So it seems the position of left-wing Democrats is to deal with the terrorist states of Syria and Iran -- but don't deal with Fox News because it just gives them "a platform." As noted in an earlier posting, Democratic candidate John Edwards had a fine time and voiced no complaints after participating in a pair of Fox News-sponsored debates in 2003, but now he's boycotting the highest-rated cable news network: (Updates added at the end.)
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday pulled out of a second debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel, saying the cable network has a conservative slant.
The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the September 23 debate in Detroit hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, but officials added that Edwards is "looking forward" to a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN in South Carolina in January 2008.
"We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.
It's the second time Edwards has decided to skip a debate because of its affiliation with Fox News. Edwards decided in March that he would pass on an August 14 debate in Reno, Nevada, co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party.
UPDATE: I've been reminded that the GOP presidential candidates are debating at the Reagan Presidential Library next month, with MSNBC -- the network of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann -- doing the honors. As far as I know, there are no plans for the Republican candidates to flee the scene to protect themselves from MSNBC's bias (would you really want a president who couldn't stand up to Chris Matthews?), and you could imagine the rest of the media's reaction if there was an attempt at a boycott MSNBC.
UPDATE 2: In today's "Best of the Web" from OpinionJournal.com, James Taranto has an Edwards quote from just last week from CNN (not a network he's boycotting): "I think that what America should be doing on the issue of Iraq is dealing directly with both the Syrians and the Iranians, and I don't know precisely what Speaker Pelosi is going to do in Syria, but we as a nation should be engaged with both the Iranians and the Syrians directly in helping stabilize Iraq. Both countries have an interest in a stabilized Iraq. They don't want refugees coming across their border, they don't want economic instability, and they don't want to see a broader Middle East conflict. And I think it makes sense to not on some ideological basis not deal with them, but to engage with both of them directly."--John Edwards, CNN, April 3
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Was it Howard Dean who prai
April 9, 2007 - 09:32 ET by motherbeltWas it Howard Dean who praised Pelosi for her trip, saying that was the way to deal with your enemies...to talk to them? I guess that means everyone but Fox News. LOL
Apparently a terrorist slant is better than a "conservative slant."
A little off topic but Bob Be
April 9, 2007 - 09:38 ET by Independence4AllA little off topic but Bob Beckel (the Dem strategist on Fox News) was just asked straight up if we should be talking to AQ. Talk to AQ!! He said YES! If it would SAVE AMERICAN LIVES or offer a chance for peace! He then said we should negotiate with any terrorist group if there is a chance for negotiations. This was on about 3-4 min ago when they were talking about Pelosi's visit. I am so mad I am shaking.
Well Pretty Boy John "Pi
April 9, 2007 - 09:40 ET by Airforce_5_OWell Pretty Boy John "Pimping my wife’s Cancer for Campaign Funds" Edwards is pulling out of another Fox debate.
What the heck is he afraid of? A difficult question? Not getting those lofty softballs that the MSM loves to lob up there for their candidates to knock out of the park. God forbid that he should have to answer a real question.
Reduce the U.S. Carbon Footprint. Send Rosie to Iran. Airforce_5_O 04/04/2007
Elizabeth Edwards has used up all her Cancer Sympathy Credits
April 9, 2007 - 09:56 ET by RJOn that subject, Airforce, there's this about the Edwardses, who, it turns out (surprise!) are not very nice people:
Elizabeth Edwards is bitching about her new neighbor, whose family has owned their property for around 80 years, because he doesn't keep it up to her elitist standards. She has labeled him a "rabid, rabid Republican", because he (gasp) put a "Go Rudy" sign on his fence...and because he (double gasp) owns a gun. Due to increasing property taxes, he has been forced to put his property up for sale.
As far as I'm concerned, Elizabeth Edwards has just used up all her Cancer Sympathy Credits. Apparently, under that nice-nice exterior, she's an elitst, phony witch
RJ
April 9, 2007 - 10:20 ET by misterbillHer neighbor could have put a sign:
"Edwards is a professional liar and thief". Then she would be justified in being angry. That's because then her neighbor would have "outed" her husband.
Here in NC Mr. Edwards solici
April 9, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Airforce_5_OHere in NC Mr. Edwards solicited Campaign funds from those who sent good luck and best wishes e-mails to his wife. That to me is like pimping her out as far as I'm concerned.
I am tired of seeing the media here in NC fawn all over this jackass to the point they can't see him for what he is.
I'm sick to death of Edwards and his ilk.
Reduce the U.S. Carbon Footprint. Send Rosie to Iran. Airforce_5_O 04/04/2007
This is one of the best comme
April 9, 2007 - 10:06 ET by ThisnThatThis is one of the best comments I've seen regarding the Dim's absolute and unconditional bias and pure hatrid/meanness. I've been mad as hell with this Dim campaign against Fox News, portraying it as evil, biased, and not worthy of consideration until it clearly changes its ways. This constitutes a boycott, and portrays the Dims as a solid, moral group willing to go to the mat for "truth, justice, and the Liberal way".
For them to treat our true enemies in a much more kinder and tolerant manner is simply unbelievable.
Your comparison, Rich, needs to get the widest distribution possible. I'd like to see Fox News, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and others pick this up and begin a multi-prong, multi-day discussion and exposure. And, I'd like to see this brought to the attention, via direct questioning, of these so-called Dim leaders, just to show the world what a bunch of sick, anti-American hyprocrites they really are.
It's just politics. He's do
April 9, 2007 - 10:10 ET by MidAmericaIt's just politics. He's doing what he does best. It's how he's made his millions. Pandering to an audience. In this case he can make more points with his voter base by not doing a debate and dissing FOX than by exposing himself to possible missteps in a debate.
After all, the three democrat frontrunners are all running on the same basic platform, who can be the weakest on national security and who will promise the largest 'free' government programs.
I saw Edwards answer a question the other day.
April 9, 2007 - 10:22 ET by acaiguanaI saw Edwards answer a question the other day.
Typical non-answer in a bland political manner. Zero substance to the question and the follow-up totally ignored the answer's vapid evasion.
So, if this idiot Edwards is nominated we just have another business as usual Democrat candidate.
Maybe Fred will run. Realizing that there are 18-19 months to go the real question is will anyone vote at all?
The real question with 18-19 months to go, will there be enough anti-depressent medications on the market? Will anyone bother to vote?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Edwards is a weasel of the wo
April 9, 2007 - 10:39 ET by NoMoreClintonsEdwards is a weasel of the worst sort. Because Fox is not the typical left wing mouthpiece
a la CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC or MSNBC they must have a "right wing agenda". If you're not on the loony left, you must be on the right. And prissy John-boy certainly doesn't want any pitches he can't hit. He is so shallow it makes me want to vomit every time I see him.
The meaning of network call letters
April 9, 2007 - 13:18 ET by goldenthroatCBS - Clinton Broadcasting System
NBC - Nobody But Clinton
CNN - Clinton News Network
ABC - 'Atta Boy, Clinton!
MSNBC - Militants Say "Nobody But Clinton"!
Rich, the "update"
April 9, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Gary HallRich, the "update" did it. Great context. The test here, assuming that Edwards or one of his team will be interviewed by say Fox News, or for that matter any Democratic strategist, is for the question to be asked - and asked often:
"Why is it that Edwards (and other D's) are refusing to attend debates held by Fox News, when the R's are willing to go on a radically liberal biased MSNBC held event? Are the D candidates that afraid of actually being asked substantive questions?"
Thanks, Gary. It would be i
April 9, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Rich NoyesThanks, Gary. It would be interesting to see if Edwards does any more interviews with Fox (although he's done many in the past). In my view, the Democrats are really underscoring the media's double standard -- most journalists would scream censorship if Republican candidates or anyone else tried to pressure a liberal outlet like NBC, but those same journalists are biased against Fox, seeing it as a trespasser on their turf. So much for sticking up for their profession.
Here's the real question for
April 9, 2007 - 19:40 ET by ThisnThatHere's the real question for Edwards, and now Obama, and the rest of the Dims:
"You ran the other way, Mr. Edwards, when confronted with the prospects of appearing on Fox for a campaign debate. Please explain how you will behave when facing the prospect of questions from a Republican congress, or from world leaders? And, tell us why Fox is more fearsome than anything a President will face, and convince us that you won't run away."
I think there is something
April 9, 2007 - 11:32 ET by bobthemanI think there is something else going on in the Edwards campaign. He is not a potlitical hack but rather a shrewd and disigngenuous politician.
He knows he can't win the presidency if he doesn't capture the middle ground and the Fox News audience is a large percentage of this demographic.
This leads me to the obvious question... why?
Why does he choose to alienate a rather large "middle of the road" demographic? There must be a calculated reason for his refusal to participate.
Is this a miscalculation on his part to appeal to a dis-enfranchised demographic or does he know he cannot win and wants to play the spoiler?
My personal take... I don't think he cares if he wins. I believe he wants a stage to play spoiler... but I'm not sure why. I'll let it play out to see if I'm right, but something doesn't smell right with his strategy. Something is amiss.
As we saw with Kerry... Edwards obvious elitist lifestyle and phony sound bite's will not play well with middle America... the heart of any presidential victory... you cannot win unless the middle is the majority.
He has made a conscious decision to ignore and alienate this demographic... why? Would love to hear other ideas....
Edwards, like Obama, is littl
April 9, 2007 - 13:16 ET by GalvanicEdwards, like Obama, is little more than an empty suit politically. The press conference where his wife anounced that she has non-treatable cancer, gave him his biggest bump in the polls.
Edwards, like Obama, is littl
April 9, 2007 - 13:16 ET by GalvanicEdwards, like Obama, is little more than an empty suit politically. The press conference where his wife anounced that she has non-treatable cancer, gave him his biggest bump in the polls.
And now, according to Drudge,
April 9, 2007 - 15:44 ET by CaringwhiteguyAnd now, according to Drudge, Obama has pulled the same stunt, saying he won't participate in a Fox sponsored debate.
Add Shillery to the mix als
April 9, 2007 - 19:57 ET by mytwocentsAdd Shillery to the mix also. She will not participate either. What an incredible bunch of losers! I wouldn't vote for any of them for Dog Catcher.
The Democrat candidates are being driven by the netroots
April 9, 2007 - 20:07 ET by RJWhat we're not hearing is that the Democrat candidates were driven to this like sheep. The netroots have been pushing hard for this ...MoveOn, DailyKos and the rest.
Hasn't anyone officially pron
April 9, 2007 - 13:45 ET by BruzillaHasn't anyone officially pronounced "The Center" as DOA at election time yet? Most Centrists are centrists because they don't care much about politics, and folks who don't care about politics don't vote! Much ado is made about Bill Clinton's move to the center, but the truth is the guy won office without a majority of the vote and only because Ross Perot was splitting off enough of the vote to allow Clinton to win without a majority. Clinton won because more Dem voters came out, and a lot of Republican voters went with Perot. In a straight -up Bush-Clinton or Dole-Clinton election, Bill Clinton keeps working as a lawyer in Arkansas.
I think self-described Centrists do what most folks who can't decide on something do... a lot of talking and little or no action. Edwards knows that the person who wins the nomination will be the person who appeals to the biggest part of the 40% of voters who are Democrats.
Bob,I suspect that Edwards be
April 9, 2007 - 20:13 ET by BlondeBob,
I suspect that Edwards believes Obama and Her Highness will cancel each other out.
And he'll be the default candidate....a la Michael Dukakis (well, he's that stupid looking, at least).
Must agree....it all seems rather silly to me.
He's even more of a lightweight than Obama....if that were humanly possible.
I find it hillarious that they all "choose" not to debate.
If they can't debate with each other, how on earth will they face the (R) candidates?
It must be a horrible thing to have to live one's life trying to never put a foot wrong....rather than trying to live one's life doing the right thing! I can't imagine it.
Carry on, dems!
"We believe there's ju
April 9, 2007 - 13:08 ET by Jack BauerWow, there really is no reasoning with people are clearly becoming more unhinged by the second.
Anyone remember the good old days when it was TELEVISION which gave politicians the platform?
Oh hang on, that's only yesterday! King Edwards would clearly feel happier with a monarchy.
Talk about getting things back-asswards.
Mind you, we are talking about someone who believes that the answer to problems is to tax people more, and for the government to control lives.
I live in NC. I have always s
April 9, 2007 - 13:22 ET by ricklailI live in NC. I have always said that if this state needed an enima they would stick the hose in Chapel Hill. Well Edwards just re-inforces this for me. ( He lives in Chapel Hill not Raleigh.) He needs to tie some kerosene rags around his ankles so the ants can't get to his candy ass.
A bonafided and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.
ricklail, I'm a native NCer
April 9, 2007 - 20:04 ET by mytwocentsricklail, I'm a native NCer, also. Help me out here - I can't name anything that John (Constantly Running For President) Edwards has done for NC as a virtual Senator. He has proposed no legislation and has been absent from his elected job practically the entire time he has been in office. Like Clinton, many people will vote for him because of the way he looks. God help us all!
Roland Martin of CNN in comme
April 9, 2007 - 13:30 ET by Gat New YorkRoland Martin of CNN in commenting on why politicians will have enough sense not to go on Don Imus drew an analogy to Edwards withdrawl from the debate on FoxNews saying that politicians will have enough sense not to go on a show that is inherently biased.
"We believe there's just
April 9, 2007 - 15:01 ET by FastEd"We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," - the opposite of that then, would be the admission that ALL the rest "advance" a LEFT-WING agenda. We now have the proof - the msm (Lsm) is a leftist tool, 'cause there are no denials by any of the media big-wigs!
NB now has the PROOF - there is media bias! Edwards says so!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I'm going to take a shot at
April 9, 2007 - 15:48 ET by WhichWingI'm going to take a shot at this one, and I am aware of the risk.
I think the best example of why the Dems would not want to go on Fox would be the recent uproar over Pelosi's trip to Syria. The other day Hannity declared to Col. North that he never thought he'd see the speaker of the house allow herself to be used for propaganda purposes. To which Col. North said, "Well, she didn't just allow
herself to be used, she was a willful participant in this."
And I'm sure you will never believe this, but they never even mentioned the Republican led trip that took place just 2 days before.
They are worried about the well-crafted spin of Fox News.
Oh, bull, WhichWay
April 9, 2007 - 16:11 ET by RJOh, bull, WhichWay. The Republicans were on a fact-finding mission and the White House has not discouraged those from either party. Pelosi clearly overstepped her authority and probably broke the law when she attempted to negotiate with Syria. She also created a mixed policy message that undermined the White House and gave Syria a propaganda opportunity to use against President Bush.
As for Edwards and Obama being worried about the "spin" of Fox, that's bull, too. The only thing they're worried about are the netroots like MoveOn, which have been openly and aggressively pushing for this.
What did she attempt to neg
April 9, 2007 - 18:35 ET by WhichWingWhat did she attempt to negotiate with Syria? Were you even aware there was a another trip by Republican congressmen just 2 days before? (I think the liberal media kept it quiet.) Do you know who was on that first trip? Do you know who was on the second trip? Did you realize Pelosi was not alone on her trip? Can't you see a witch hunt when looking it right in the eye?
This link might help clear the fog.
Only the braindead or the most extreme ideologues can deny it
April 9, 2007 - 18:48 ET by RJWitch hunt? WhichWay, either you're a fool or you have tunnel vision.
Even LIBERAL news outlets have been dumping on her for her actions. She, and not the Republicans, attempted to practice "shuttle diplomacy". She, and not the Republicans, carried messages around as if she were responsible for America's foreign policy. She was stupid and wrong and only the brainless or the most extreme ideologues can deny it. I figure you for a little of each....
What did she say that was in
April 9, 2007 - 18:58 ET by WhichWingWhat did she say that was in contradiction to America's foreign policy? You are blindly repeating what you have been told by the media. Go a little deeper in your reading and I'm sure you'll find that pretty much everything you said on this subject is false.
I'm not going to waste time sparring with your ideology.
April 9, 2007 - 19:15 ET by RJI'm not going to waste time sparring with your protective knee-jerk ideology. Learn some facts. Discover the Logan Act. Go read some newspapers besides the New York Times. When you have something to discuss other than suggestion, innuendo and left wing blog parroting, get back to me.
(By the way, you can do the same with your stupid thought that Democrats fear that Fox twists stories. Read up on what the netroots have been up to with the candidates and who is really driving their decisions.)
Otherwise, screw off.
That's about what I expecte
April 9, 2007 - 20:56 ET by WhichWingThat's about what I expected. You'll make all sorts of statements about what Pelosi did, but pressed to back it up, and you claim you aren't going to waste time sparring wth my knee-jerk ideology. You say she was negotiating with Syria, so what was she negotiating? You say: "She, and not the Republicans, carried messages around as if she were responsible for America's foreign policy." Well, back it up. If you are going to make a statement like this: "she was stupid and wrong and only the brainless or the most extreme ideologues can deny it."; then you should be prepared to back up what you say.
I discovered the Logan Act and responded to its application in this situation, read below.
No interest, WhichWay
April 9, 2007 - 22:36 ET by RJWrong, WhichWay. I have no problem arguing facts in a factual case...as this is. However, your habit is to use ideological suggestion and innuendo as a pretense of factual debate. I have no interest in participating in that. You also argue dishonestly. If you're truly too uninformed to know the facts by following the news, you could have easily read the thread to discover exactly what Pelosi did. Instead, you make sly comments. And since you apparently don't read the thread yourself, why do you follow my Logan Act comment by posting somewhere below and suggesting that I go look for it?
In short, I'm not interested in playing your foolish games.
Wing - The Republicans did fa
April 9, 2007 - 20:57 ET by Gat New YorkWing - The Republicans did fact finding only which is very common. Pelosi went to affect foreign relations and said as much. More importantly she appointed herself to carry a message from Olmert to Assad as a U.S. rep without the authorization of the President. That is a felony. And she completely botched it. Witch hunts are when there is no evidence of any wrong doing (i.e. what Patrick Leahy admitted to on Meet the Press last Sunday) and there is an effort to find something. There is no witch hunt here. Unfortunately Pelotes may get away with this for now.
Congressman Hobson, the R
April 9, 2007 - 21:12 ET by WhichWingCongressman Hobson, the Republican member of the bipartisan Pelosi delegation, told the Dayton Daily News yesterday [April 5, actually]: “I think actually we’ve helped the administration’s position by showing there’s not dissension.” Hobson went on to say: “They (Democrats) have not gone around this region attacking the president for his, I thought, inappropriate discussion of this.”
Basically, they went over there and backed up Bush's policies. Where's the real issue here?
As posted on Pelosi's blog:
"Speaker Pelosi accurately relayed a message given to her by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Syrian President Assad.
The tough and serious message the Speaker relayed was that, in order
for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must
eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and
Hezbollah."
All you are doing is running around with some smoke looking for a fire.
1. She did not get the messag
April 9, 2007 - 21:30 ET by Gat New York1. She did not get the message right and that is very well documented. 2. She had no authorization to delive a message at all. 3. There is a fundamental problem with Hobson going or anyone going to meet with a foreign leader, in a time of war, that the Commander-in-Chief wants to isolate for very sound strategic reasons.
1a. "Pelosi is conve
April 9, 2007 - 22:32 ET by WhichWing1a. "Pelosi is conveying that Israel
is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop
supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at
this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around
the Middle East
, is not a partner for negotiations."
1b. “What was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change
in Israel’s policy, as it has been presented to international parties
involved in the matter,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in the
statement.
1c. Other observers noted that prior to the recent objections from
Jerusalem, Israeli officials seemed quite eager to use Pelosi as a
messenger. According to a report in Ha’aretz, the key message that
Olmert was hoping for Pelosi to convey was that Israel has no plans to
attack Syria. Israeli officials reportedly are worried that Assad,
after incorrectly concluding that Jerusalem is planning a strike
against his country, will launch an attack against Israel.
2. Addressed above.
3. The administration seem to be the only people who think they have "very sound strategic reasons" for isolating Syria. Even the highly touted, bipartisan, and then quickly overlooked Iraq Study Group disagreed with that stance.
WW - Nancy Peloti appointed h
April 9, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Gat New YorkWW - Nancy Peloti appointed herself as the U.S. agent to deliver a message from the Israeli President to Assad and she did it without the U.S. President's authorization. That is a violation of the Logan Act and Article II of the Constitution. To compound the felony she was not even intelligent enough to deliver the right message and created an international incident. End of discussion.
In 1975, Senators John Spar
April 9, 2007 - 18:55 ET by WhichWingIn 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit
unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United
States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act],
however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging
in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative
duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and
Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage
the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and
purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to
that country. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban
officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate
on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and
learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August
1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted
on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g.,
the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents
visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the
second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not
consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be
inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.
I can't address the part about Article II of the Constitution because I'm not sure what you are referring to in it, but hope you will show me.
This made my point. The State
April 9, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Gat New YorkThis made my point. The State Department was confirming the fact that it is okay for legislatures to speak with foreign governments to do fact finding ( . . listen and learn . . ) but not to conduct policy without the authorizarition of the President. She went there to carry out the wishes of the Baker Hamilton Commission which called for speaking with Syria. More importantly she appointed herself as a U.S. emissary with a message from Olmert to Assad which is the job of the State Department. She did it without the permission of the President. And she botched it was well. Article II confirms support of the Logan Act by granting exclusive power for conducting foreign relations to the President. And exactly how many assasinations and terror groups will it take for you to understand tha Assad is an enemy?
If what you say is correct,
April 9, 2007 - 21:21 ET by WhichWingIf what you say is correct, we should see prosecution, right? If you are exaggerating the purpose of her trip, then it will just go away, right? You cling to the 'fact finding' and that's exactly what Pelosi's trip was reported to be for, until the White House began its attack. And you dutifully fell in line.
Yet another deluded Leftist t
April 9, 2007 - 17:19 ET by UnsaneYet another deluded Leftist that is in total FEAR of one little, lowly, tiny news channel that MAY get one million viewers on a busy news day.
I for one don't care WHO goes to Syria or Iran...the only people who should go there are the occasional diplomats, or a few thousand heavily-armed personnel.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
the way fox news makes mist
April 9, 2007 - 20:38 ET by BlameTheMediathe way fox news makes mistakes with simple identification on the screen, I don't blame anyone for backing out. they are the least fair and balanced news. and they are so sleezy... all the little babes on their news page. this shows who their watered down audience is.
Balderash, says I!
April 9, 2007 - 20:58 ET by misterbillBalderash, says I! You fustian nonentity. You do bluster so! Did I just tune into "Hate the Press". liberal style.
PS What is wrong with little babes? Most of whom hold law degrees and could whip your butt in a debate?
Do you think you could hold your own with Ann, Laura. Megan or Michelle??
I'll bet!!!
Snubbing Fox News
April 9, 2007 - 21:37 ET by nkviking75Someone should ask these clowns, "If you're elected president, are you going to ban Fox News from the White House press corps? Will you refuse to call on them at press conferences? If so, why?"
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Viking - an excellent point i
April 9, 2007 - 21:45 ET by Gat New YorkViking - an excellent point in light of their bias and their actions.
Boy, that would be quite a
April 9, 2007 - 22:18 ET by WhichWingBoy, that would be quite a change from appointing Fox News announcers to the post of Press Secretary, wouldn't it?
Where Press Secretaries come from
April 9, 2007 - 22:24 ET by nkviking75Yeah, and how many previous press secretaries were drawn from the MSM? Plenty.
The Dems have a tendency to see themselves as royalty whom no one dare question.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
The Dems and Fox News
April 9, 2007 - 22:15 ET by pbthinkerIt should be obvious, to the most casual observer, that the Democrats are trying to delegitimize Fox News. This is a strategy, not an accident and will only work if the American People, and their media, allow it to happen.
President BUsh has been taken over the coals by every network, including Fox on occasion. He still gives interviews with them all and has been asked some pretty tough questions, along the way. Should we expect less from the Democratic Party? I think not!
What are they afraid of? Can it be that Fox News might ask a question they can't answer? Might it be that they could make a critical mistake, and find their candidacy in a shambles? If that's the case, why should they get someones vote?
If I were Fox, I would be asking the Democrats all of these questions and put them on the spot. Any time I had a Democrat on, I would ask him why they're so afraid of Fox News? I'd also ask them what is so appealing about CNN, is it because CNN will softball them all night and they won't have to think on their feet?
The electorate has a right to see the Democrats on Fox, just like they have the right to see Republicans on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. Hell, Matthews can ask questions just as rediculous as Hannity's but what's to fear, if you have answers. Now, if you want to dodge questions, then by all means avoid Fox News. They succeeded in that during the last election, we'll see if the public is willing to let them get away with it a second time.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Demos
April 11, 2007 - 10:26 ET by iveseenitallThe liberals know that their entire mode of operation is based upon deception. They are the masters of deceit. Fox asks the questions they won't ever answer and exposes them for what they are. They can't have that, can they? How many leftist professors have you had who won't even allow questions in their clasrooms? No room for legitimate debate there. I remember a liberal colleague of mine bursting into my office enraged that I had dared to question him in public. The more you learn about the left, the better off you will be.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal