day.

                            "As a final note, you are very busy making assumptions about who I am and what I stand for" - I called you sweetheart once. Sorry if that offended you. I retract it.

                            Moving forward - Someone suggested earlier that I was a troll. In the next post your comment was "The comments really make you wonder". So just who is making assumptions here? I responded to your comment by challenging you to debate me on specific issues. You declined to do that. Instead you made comments like "I kind of feel sorry for you that you seem unable to grasp that". Then you called me Chicken Little.

                            I could go on but I will end with this...

                            He Who Lives in a Glass House Shouldn't Throw Stones at Others...

                            Have a good night.

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:48:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dunvegan

                            I thought I was dealing with a rational person.  Really, one question:

                            You have no clue the damage this can cause.

                            Elaborate, Mr. Slippery Slope.  I can't wait to hear it.  And be specific.  I expect to see lots of links, examples, and perhaps some primary literature references and excerpts.  Maybe even a blow by blow of precisely how civilization falls as opposed to

                            really not good

                            Yea.  That's what I thought.  My Chicken Little analogy stands.
                            You have no supporting evidence.  Just a lot of fear, and fear is the mindkiller, doncha know.

                            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                            by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:37:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For Now (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm kinda busy this morning so I will keep this short. One, you don't acknowledge that you are the first one to address me, I wasn't the first to address you. Two you did it as I said in my post. Three, when I asked you to debate me on certain issues you not only didn't then - you still won't. You can't change those facts.

                            So now you want to ignore all that and try to turn irrelevant things back around on me. Sorry I won't play that silly game, time is to valuable.

                            Now back to the real subject matter regarding Fox, the Nevada Dem's and our Candidates:

                            The question remains - who will be the victims here besides the intended victim Fox? As I said our own Candidates will be. An intelligent person should should be able to see that if they have the ability to think in a simple linear fashion which requires no non-existent MSM links to a subject that is SO FAR not being discussed in the MSM.

                            So with that said I will re-quote my quote that you quoted in your last post:

                            "You have no clue the damage this can cause".

                            So far you don't do you?

                            When you can tell me why this escapade will not cause damage to our candidates as I laid out then we will have an intelligent conversation. Until then you are addressing everything except the real issue.

                            Once again, "Standing up for Yourself" is not a good reason to put our candidates in harms way - "really not good".

                            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                            by talex on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:39:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Sweetheart?" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MTgirl

                            That isn't Chicken Little sweetheart. That is reality.

                            This is an election. It is SERIOUS business.

                              -- talex

                            You begin with calling a serious poster "Sweetheart?" Then follow with a wag of your digit warning the poor "sweetheart" that "This is SERIOUS business," eh?

                            If your point is that the Nevada Democratic Debate is so very serious, then discourse regarding the pros and cons about this issue are too "serious" to call a woman "sweetheart" I'd gather.

                            Talex, with the "sweetheart" thing, you're walking the trollish razor's edge. Consider, please.

                            Because I personally (as a woman) take away that you are not very "SERIOUS" regarding this issue, I'm afraid.

                        •  Probably not a troll. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MTgirl, bablhous

                          Just someone who would rather acquiesce our power then hold our elected officials accountable.

                          And how did that work out for us in the past?

                          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:25:26 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't really think Talex was a troll. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bablhous, Dunvegan

                            Just acting trollish, is all.  Concern trollish, that is.  I just happen to disagree with his/her take on the issue and his/her rabid defense of the whole mess.

                            The media are only as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them.

                            by MTgirl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:40:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  No I'm Not A Troll (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm truing to be your friend by making you see the errors of your ways.

                        I am as progressive as you are, maybe more so who knows. I have been a member of this community for many years - #5616 to be exact.

                        And I am not being protective of Fox. I am just saying what you and others are trying to force our candidates to do by "Extortion" is counter productive and whatever the outcome can only do them harm. Why do you want to do them harm?

                        Why you guys want to do that is beyond all sensibility.

                        Why hasn't a smart guy like Matt Stoller not thought through the negative ramifications for this action when there is no upside, only downside...

                        And there is nothing positive to be gained politically from it anyway.

                        Nothing!!!

                        And if someone here including Matt Stoller can tell me the upside of this and what this action achieves politically in a positive way I'd love to hear it.

                        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                        by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:58:46 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh come on Talex a troll? (0+ / 0-)

                        Get serious! So talex doesn't agree with Crushie, since when can't progressives speak their minds PARTICULARLY  here at Kos!

                        Honestly I think Talex is making some excellent points in this debate! Much more than a limit put on what 'progressive' means and how we all ought to walk lock step---according to a strict notion of what constitutes a 'progressive' AND Talex is looking at teh big picture, for one, I like that!

                        •  I always find it interesting (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          baracon, MTgirl

                          When the corporate, "centrist" or any non-progressives want something, the consistent message to the progressives is "fall in line."

                          However, whenever the progressives fight to hold the officials accountable, the reverse tactic is used and suddenly we are "narrow" and not a "big tent" movement.

                          I never said Talex was a troll. I said just the opposite. That he probably wasn't, just was willing to hand over his power.

                          By the way, the definition of a progressive historically (before it was hijacked) WAS more narrow than liberal, Democrat, etc. Progressive means PROGRESS. So, define how having a right wing propaganda machine as the outlet for a Democratic Primary is progress? I reach out to Republicans all the time. I live with them, work with them--members of my family. Not one of them can understand why the Democrats would use Faux news either. Not all Republican voters are fooled by Faux.

                          Just sayin'.

                          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:25:40 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  ...and talex certainly can make his point... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MTgirl

                          ...without the hubris of calling another serious poster that disagress with him "Sweetheart."

                          We grown women do so like to be called during a debate "Sweeheart." Not.

                          Just almst as much as we women of color so dearly like being calld "Negresses" or "Octaroons." Or grown Black men find being called "Boy" of zero concenquence during a serious debate.

                          Sheesh.

                          And if someone (not I, mind ye) called talex "a cutie ole bubble butt dharling" during the discussion...?

                          All a high level of discourse, that.

                  •  Question--to crushie (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bablhous

                    for the Democratic Primary, especially since more legit outlets should have been chosen.

                    What other news outlets were turned down over and above Fox? Do we know of any others that the Dems rejected for Fox?

                    •  Good question. (0+ / 0-)

                      Were other news organizations approached? Or was the unilateral decision made to only make the offer to Faux news.

                      Inquiring minds want to know.

                      "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                      by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:19:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Try checking out the position of the Nev Dem Part (0+ / 0-)

                    The point is to reach voters who normally would only get soundbite statements from these candidates.  In states like Nevada, those will likely be the ones who swing the state to the Blue side.

                    This "drop Fox hosted debate" strategy will likely back fire for those who oppose it.

                    •  BULL NUTS! (0+ / 0-)

                      The NSDP hasn't even made a "good faith" effort to reach out to the 72% of the Democrats in Las Vegas - we know that only about 5% of FOX faux viewers are even persuadable (that means 95% of the people that watch FOX are a waste of time, money and resources)!

                      Don't some of you people get these facts and what they mean - a deal with FOX, any deal with FOX is STOOOOPUUUUDDDD!

              •  crusie (0+ / 0-)

                Oh, you mean the WHOLE TWO MONTHS the Dems have been in Congress you haven't seen them acting like Dems?

                As far as "eating our own", when they actually ARE our own, I will give that argument more credibility. I don't see too many Democrats acting like Democrats lately, especially on the War.

                Well, I tell you what, where I am with old hard assed, torture senator Mitch McConnell and Bunning as my senators, ALL the dems look VERY good to me! I'd trade them both for a Ben Nelson if I could, anyone (except pathetic Joe).

                I'll wait to see what Reid and others say before I join in the feeding frnzy IF I ever do join that is.

                •  2 Months? (0+ / 0-)

                  Many of the Democrats have been in office for decades. Lieberman for 18 years.

                  Are you going to excuse their votes all those years, even when they were the majority during Clinton's first years, or when they the voted for the war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.?

                  They have been in the majority for two months. And they are still acting like they don't have the balls to do the job we elected them to do.

                  They got elected because of the progressive activist community pushing the message out and not giving up since way back in 2001 when they all ignored us. Now they have benefited from our work turning the tide in public opinion.

                  It's time for payola. Do the job they were elected to do (and platform they ran on to get elected) and get us the hell out of Iraq.

                  No employer of mine has ever let me get away with the shit these Dems get away with.

                  "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                  by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:17:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Repubs Eat Their Own? (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MTgirl, bablhous, crushie, Matt Z, truthbeauty

              I thought the last 6 years taught us that (until very recently) the Repubs were in lockstep - kind of like ants - one brain, many bodies. That's how they succeeded (until they didn't).

              If Hillary is behind this to discredit Obama (who I still can't figure out), that's one more reason to boot Miss Machiavelli and fast.

              Can you imagine if Fox actually gets to host this? It absolutely defies belief. What will the post-debate commentary be?

              Brit "the Twit" Hume: "The whole thing felt like a letdown. No real energy there. And I ask again, why are the Democrats so angry? Especially Obama, who was raised, I have it on very good authority, in a terrorist training camp."

              Fred "the Moron" Barnes: "I think they did very little, any of them, to reassure the viewers that they can handle matters of national security, or for that matter, matters of faith. Typical out-of-touch leftists. I see class warfare dead ahead."

              Perhaps they can get John "the Maggot" Gibson in there too. Or maybe have Glenn Beck in a guest-commentator spot.

              The fact that this decision was "veiled in secrecy" and goes against the wishes of the majority of Nevada Dems (and national ones, for that matter) is too big a clue to ignore. And it doesn't make me optimistic about the future if Reid et al. remain either spineless or self-defeatingly centrist on this and other problems they were mandated to solve.

              "The world has raised its whip. Where will it descend?" -- Virginia Woolf

              by ivycompton on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:38:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  By Eat Their Own (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wary

                I mean this. How many times have you heard of them arm twisting, threatening, bribing their members to change their vote. hopefully many or you were not paying attention.

                And now here you are along with the others 'threatening' our candidates to the point that whatever decision they make - to show for the debate or not to show for the debate - they will be hurt politically. Why do you want to hurt them? Do you want republicans to win?

                You people make no sense and not one person here can explain why I am wrong...

                Which by default makes me right - and you know it.

                The path you guys are going down is a dangerous one in the end will harm you by your own deeds.

                "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:19:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "You Want Republicans to Win?" (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MTgirl, bablhous, rrheard, truthbeauty

                  Well, if the Democrats act just like them, what's the difference? I'll take a Lincoln Republican over a DLC or Corporatist Democrat any day.

                  I want progressive populists to win. I care less about Party, which is why I was a progressive independent most of my life before becoming a Democrat (and that only due to Howard Dean.)

                  Partisanship in corruption, stupidity, or bankrupting of America is never a moral choice.

                  Besides, what is with this mythical argument that if we hold Democrats accountable somehow we will lose, or if we don't use the Republican propaganda machine for our debates, we someone how are eating our own?

                  Can you see how completely illogical your arguments have been thus far? Really, I am strugging to follow your logic here.

                  "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

                  by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:35:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  mythical argument?? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wary

                    Are you that slow?

                    Here let me make it simple:

                    If the Dems go to the debate you and others will not support them. We lose due to that lack of support. ( and you don't care anyway according to your post)

                    If Democrats don't go to the debate then it will be all over the news that they didn't go because it was on Fox. Most of america could care less about whether Fox is bias or whether we don't like Fox.

                    They will just see it as petty and foolish (and trust me the entire media will paint it that way) and that we are not fit for power by acting in such a manner.

                    So either way we lose. Either by lack of support by ourselves - or by forcing the  candidates to look foolish by boycotting a TV Station at the insistence of a bunch of bloggers.

                    Now if you can't understand the above four paragraphs I don't know what to say.

                    "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                    by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:47:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I have NO problem criticizing "our own" ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MTgirl, bablhous, crushie

              ...especially when they deserve it.

              Let's not forget that Rupert Murdoch has ADMITTED that he uses his network to shape public opinion:

              Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

              "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."

              • Add me to your Blogroll: News Corpse
              • The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.

              by KingOneEye on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:28:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Talex--THANK YOU (0+ / 0-)

              For saying this one very important statement:

              Republicans are know for EATING THEIR OWN. Are we now following that shining example?

              Thank you and yes I've been seeing quite of bit of what seems to be progressives eating our own without putting pressure where it belongs.

              We don't even know for sure who was involved for sure in all of this!

          •  It should be remembered that.................. (0+ / 0-)

            ........Nevada is one of the red states. I believe that this is Reid sucking up politically to the right. No surprise!!!

        •  Just had a Eureka moment (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beedee, bablhous, ivycompton, blueoasis, benmcc

          Harry Reid's son is working on Clinton's campaign. Now I am even more sure Reid is in on this Faux deal to help Clinton.

          Sorry about the typo above. "too" s/b "to."

          I am not particularily liking any of the Dem candidates, but I will tell you this. Don't be surprised if Clinton wins--and turns around and taps Obama for the VP slot (sorry Richardson). We might see her Murdoch machine beating Obama up enough to secure it for Hill (I don't think she anticipated he would catch on like he did) but not enough to damage him so badly he can't be her VP. I think they probably had discussions about this long before he officially entered the race.

          If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I am done with the Dems for good. No more money, no more working on campaigns. I don't care who she taps for VP.

          Enuf!

          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:14:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  beyond the brutality of slavery and the lynchings (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        thanks to Big Tent Democrat

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        his diary was on this story

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        WASHINGTON, March 2 — About a dozen members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus gathered on a sunny day last summer on the terrace outside the Capitol for a news conference. The only problem: no reporters showed up.Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who heads the influential Ways and Means Committee, said he was not sure how he would vote on the supplemental measure.
        ...
        He called the war "morally wrong" and said "it goes even beyond the brutality of slavery and the lynchings." At the same time, he said, Democratic leaders must be careful to carve out a consensus path. ...

        i wonder what the actual quote was?

      •  I Don't Know (0+ / 0-)

        If it is wise or even truthful to blame Reid on the funding. You see with the diverse caucus we have I am sure that he doesn't even have 51 votes to defund.

        So if he doesn't have the votes how can you blame him?

        I'd really suggest that those here, and there are many, who blame Reid do a little research and see if the 51 needed votes are actually there. I think you will find they are not.

        Lastly - If you ever want Reid to listen to us when he actually can do something - if you want our combined voices to be one that is listened to...

        I wouldn't go around half-cocked and blaming him here publicly for something he has no control over because of the lack of votes because doing so does not give us A WHOLE LOT OF CREDIBILITY.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:57:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the netroots credibility (7+ / 0-)

          is based on fundraising and the ability to turn out volunteers. . . and to deny this to DINOsaurs who are sufficiently obnoxious from our point of view.

          Our political viewpoints (as opposed to yours... since I think you're "them", not us) are practically irrelevant to our credibility among "centrist" politicians.

          The question of credibility is rooted in political power. Given power, one will be taken seriously regardless of one's public beliefs. As the pandering to the Religious Right by all the GOP Presidential candidates demonstrates.

          It's more important to politicians that they have credibility with us than that we have it with them anyway. If they persuade us that we can't believe them, we are NOT going to donate and we're going to stay home at GOTV time.

          Your centrist friends are burning through that credibility right now as I type this. We know the numbers. We don't expect them to necessarily win on stopping the War on Iraq, but we expect them to try.

          And trying means something a lot more substantive than the "non-binding resolution" crap that people are publically making fun of across the political spectrum.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:24:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Following that logic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MTgirl

          The only bills that should be brought up in the Senate are for sure, slam dunk ones then huh? Lack of votes? If they don't end the war, the will truly understand what "lack of votes" means!

      •  HR 1234 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flautist, blueoasis, truthbeauty

        http://kucinich.us/...

        cant find this in MSM. thank you indy media.

        http://www.indybay.org/...

        This is from a press release:

        Kucinich Introduces HR 1234 To Immediately End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq

        WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 28) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced HR 1234, a bill to immediately end the United States occupation of Iraq, in the House of Representatives today.

        "This is the plan that will get our troops home the fastest. It is workable and achieves the goals of ending the war and enabling our troops to come home," Kucinich said.

        HR 1234 is a plan for the United States to use existing money to bring the troops and necessary equipment home and transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

        "I drafted this with expert advice from those involved in international peacekeeping missions, the United Nations and the U.S. military," Kucinich said.

        Kucinich first introduced a withdrawal plan from Iraq three years ago when he proposed that the United States hand the United Nations control of Iraq, including its oil resources and contracts for rebuilding. ...

  •  Thanks for the active leadership, Matt. (6+ / 0-)

    Let's hope it's contagious.

    > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

    by kck on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:17:03 PM PST

  •  Perhaps the wrong pressure point? (32+ / 0-)

    If any of the major campaigns not only skip the debate, but very publicly say the reason they are skipping it is Fox's role, that would be a story that other media would love to play up.

    And it would put the participating candidates in a box.

    I'll certainly count participation against a candidate.

    •  That's a great point (7+ / 0-)

      Time to start pressing the campaigns for answers.

      I'm with you -- any candidate that attends this Fox debacle goes down in my consideration.   Points off for cowardice and bad judgment.

      "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

      by chumley on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:45:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  DEFINITELY the wrong pressure point. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmcgrew, MTgirl, bablhous, zombie

      Harry Reid and the Nevada party structure don't need to care much about our views.

      Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Obama, et al do.

      •  not the only pressure point (8+ / 0-)

        There are calls into local party officials, and we will get to the campaigns eventually.

        •  You Want to Sabotage (0+ / 0-)

          a debate that has probably been contractually arranged? If contracts are signed - the horse has left the barn.

          So now you want to put the candidates in a position with us that they cannot honor and will pay a political price for? For what? Because it is on Fox? Doesn't seem like good politics and it doesn't seem a worthy enough of an issue to draw a line in the sand about.

          But if I understand what you are saying you want each of our candidates to pay a political price regardless what they do. If they honor a commitment to go to the debate you want them to pay a price with us.

          And if they fold to your demands they will pay a price with America by looking foolishly petty.

          You might want to rethink what it is you are doing.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:28:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you have any clue what you're talking about? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MTgirl, bablhous, blueoasis, dirtfarmer

            I've NEVER heard of a candidate signing a contract to appear in a debate. Debates are organized by their promoted who then hope to get a critical mass of candidates to agree -- without a legal commitment -- to appear.

            Of course, people who believe that any discussion begins with The Sanctity of the Contract are really more comfortable in the GOP anyhow.

            •  I didn't Say (0+ / 0-)

              that the candidates did. I said the nevada Party probably did so as that is the way things are done.

              What I said about the candidates is that they have committed to attending the debate - not contractually but personally.

              But all that is just minutia. You skipped over the important part of my post and that is...

              Do you really want the candidates to pay a political price no matter what they do?

              Do you?

              "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

              by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:56:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, they will. (7+ / 0-)

                Maybe you don't watch Fox News enough to understand its methods.

                Candidates who are grilled by its personnel will indeed pay a political price. Their messages will be distorted, they will be egged into pointless confrontation with each other, their words will be twisted.

                I will be cheering those candidates who boycott Fox. If they pay a price for that, it will be a price from the likes of you.

                •  You Make No Sense (0+ / 0-)

                  It is not me that wants them to pay a price...

                  IT IS YOU!!!

                  I think what you are asking them to do is stupid. There is nothing to be politically gained from asking them to boycott Fox...

                  But there is a lot to lose.

                  Evidently that is lost on you because you haven't bothered to think things through.

                  "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                  by talex on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:23:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So concerned. (0+ / 0-)

                    What you don't seem to understand in your endless "concern" about Fox and "the contracts" and the other BS you've been spewing all day is that the de-legitimization of Fox News is a crucial goal in itself, one that must be pursued with fervor.  They must be shown to as many eyes as possible for what they are. Even a passing acquaintanceship with them shows what they're about, and that is destroying Democrats and democracy. The faster and harder they become marginalized, the better. There is nothing demonstrable to gain by having Democrats defined by Fox. This is the same centrist, balls-less crap the netroots (and really, America in general if we go by the polls) is sick of and has been fighting successful against. I'm with kos on this one - cut the Fox-debate tie now. Obama refused to play the patsy after they fucked him with that despicable terrorist training camp story. Has he suffered? People like it when you stand up to a bully.

                    "The world has raised its whip. Where will it descend?" -- Virginia Woolf

                    by ivycompton on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:12:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Lemons to lemonade (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, bablhous, blueoasis, truthbeauty

      You are right on. Let the FOX perpetrators howl all they want. This way America will be able to draw a clearer distinction about who is a fighting Dem for the long haul and who is just another pandering politician who will use a "third way" to get elected to something at any cost instead of leading for the right reason.

      It will be interesting to see who is left, especially if an alternative debate that night is established for Dems with integrity on the issue.

      Then FOX gets hung out to dry and takes another chink in the armor of their Fair and Balanced mantra.

      AND, we get to see a little more about how Harry Reid is going to stand up for Democrats on the more important issue.

      Prudent thinking, Elwood. Kudos!

  •  I've faxed three or four times already (7+ / 0-)

    Not just to him, but CC'd every Democratic Senator and about 150 - 175 Dem congressional members.  I also email/faxed Howard Dean.  

    I promised my family they won't see me dragged from my home by men in black, dangling off ropes from helicopters.

    by Junglered1 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:28:44 PM PST

  •  It's Utterly Depressing. . . (29+ / 0-)

    That we have to keep making this argument more than a decade after the Fox "News" Channel came on the air.

    I will never, ever understand how so many of our elected Democrats can be so utterly clueless about something so fundamental. Year after year after year, they learn nothing. Keep pandering to the right. Keep moving to the right. This centrist, "third way", split-the-difference, offend-no-voter, Republican-lite bullshit is what got us in this mess to begin with.

    No Democrat should go on FNC. Ever. For any reason.

    Want a statement? Here's what you say:

    The Fox News Channel is not a news channel. It is simply a partisan organization that exists to serve the needs of the Republican Party. It isn't fair. It isn't balanced. And it has never had any intention of being either.

    It's a waste of our time to go on FNC, and it's a waste of your time to watch it.

    This is like sending your kids to a birthday party at Neverland Ranch.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:29:42 PM PST

  •  After seeing that LIEberman was giving (8+ / 0-)

    the Democratic radio address this past weekend, I can only conclude that Reid has some sort of inverted Helsinki syndrome or something.

  •  Senador Reid needs to start acting as a leader! (8+ / 0-)

    C'mon Harry, we thought you were going to listen to the people!

  •  Harry Reid is on thin ice (11+ / 0-)

    I will call Sen. Reid's office, and I will be polite and reasonable, of course.

    But I am getting awfully tired of his recent wimpiness.

    What the hell happened to this man?    Was he just punking us from the get-go?

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:44:03 PM PST

    •  They are all corrupt. Reid should step down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous

      They are globalists and are selling us down the river.
      We need to take this party back.  We need a candidate who is willing to fight the status quo of corporate rule.

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:14:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A pity I'll miss this debate. (7+ / 0-)
    I blocked the channel a long time ago on both my television and DVR.
    Parental block works great when you close your eyes and pick random numbers for the access code.

    If we have no freedom nor civil liberties, then what worth is our lives that we can not pursue living?

    by RElland on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:44:08 PM PST

    •  yes agreed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MTgirl, bablhous, blueoasis, truthbeauty

      as this is precisely the problem...amen to this diary!!!

      Now to be clear, many of us who disagreed with the Nevada Democratic Party's choice of Fox News are not averse to having Fox News broadcast the debate.  We simply object to having Fox News legitimized as a neutral news source by being the sole host of the debate.

      Having Fox be the sole host of a Democratic Debate is just ridiculous. That guarantees that fewer Democrats will tune in, that is for sure.

      Non Binding is only Good for Undergarments, not for Senate Resolutions.

      by wishingwell on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:33:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Capitol - 800-828-0498 - the deed is done (7+ / 0-)

    Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

    by annefrank on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:45:30 PM PST

  •  DEMAND CANDIDATES BOYCOTT DEBATE! (15+ / 0-)

    Tell the campaigns of Obama, Hillary, and Edwards that if they legitimize FoxNews--then there will be no support from you.  I can't imagine this would be hard for Obama to do, since they were on a personal campaign to smear him.

  •  If they really wanted diversity (17+ / 0-)

    They would choose Amy Goodman and Democracy Now to host a debate. Unlike the goons at Fox, Goodman would treat the candidates with civility and respect, and raise thoughtful questions that matter instead of the questions handed to them by the White House.

    •  Exactly!! (3+ / 0-)

      Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

      by annefrank on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:52:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  democracy now debate 11/06 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, blueoasis, truthbeauty

      http://www.democracynow.org/...

      REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: ... We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.

      It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society.

      AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Joshua Muravchik into this conversation. What do you feel is the key approach that should be taken to Iraq right now?

      JOSHUA MURAVCHIK: Listening to Congressman Kucinich sounds like listening to a broken record from the ’60s ...

      The problem is what in the world will happen after we withdraw. And the kind of withdrawal that these two gentlemen are advocating, which is to just get out orderly or not and let heaven take the hindmost, is going to lead to complete chaos and mass warfare and killing, not only in Iraq, but surrounding it.

      And on top of that, it's going to lead to disaster here at home. And the reason for that is that this will be taken throughout the Middle East as a monumental victory on the part of radical Islam over the West. They feel that they defeated Israel in Lebanon and Gaza. They feel that they defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, even though they ignored the large role we played in that. And now, they will feel they drove the great Satan out of the Middle East and that they are on the rise and we are on the run. And it's going to make for infinitely more numbers of people joining the ranks of the terrorists and finding new ways -- they'll be like sharks smelling blood in the water -- new ways to attack us in our cities, in our airplanes, in our trains, and every way they can. And Congressman Kucinich will be going on with this silly rhetoric about how strength isn’t -- we need jobs and schools and things at home, and forget the military, and cut the military budget, and there’s lots of waste, and all that stuff. And meanwhile, America will be besieged by extremist terrorists.

      AMY GOODMAN: Alright. Let’s take these points one by one. Senator George McGovern?

      GEORGE McGOVERN: ...You know, Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11. The administration tried to leave the implication that somehow we went into Iraq to fight terrorism. There was no terrorist problem in Iraq until we put our army in the middle of the country. Now, some of the highest-ranking American military officers in Iraq will tell you, face to face, that we’re turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists. The whole Middle East is against the United States having an army there year after year. ...

    •  amen frederick (3+ / 0-)

      Non Binding is only Good for Undergarments, not for Senate Resolutions.

      by wishingwell on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:34:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stage our own debate (18+ / 0-)

    Contact Obama's people.  Say "You wanna take out FOX News?"

    Get commitment from one other non-Kucinich/Gravel candidate.

    Find a sympathetic name moderator (Bill Moyers).

    Stage our own NV debate same night- make the campaigns choose.

    Shop it to FOX competitors like Olbermann.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:46:47 PM PST

  •  The "Democrats need to reach out" meme (14+ / 0-)

    Translation: Instead of fighting, we'd rather make pre-emptive concessions to the Right.

    After six years of Bush, the Democratic establishment still hasn't wised up.

    "We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Republic, Tiro, remember my words."--Cicero, in Robert Harris's novel, Imperium.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:46:55 PM PST

  •  One thing to discuss (11+ / 0-)

    Are democrats in the senate acting as if they are at 49 or 51?
    I wish they would get a spine and act like they are at 61.  Make the stinking republicans filibuster everything that is right with America.  

    If I was Harry Reid, I would have a vote on universal health insurance, minimum wage, fair trade pacts, etc. in front of the republicans every single day.  Make them filibuster every single piece of legislation.  Then, go to the public and show what is going on.

    They can pay for all of our programs from big oil tax breaks.  Those are frickin done.

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:46:57 PM PST

  •  This one seems like such a no-brainer (6+ / 0-)

    I am completely confused as to how there is such resistance from the leadership on this issue.

    Called, faxed, will call again.

    Also called and faxed Dick Durbin asking him whether or not he might be able to have a little sit-down with Senator Reid.

  •  In case you forgot (7+ / 0-)

    Just one more piece (found here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...

    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."

  •  Keeps it with Fox. Test candidates principles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueoasis

    Let's see which candidate has the guts to stand up to Fox by giving up the free media exposure the debate provides.

  •  This is good (7+ / 0-)

    Picking a fight with Fox News is good for us.  Every time we raise their exposure as an ongoing travesty we lower their credibility.  

    There are still people who aren't cognizant that Fox is a) biased and b) widely known to be biased.  If they knew either it would temper their view of Fox's coverage and give that seed of doubt.

    After Ailes' admission of steering the nation's agenda, the gig is completely up for Fox.

  •  Very polite. Listened to all I had to say (5+ / 0-)

    withour argument or defensiveness.  Assured me that my remarks would be forwarded to Senator Reid.

    Health care for people, not for profit.

    by bloomer 101 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:54:19 PM PST

  •  About time. (4+ / 0-)

    The fact that Democrats are prepared to appear on Fox News reveal all that is wrong with our party. Even before "Outfoxed" Dems should have boycotted that station.

    We will know when Democrats have changed; they will stop appearing on Fox News.

    by Lords on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:59:45 PM PST

    •  right (6+ / 0-)

      There's such inertia and ignorance in the party about how the Republicans work, and we don't like to admit to ourselves how much credibility Democrats give to the status quo.

      •  Which is better--to televised or not (0+ / 0-)

        There are only two choices:

        Fox to televise or not to televised at all.  I think Fox televising is the lesser of two evils.

        •  Discrediting Fox. . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous

          Is best of all. And the way you discredit them is to treat them as if they are the National Enquirer. Apologies to the Enquirer.

          We will know when Democrats have changed; they will stop appearing on Fox News.

          by Lords on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:31:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Amazed. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, ivycompton

        I an frankly amazed that the entire progressive community has not taken the FOX issue more seriously and demanded that Dems stop patronizing that excuse for a news network. Fox has been sticking it to us for years . . . years, over two election cycles . . .  and we keep taking their shit and going back for more. If we are to make any headway, the very first order of business is to discredit FOX. and the only way to do that is to demand that Dems stop appearing there to enhance their credibility.  Any Democrat who appears on Fox, is sick. They love abuse. They have low self esteem.

        We will know when Democrats have changed; they will stop appearing on Fox News.

        by Lords on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:39:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Question (0+ / 0-)

    Who is Matt Stoller?

  •  Thanks (4+ / 0-)

    for cross-posting this here. I have been skeptical of your approach on this and other issues relating to the Dems lack of coherence, but I must admit my error - you are right. And the diaries/stories at MyDD with action items for readers are much appreciated.

  •  Appeal directly to the CANDIDATES (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmcgrew, bablhous, zombie, blueoasis

    explaining that they should NOT participate on any Fox sponsored event, and that it will be held against them by staunch Democrats if they do.

    Period.

    People need to let the candidates know how we feel as a NATIONAL party.

    Forget the "Nevada State Democratic Party."

    •  interesting (6+ / 0-)

      Nevada has legitimate state-specific interests in this debate, but still, the Nevada State Democratic Party doesn't seem to be representing Nevada Democrats particularly well.

      •  We NEED Kossacks! (0+ / 0-)

        The Nevada State Democratic Party is preparing for their upcoming elections on Saturday, March 31st in Reno, NV - and the General Membership is in an uproar over this decision!

        But, moreso, we are legitimately angry over how everyone was kept in the dark about the decision!

        The NSDP has an Executive Board made up of the 5 Officers (State Chair, 1st Vice Chair, 2nd Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer) and about a dozen other members (isn't it sad that we can't even get a specific count) somewhere between 14 and 19 members - nobody, in the right position, seems to be able to count past 20 in Nevada!

        Then we should have about 500 people on our State Central Committee - but, we've only got about 150 or so (again, no accurate count and more than one list floating around) - these are the ONLY Nevada Democrats that get to vote for NSDP Officers!

        So, you all get it, IF you are NOT on the NSDP Central Committee, then in reality, you're just another "jack-ass" (and disempowered) that thinks it's a full fledged "true blue" Donkey that has a valid opinion and can acutally vote in State Party decisions!

        At best what we have in Nevada is a "monarchy" and worse, well, it's a "dictatorship" - but, it ain't Democracy as most people would recognize it - and the progressive have been trying to rise up and "crash the gates" for the past two election cycles!

        Now, most of the progressive in Nevada have been "purged into political purgatory" from County Central Committee Lists and off the NSDP State Central Committee List and totally disenfranchized and declared, by the all powerful "good old boys & girls" as persona non grata - I KNOW I'm one of them!

        Mike Zahara is one of the few on the Executive Board that has the cahones and courage to speak truth to power and be honest with the common "serfs" in the General Membership - and he is going to need all the support we can garner to protect his position!

        Our "outgoing" State Chair, Tom Collins, was outed by me publicly (go to: htt://www.taylormarsh.com
        and look back at my Guest Column, "Fear & Loathing in the Las Vegas Political Jungle!") because he publicly stated that the GLBT community "have chosen their deviant life-style and victumized (themselves)" and when asked if he believed in the doctrine of seperation of church and state, he said "I follow the teachings of my church" then he shocked everyone by saying, "The reason the Democratic Party has nearly been destroyed is because of the women and their ERA thing" - CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?  It's true, I was just of nearly a hundred people who witnessed this unbelievable public commentary.

        We have major problems in Nevada and the NSDP - and we need all the help we can get from MyDD, KOS and the Progressive Democrats in Las Vegas (72%) and our like minded Progressive Democrats in Reno (16%)
        and rational, clear thinking Democrats in our remaining 15 Rural Counties!

        I live in Las Vegas and have been a progressive Veterans Advocate, Activist and Columnist here for 7 years (Matt, I met you and Markos at the KOS Convention last year - but, you probably don't remember me).  Check out my bio at http://www.vegascommunityonline.com/...

        There's much more to the story of what we need to do to "Turn Nevada BLUE" and I hope you'll follow up and corroberate these facts - PLEASE?

  •  Faux News is GOP/neocon TV and nothing more (4+ / 0-)

    EVERYTHING they do is to further the neocon cause and help get Repugs elected.

    How is this not obvious to Reid is beyond my understanding.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:09:21 PM PST

  •  here are addresses of all the Dem leaders (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, crushie, blueoasis, madgranny

    my Feb 24 diary below has snail mail addresses of all the state-level Democratic decision makers who supposedly agreed with this bad choice.

    ACTION: get the DemWest debate off Faux News

    Addresses are included for state party chairs and key Dem elected officials in Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona.

    Email is easier for us but snail mail is usually taken more seriously.

    It's not too late to get this bad decision reversed.

    And I love the idea of an alternative debate led by Obama (assuming he is still boycotting Fox) on another channel at the same time.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM PST

  •  Hey, Harry! FOX or Us! (5+ / 0-)

    Period!

  •  Don't forget Harrys blog (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, bablhous, zombie, blueoasis, Tanya

    We can flood this site with comments to make sure he hears what's going on and our opinion of it.  http://www.giveemhellharry.com/

    -8.63 -7.28 Molly Ivin : "..We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood."

    by OneCrankyDom on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:18:32 PM PST

  •  Here's my action item: support Michael Zahara (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueoasis

    Zahara is currently the lone voice of discent among top Nevada Democrats and a beacon in a sea of "yeah, Fox News sucks, but..." statements by other Nevada Democrats.

    Now, here's my action item of today: Go over to his post on Nevada Today and leave a comment of support for Michael.

    Michael's last comment to his post on Nevada Today focused on the "Western Majority Project" which co-sponsors the debate:

    We are as much in the dark about the Western Majority Project as the rest of the nation.

    Many here are also very concerned about the secrecy and seemingly 'back room' aspects of the WMP, and that too will change soon.  

    Myself and others will work toward the bright sunshine of openness and disclosure for any further Nevada Caucus related matters.

    I think the ominous WMP should be our next focus as well.

    More on everything surrounding the Nevada Caucus at my blog: Nevada Caucus 2008

  •  Which is better--not televised or Fox televising? (0+ / 0-)

    Here is a cable news channel willing to pony the bill to show the debate on cable TV.  

    I am sure if CNN or MSNBC  were willing to host same debate---then Nevada will chose them.

    However CNN or MSNBC is not asking.

    Which is better--not televising the debate or Fox televising the debate?

  •  Reason why Nevada Democratic Party keeps quiet? (0+ / 0-)

    Because they Nevada Republican Party controls them.  

  •  Faux Noise is losing (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, crushie, blueoasis, Tanya, dirtfarmer

    viewers by the thousands every month.  That is probably the main reason they came a' courtin' the Dems.  They probably will be looking for exclusive rights to the convention in Denver next year and this is their slimy way of getting it by going to Nevada and next year, Colorado.  That said, I sure don't want It Coulter commenting on Dem conventions and the like.  The DLC has got to be behind this somehow, somewhere.
    Lord, I wish there was a viable third party.

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:34:50 PM PST

  •  Quit being scared of Fox News (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timber

    The pettiness of the so-called "progressive wing" amazes me sometimes.  Let me get this straight: you're upset because, as you say, "we are giving a Republican partisan news outlet the ability to argue that they are not biased.  We force thousands of diehard Democrats to watch a Republican propaganda outlet, and allow Fox News to spin and impute meaning to the debate.  This is a serious problem."

    Does the average voter really give a rat's ass about whether or not Fox News has "the ability to argue that they are not biased"?  What a pointless argument!  Who CARES!  Fox News gets twice as many viewers as CNN does, and in a democracy, that counts for something.  

    In order to win the presidency, you need votes.  And going on Fox News lets Democrats reach a broader audience.  You can't wield power until you have power.  

    •  Umm (7+ / 0-)

      Maybe because the 'average' American voter who might be interested in learning about the Democratic candidates will instead tune in and see hours and hours of lies, propoganda, and false narratives. They are probably more likely to come away wanting to vote Republican than being impressed with the Democratic candidates.

      •  That is so wimpy (0+ / 0-)

        I think the average voter is smart enough to listen to the candidates speak for themselves.  No one listens to that post-debate analysis from the pundits anyways, no matter what station it is.

        Don't forget one of the cardinal rules of politics: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.  This is all the Dems are doing here.

        •  What's (5+ / 0-)

          wimpy is not telling a republican propaganda organ to fuck off.

          •  That is an idiotic strategy. (0+ / 0-)

            If you tell a TV station with 2x the viewership of CNN to "fuck off" then you risk alienating millions of voters, and all you gain is smugness.

            •  Idiotic. Hmm . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bablhous

              I love how you tout the viewership numbers of Fox News. You do know that the viewship of various Fox News programs is down among key demographics and is dropping, right? Is there any reason in particular you think the remaining folks who haven't abandoned Fox News would ever consider voting for a Democrat?

              The only thing more idiotic would be to host the debate out of the Republican National Committee Headquarters. Not that there's any true difference between Fox News and the media arm of the RNC.

        •  Yes they do listend to the pundits... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous

          ...and I understand what you are saying, but the fact is, Fox news will ravage our candidates.

          The only way that we can win this issue is if no real candidate shows up, which is unlikely, especially if this is Rupert Murdoch's gift to HRC--no one will let her stand at the podium alone, unchallenged.

          We may get some help from Obama.  If he doesn't show up, because it is on Fox, that would be nice story.

          The only other way we can win this, is for the candidates to challenge and berate the Fox moderators' questions and the network itself at every opportunity during the debate.

          Thanks,

          Mike

    •  Fox viewers aren't average voters. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, blueoasis

      They invented a device that could split open the very smallest particles of matter, and they used it to steal candy.

      by nu on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:04:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

      There are more substantial issues to act on.  And this is a petty issue.

      Anyway I would rather watch the debate whether it is FOX or not  rather than not see the debate at all.

      Besides Fox already cohosted a debate--and Democrats survive.

    •  More of the "Fox Viewers" fallacy (0+ / 0-)

      Again the discussion turns to the question of Fox viewers, as if there is some set of viewers who only watch Fox, no matter what is on.  If Fox broadcasts the Democratic debate, then the Fox viewers watch it.  If it's on CNN they won't.  Because Fox viewers can't, or won't change the channel?

      Most people, even Fox viewers, choose what network they are going to watch based on what's on.  While Fox news may get many more viewers than CNN news (i.e., more like the Fox news "show" than the CNN new "show"), that does not mean a Democratic debate on Fox will get more viewers than a Democratic debate on CNN.  People who want to watch the debate will watch the debate.  And those that don't, won't. (The issue of reach, i.e. how many houses can get each network, may be relevant here, but CNN isn't the only other choice.)

      Their may be a small number of viewers who would only want to watch the debate on Fox so they can see their favorite Fox personalities stick it to the Dems.  These people aren't going to be converted by the debate.  Most of the people who will watch won't be "Fox viewers" or "CNN viewers" or "PBS viewers" or "QVC viewers."  They'll be "Democratic debate viewers" who watch because they want to see the debate.  And the people who don't watch will mainly be the ones who have some other show they'd rather watch, or have something else they'd rather do than watch TV. [I've never met anyone who skipped watching the Super Bowl because they weren't (e.g.) "CBS viewers."]  And the viewers of the Democratic debate on Fox will get to see the participants asked questions that assume the GOP talking points of the day, and tie the candidates to the strawmen set up by the GOP noise machine.  This will be followed by commentary which will make the connections more explicit, for any viewers that didn't catch the points the first time.

      I'm not a single issue voter, and this is a very small issue, so participation in this debate won't be the deciding factor in who I support.  I will, however, have questions about the judgment of any candidate that voluntarily steps into such an ambush.

  •  Reid for Lieberman Party (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, bablhous, oibme, blueoasis

    Why would Reid care what the NV Democrats want their Party to do? He did everything he could to back Lieberman despite CT Democrats voting him out of the race. He's ignoring all of America, who he represents running our Senate, who want him to stop the war.

    Reid cares more about Joe Lieberman than he does about Democrats, including the Democrats killed in Iraq today, and tomorrow.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:37:33 PM PST

  •  isn't there some way to get a copy of the (5+ / 0-)

    contract and see who signed it?  The who,how, and why, all seem to be very important issues to me at least.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:40:34 PM PST

  •  More things about this story are bothering me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    I re-read what Matt wrote a couple of more times. Okay, so if the Nevada state party is denying they had anything to do with the decision and they don't know who did (bullshit, clearly someone made the calls, is on committees, is arranging this) and this is all Tom Collins' work, then with Collins' resigning, why the heck doesn't the State Party pull the plug on this? They have veto power, no? What are the bylaws for Nevada? I know here a Chair can't make a unilateral decision like that, so that committee doesn't seem to be honest about their role.

    Not to mention, contracts were signed with Fox, right? So whose name is on the contracts???

    Anyone want to take bets on whom Tom Collins is supporting in the Primary? I bet I already know.

    "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

    by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:45:23 PM PST

    •  We've been asking those same questions... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and everyone is clamming up and playing dumb - perhaps it was the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain?

      That is why Nevada Democrats, especially Progressive, are just LIVID!  We can't even get candid, honest answers when we ask nicely, over and over again?

      So, what do we do now....?  Hmmmmm, let's see "they" want us to just "shut up and go away" - and that just doesn't seem democratic, so, what should the people do next....?  Hmmmm

  •  Senator Reid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    I just don't think you've thought about this as much as you should.  You've got to learn to trust us naval gazers here.

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't. "We're all hicks, to these people."

    by d3n4l1 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:48:03 PM PST

  •  Flash: The Verdict is In! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, ivycompton

    Harry Reid needs to go...........

    The little prick is just a sort of midget Liebermann as I detail in my post: The 'Democrat' Party shows it's true colors...

    Please understand that I take no joy in this happening but we of Left Blogistan must face the facts: The Money Party is in the saddle and it's sockpuppets Reid and Schumer in the Senate and Emmanuel and Hoyer in the House are determined to shut us out of the political discourse.

    This they cannot do....

    As...

    We won't let them.

    On to 2008 when we elect more progressives and then 2012 when we elect more yet.

    And when we have a majority of People Party representatives we'll send these assclowns to the respective cloakrooms of each house where they can all whine and moan about the 'rude, uncivil netroots...'

    Where they can take their rightful place alongside the ReThuglican scum of the 'Rubber Stamp' 110th Congress.

    We can call 'em the 'Chickenshits' 111th.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:00:05 PM PST

  •  Next Time You get a Call, Email or Letter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueoasis

    Asking you to donate to a Democratic organization, tell em no and tell em we're tired of them trying to win over Fox viewers and evangelicals.

    And also mention the American people don't support the war in Iraq.

    Ted Hitler on bloggers: They have no credibility, all they have is facts.

    by EastFallowfield on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:02:56 PM PST

  •  Name Change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, crushie

    What say we start referring to the scat produced by Roger Ailes as: Fux News?

    "The skeleton in the closet is coming home to roost!" Tom Stoppard

    by Apotropoxy on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:11:40 PM PST

  •  What about the DNC? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Can't we contact Howard and ask him to do something about it? Why do we not have party discipline of some sort?

    •  Howard supports this, unfortunately.... (n/t) (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yes. Howard doesn't seem to get how bad this one (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, blueoasis

      really is. I am writing him as we speak. Basically my angle is going to be besides legitimizing it, why is he by default helping to promote one candidate over the other given Rupert's role in Hillary's campaign--since we know the DNC is supposed to be a neutral org? I don't think Howard would knowingly do that, but the outcome is the same nonetheless.

      "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

      by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:44:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The DNC is NOT supposed to be neutral (0+ / 0-)

        Part of the DNC's unwritten job description is to help boost good candidates, when needed.  As Bill Clinton says, during the primaries, "Republicans like to fall in line, and Democrats like to fall in love."

        There was near disaster last time when Dean nearly ran away with the nomination.  That guy was the most unelectable presidential candidate I can recall since Gary Hart.  Thank god the DNC stepped in and helped boost Kerry (although he ran a dumb campaign, which is another story).

        •  Wrong (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous, blueoasis, Polacolor

          Long history of supposed neutrality, at least that is what they told voters. McAwful was heavily criticized for saying he was neutral then publicly berating Howard Dean in 2003 along with Bruce Reed.

          Howard already said he won't take sides and will support AFTER the Primary, which all DNC Chairs are supposed to do as the function of the DNC is to support after the Primaries.

          Yeah, Dean is so unelectable that he won his Governorship 5 times and had great Republican grassroots support. Even brought people like me to the Democratic Party. I guess if he had Rupert Murdoch promoting him he would have been "electable" too.

          And Kerry was so electable he won. Oh, wait. He didn't. Of course since Bush was so electable he had to steal the election--twice--the topic of electablity is null & void.

          Didn't Kos write a diary about a month ago about anyone using "electablity" as an argument is in troll territory?

          "Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" Ghandi

          by crushie on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:10:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Supposed neutrality" (0+ / 0-)

            "Supposed neutrality" is the key phrase in your post.  That nails it.  If you're familiar at all with the DNC, you know that they're very moderate.  I'll admit it, I'm a moderate Democrat when it comes to political strategy.  You can't wield power until you have power, and the only way you get power is to win elections.

            Dean was not electable.  I think history proved that pretty well.  Kerry was electable, but ran a dumb campaign.  Same with Gore.  Bush was barely electable, but ran smart campaigns with the help of savvy advisors.

            I just don't want to see Democrats make the same mistakes they've made in the past, is all.  Too many men and women and children are dying needlessly in Iraq and we need to end this war.  My bias is that I want Hillary to win, and I know that if she's the nominee, she won't lose.  The Clintons know how to beat Republicans better than anyone else.

        •  Yes, They Are Supposed To Be Neutral (0+ / 0-)
          In Ohio Democratic Party Primaries, I always vote against the candidate endorsed by the State and local Party Executive Committees. The party machinery should be (as a body) completely neutral in a primary. We The People, The Democratic Party Rank and File Voters will pick the individual who best represents our views in the primary. And once we have spoken, the Party had best get their collective asses in line behind that nominee.
  •  What if they held a debate - (6+ / 0-)

    And no-one came?

    Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:35:18 PM PST

  •  Why Not Host Our Own? (0+ / 0-)

    I think we should host our own program.  Why should all Presidential forums be hosted by supposedly neutral parties?  I can't think of a single Presidential forum or debate that was not so hosted.

    Everybody can watch theirs.  Just a switch of the channel.  We host ours and ask the questions they won't ask and demand that the candidates explain why they were on Fox.  You know-the "how dare you"
    type of demands.

    Fox does it and we do it.  It will force each presidential hopeful to show publically were they stand.  If we are so offended by their insistance on attending every forum with a significant viewership, we can just ban them from ours and tell everyone why we won't let them speak to our significant viewership.  That will put them on the spot!

  •  All Democrats should Boycott Fox. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueoasis

    Period

    Any Democrat who appears on Fox only legitimizes their slant on politics.  

    Better yet designate only one Democrat like Clark or Dean to go on Fox to speak for the Democratic side of things.

    Never Give Up On Peace!!!

    by Gator on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:58:45 PM PST

  •  Didn't Hilary bury the hatchet with Rupert Murdock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis
    sometime last year?

    Wonder if some expectations might have been set then?

    I've no particular axe to grind, this just popped into my head after reading this story.

  •  Hillary Clinton congratulates Fox News (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, ivycompton, blueoasis

    the local Fox News affiliate is having an anniversary and Clinton has recorded a congratulations video message clip that they run between segments.

    So, clearly, this is all Hillary's doing.  Or Karl Rove.  Either way.

  •  Done. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueoasis

    Thanks for the info.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:43:38 PM PST

  •  Nevada debate on Faux Network (0+ / 0-)

    Personally I would hope this would go to the Span
    but as Mike Papantonio suggested this weekend on Ring of Fire-why not let Air America cohost this event?
    I would definitely show up and I don't live in Nev.

    What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

    by cagernant on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:47:22 PM PST

  •  harry the hobbit (0+ / 0-)

    Go to harry's website and search for Western Majority Project or New West Project.

    They never heard of either.

  •  I'm going to go out on a limb here (0+ / 0-)

    Faux News, Fox Noise....We recognize these nicknames because its become public knowledge that the only time Fox News is "fair and balanced" is during commercial breaks.

    Maybe we should look at this as a blessing in disguise:  More progressives, centrists and liberals will be watching the biased commentary during a forum which shouldn't have bias in one direction or another.  So the only people who will embarrass themselves is Fox News if they don't televise this without a slant.  And if they show their GOP rear side, more fodder for us.  After all, we can't unless we're watching and we can't take action, either.  Let them have their day--if the recent past is telling, they'll fall over their tongues anyway.

    The second point, which has been discussed, is more relevant to us all.  I'd much prefer Harry Reid focus his time on figuring out how to turn our small majority into a voting majority.  No matter what the House passes, its worthless unless the Senate does so also.

    Our elected officials made us promises in order to gain our vote--that they'd be pro-active, clean things up, make the machine work for us rather than against us.  We're far from having our Constitution back.  We're no where near getting a bill worth a damn passed as long as we can't pull the 60 votes.

    The GOP was negligent in their oversight because they would have had to put themselves in prison.  Now we've got a Democratic majority that's still walking on egg shells.  Before the election, I wrote a diary "offering" the Republicans to reach over the aisle and choose cooperation rather than investigation.  I was slammed by everyone who read it.

    Now, three months later, the surge is happening, the GOP has the public riled over the DNC wanting to "stop funding the troops"--and even Murtha sounded eloquent, but not drop kick firm on Meet the Press.

    I'm not saying we have to become the party of lost ethics in Congress--what I'm saying, and I think many are saying, is that there needs to be some elbow grease.  We took elbows in the ribs for six years; if our elected officials have to use some elbow grease to motivate GOP Congresspeople to vote in a manner that serves the people who, on November 7, sent a loud message for change to Washington, then they need to use some elbow grease.

    And then, let Fox Noise send their shock across the airwaves about how Republicans are voting for healthcare, for Medicare, for funding for armor and rest for our troops and redeployment to Afghanistan.  

    And they'll continue to look like the unfair and unbalanced network they've always been--and maybe some of their loyal viewers will think that Fox is just that--NOISE.

    Knowledge is knowing why you're doing something; wisdom is knowing why you're not doing something else. Me

    by Eric Klein on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:57:00 PM PST

  •  Our lady of the concentration camp (0+ / 0-)

    has issued a nutroots alert Not suprising from a pimp who collects her money from her Fox News ho....

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president...is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    by calipygian on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:23:25 PM PST

  •  Just say No! (0+ / 0-)

    And tell CNN or MSNBC why you said no.  It is a bunch of crap to think that FOX ha News would be any way shape or form unbiased.

    they wear it on their graphics.

    Unleash the potential to make a difference

    by totallynext on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:21:16 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site