"Curiouser and curiouser', Cried Alice (She was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carrol
While the hot topic in the news is yet another of Don Imus' ignorant statements, (Imus has always been a jerk, and if anyone thinks he doesn't really think that way, seek professional help) there comes a rather curious story regarding the refusal of at least three major Democratic Presidential candidates to participate in a debate because....I guess...it was to be broadcast on FOX News.
Now this, I have to admit, I don't get. What are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards afraid of? Do they think that somehow, FOX will make them say something they don't want the public to know? Or is it that because FOX news is fair and balanced they fear they won't be allowed to get away with untruths that the other networks would allow? And how would FOX news be able to do that if they just allowed the candidates to speak without offering comment?
I have tried to come up with some perspective on this but I really have no idea what the motivation is to refuse FOX to broadcast this debate unless it is some childish attitude along the lines of "I don't like them so I won't go to their stupid party" kind of thing.
The debate will be co-sponsored by FOX News and the Congressional Black Caucus. On the surface it would seem the Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face, (after all, black voters are a big part of the Democrats base) but that wouldn't be true, either, according to the Liberally biased AP:
"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August.
The institute, a nonprofit group whose directors include members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Fox News announced an agreement nearly two weeks ago to air Republican and Democratic presidential debates. But activists, including civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, immediately criticized the alliance and many called on Democrats to pull out."
Jesse Jackson criticizing other blacks? Who'd a thunk?
So the question remains: What do the Democrat Presidential candidates fear?
And does America really want a President that is afraid of something so innocuous as a news network?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
They're not afraid of the network, they're responding to a cry from The People, or at least a segment of them.
I haven't followed this story and don't know the details, but in general, I support more debates and not skipping the chance for a debate.
Now, if the KKK were sponsoring a debate, I'd understand boycotting that debate. Fox News, for all its serious problems, is not the KKK, though.
But, as I said, I don't know all the details.
Nonetheless, the answer to your question, Why? They are responding to a call from The People.
My question is, is it a legitimate call?
I don't agree that they are responding to a call from the people. I believe that organizations such as moveon.org and The Daily Koz are behind this. They pull the strings behind the scenes and the Democrats go out of their way to not upset them.
Dan, you keep sayimng the majority of the country disagree with the president, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Maybe the circles you move in are full of anti-American Bush haters, but most of the people I have contact with everyday are squarely behind Bush and his policies.
What people? Gayle is right. The only people the Democrats listen to are the left wing fringe nuts like moveon.org, etc.
Are they really afraid of those groups? If so do we really want a President that is so afraid of offending them that they can't do a job?
"you keep sayimng the majority of the country disagree with the president, but I have yet to see evidence of that."
What evidence do you need, Mark?
Look at the polls - any of them. They all corroborate the widespread disapproval of Bush. We don't hate Bush but clearly we don't trust him, don't think his invasion of Iraq was a good idea and just think his overall performance is lacking.
This Fox News poll shows disapproval of Bush at 61%.
This ABC poll says that "Sixty-seven percent now disapprove" of the Iraq Invasion, that 2/3 disapprove of the troop surge and on and on.
I'm not talking about just those around me (although of those around me, left and right, there is vast disapproval - near 100% of those you'd call Left, near 100% at my church, and a large disapproval amongst even my more traditional friends, family and acquaintences), I'm talking about polls that consistently show this is a president that the population by a large majority neither trusts nor approves of.
Just because the people around you do approve of him doesn't mean you're representative of the nation.
"What people? Gayle is right. The only people the Democrats listen to are the left wing fringe nuts like moveon.org, etc."
Only if you think the Left wing fringe groups encompass some 60+% of the US population.
Mark, I know that Edwards appeared at least once on the Fox News Channel (not sure if it was on O'Riely or Hannity). Obama I don't know if he ever has, but Hillary has NEVER been on Fox News nor will she appear on any News show unless she can first approve of every question to be asked. I have to believe that Hillary has a multitude of "sins" that she does not want answer to, such as all of the various scandals like "Whitewater", White House Travel Office firings, the Rose Law Firm records, cattle futures,and many other scandals the she and her husband were involved in. She has never answered or explained any of them and she continues to refuse to do so.
What bothers me is that none of the people who blindly support her, have ever demanded that she answer to those scandals in a forthright and honest manner, nor has the MSM.
How can anyone support this woman for the presidency, when she obviously cannot be trusted? She must be made to answer those questions and if she continues to refuse to do so, then she has no business running for the highest office in the land and she should NOT be supported in her run.
She is dragging around more baggage than an airliner.
Hey Dan...D'ya know what Moveon.org is?
LOLOL!
abouna said:
"What bothers me is that none of the people who blindly support her, have ever demanded that she answer to those scandals in a forthright and honest manner..."
Disclaimer: I detest H Clinton as a candidate. I think it's just about the worst thing the Dems could do in 2008 and about the only way the Republicans would have a chance at winning.
I disapprove of a great deal of her policy and her personal nature, along with that of her husband (who I disagree with even more than Hillary). I disagree with carpetbaggers running off to get elected in a state from which they don't hail.
I don't like the Clintons. Understood?
Having said that and in response to abouna's claim: both of the Clintons HAVE been investigated nearly without end by a prosecutor who spent millions (billions?) of tax dollars on a witch hunt trying to find something illegal to stick to the Clintons. And, after all of that investigation and accountability, ALL they could convict B Clinton of was lying about a blowjob.
They have been held accountable for the "crimes" that the Republicans think they have committed and come up clean. This sort of mudslinging and misrepresentation of the facts, even towards a candidate that I don't like at all, is not helpful.
Complain about either of the Clinton's policies all you want - I'll gladly join in with you (although probably about different policies), but quit bringing up these charges for which they've been investigated and found innocent.
Likewise for the ridiculous rumor-mongering about murders and assassinations. There's plenty of legitimate policy-related problems to bring up that we don't need to resort to whisper campaigns and swiftboating.
Bravo, Abouna! One possibility is Hillary and "Democratic" company do not want to answer the tough questions they would inevitably get from a Fox News moderated debate.
Not only is the MSM hypocritical in their criticism of FOX (whose ratings beat the pants off the MSM... a case of ratings envy?), but they compound their hypocrisy by virtue of the fact that they would deliberately skewer Republican candidates for dissing a debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, labeling them racists with the verbal sleight of hand they have themselves mastered over their decades long perch atop the ratings... Until America was given more of a choice of venue via Cable and the Internet.
The Democratic "candidates", by shunning Fox News and its viewership, have managed to show their true colors yet again, and quite effectively. They are shown to be ruled by antiwar leftist fanatics; the very kind that burn up the blogosphere with visions of murder, death, and mayhem to Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby... In short, the Democratic field of candidates are pandering to lunatics, and they consider it no great shakes to thumb their nose at a huge voter bloc... one that prefers Fox over CNN, MSNBC, and the other three pathetic excuses for News Organizations.
If they think they can win an election acting this way...? If they hope to heal the divisions that have fractured this nation like three-thousand miles of safety glass... Well, sorry... I don't see the Oval Office in their futures. Candidates shun media outlets, especially those at the top, at their political peril.
I get the feeling that all of the Democrat Candidates are scared to death that the American People might somehow find out who they really are, and what they are really up to.
Hillary will not appear anywhere where she might be forced to answer hard questions about the scandals in her past... John F. Kerry wants everyone to bow down and worship because he spent four months or so in Viet-Nam, but he refuses to release his Military Records... John Edwards, while claiming to stand for the poor, knows that he will eventually have to answer for the fact that he is building a Palace next door to a "Rabid Republican" who is having to sell his property because he cannot afford the Taxes...
They all seem to want to restrict our information about them, even if it means that, on rare occasions, they might have to shy away from cameras and microphones.
Curious, to say the least...
Republicans aren't afraid of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and MSNBC, which are all controlled by liberals.
Yet liberals are scared to go on little 'ol Fox.
It isn't a response from The People^tm. The candidates are pandering to get the votes of moonbat activists. Liberals are for toleration of all behavior, no matter how immoral, but against the diversity of thought, no matter how truthful.
Everyone must adhere to The Party line, like Comrade Dan. Anyone who does not is an enemy of the working class!
It's really a very simple dynamic. You've got a network patronized by a particular segment of the population that is turned off by what is perceived (and rightly so) as having a decided liberal bias. These people are not necessarily the sheep the liberals would like to believe, but assuming for a moment that most of them are, logic would dictate that it is by degrees and that there are plenty who are simply open minded and willing to be persuaded by a good argument. Why NOT make your appeals to them? What a coup it would be to find amongst the Fox faithful a percentage of votes. How possible this truly is can be difficult to determine. But possible it is.
At least it should be perceived as possible by a candidate who has true convictions and believes in that which he says he believes. Considering the 50/50 nature of the last two elections, what self-respecting candidate wouldn't want to take every opportunity to persuade more people to his side?
Democratic candidates, that's who. They don't have conviction. They aren't believers of their own spiel. If they were, they'd take their message anywhere and if they were capable of articulating their message (and if Obama can't, who can?), then they could persuade enough from the other side of the political spectrum to secure not only the nomination, but the presidency.
So this refusal should be a red flag for anyone who was considering backing any of these pretenders. I think they are each afraid of having to defend their real positions, such as can be found through the public record (like Obama's Illinois Senate voting) and are simply engaging in what they are currently known for: cut and run defeatism.
he hates Clinton...but HEARTS MIchael Moore.
I agree with tugboat, look what happened when Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday.
Bill got so angry and defensive he looked as if he were about to have a coronary. Chris could barely ask him any questions.
It was to be a question/answer session. Rather, it turned into a grandstanding, finger pointing, red-faced, I'm-about-to-jump- over-this-table-and-strangle-you session for Bill Clinton.
You're darned right the Dems are scared of Fox and other non-liberal supported media.
There is no way I would want anyone who can barely contain themselves, answer tough questions, etc. to sit as our Commander In Chief. I would hate to see how they could handle foreign policy! America would look like the already sissified Democrats appear.
Nice one, Pamela! I totally forgot about the Bubba debacle! A perfect example of the defensiveness felt by Dems when faced with real questions by the right. They want no part of that!
And Chris Wallace doesn't even consider himself a Conservative! He thinks he's Liberal!
Cris Wallace doesn't consider himself a liberal. Mark, that is false.
The left in this country is becoming more and more like Mao's Red Guard. They insult, attack, and shout down anyone who tries to express their opinions. And they have become so powerful that they frighten even their leaders. These candidates have become so fearful of their crazed minions, they're terrified that if they make one misstep, they'll be devoured by the wolves. One of the hallmarks of leftists all over the world is that they will not tolerate any point of view other than their own. Look for them to start waving little red books soon.
"And they have become so powerful that they frighten even their leaders."
Leaders should always fear their constituency. Bad leaders should live in terror.
It's OUR government, not theirs.
[Was it Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine or Ben Franklin who said something along those lines...?]
["fear," in the sense of know who it is who placed them where they are and who it is that can remove them.]
Post a Comment