Dan Rather and Bill Maher Rip Democrats Over Fox News Debate Fiasco

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

A truly astounding thing happened on HBO’s “Real Time” Friday evening: a panel comprised of four liberal media members actually voiced unanimous displeasure with Democrats.

I bet you’re looking out your window to see some airborne swine right about now.

As shocking and unlikely as such a public display might seem, when host Bill Maher moved the discussion to the recent cancellation of a presidential debate to be hosted by Fox News, he and his guests all felt the Democrats made a mistake.

Defying the currently in vogue theory of anthropogenic global warming, hell hath begun freezing over.

Present and accounted for were former CBS anchor Dan Rather, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, and comedian Jason Alexander. What follows is a partial transcript of this shocking event (video available here courtesy of our friend Ms Underestimated):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

BILL MAHER: Now, we have two really esteemed journalists here. Let me ask a little bit about journalism so we can get into that. Uh, first of all, the Democratic candidates pulled out of a debate that was being sponsored by Fox News. In August, they were going to debate in Nevada. And, um, they said, “You know what, Fox News is really just an arm of the Republican Party. Why should we participate?” I think they’re wrong. I don’t think you do that. I think you go into their house, and you win an away game. What do you think?

DAN RATHER: Well, first of all, it’s their decision. It’s their Party. They get to decide, and if this is their decision, and I think we’ve got anything to argue about. However, one wants to note that when Bill Clinton went on Fox, he helped himself, he helped his Party by number one saying, “I’m not afraid to go in there.” Number two, through kind of mental and verbal jujitsu, he turned the tables on his Fox interviewer.

MAHER: Jujitsu? He kicked ass. He did. He kicked Chris Wallace’s ass around that studio. You know, I mean, it makes me, when they do something like this, it makes Ann Coulter look right.

MARTHA RADDATZ: And what do you do next? Do Republican candidates start saying, “I’m not going to go on other networks.” I mean, it just starts a whole thing, I, I, I don’t quite get it to tell you the truth.

JASON ALEXANDER: The only caveat with it though I think was, and I don’t think they’ve gotten to this point about the format, but if, as long as it was not possible for the, you know, Fox wonk in the chair, the moderator to dial down their microphones so he could interject. If it was really an open forum that they were talking about, then I think you’re absolutely right, it’s foolish to pull out. You know, if you go into the lion’s den, in this case to bring over some disenfranchised lions, and you don’t have to be Siegfried and Roy to know it’s a little risky, but you go.

MAHER: The public’s problem with the Democrats is that they think they’re pussies. And this just feeds into that.

Nice. So, for those keeping score, that’s Fox News four, Democrats zero, with all liberal referees.

I’m verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not so much

With all due respect, these guys were more dumping on Fox than their precious Dim candidates. But honestly, how rich is it to have Rather agreeing and advancing the notion that Fox is biased? Pure as the driven snow is he.

And Maher... ugh. He calls what Clinton did in the Wallace interview an ass kicking. Yeah, if you fight like girls. But then again... I'm sure he does.

Clinton came off as a whin

Clinton came off as a whiny brat, crying about how you're all against me, it's not fair, no fair, WAAAAH!!

And his comments about the "little smirk" on Wallace's face, and thinking he was so clever, etc. Nyah, nyah, nyah! What 9-year-old prepped him for THAT attack?

That was no a$$ kicking. That was a whiny tantrum.

Whenever a lib throws a whiny

Whenever a lib throws a whiny trantrum you have struck pay dirt as you have been essentially shown their weakness and frustration over being caught.  Chris Wallace failed to hold Clinton accountable to the facts and as a result Clinton won that little spat.  That's why libs throw tantrums, they are counting on the opponent being in shock at the obvious display of childishness/emotionalism that they simply don't respond.   The failure to respond indicates an acceptance of their points and more importantly, the ridiculous lies spouted being unchallenged are now "truth".  Chris Wallace not being a hard boiled conservative, succomed to the tantrum.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Whenever a lib throws a whiny

duplicate

Maher has always thought that democrats are

I have watched Maher for a long time and he has consistently called out Democrats in their weakness to stand up against charges to them. He refers to it as democrats not "raising the bet" when attacked by republicans, which is understandable because he's actually a libertarian, so he has no reason to be soft against the democratic party.

Clinton's "ass-kicking" of Wallace? Methinks not.

For those of you who haven't seen the Wallace smackdown of Clinton, it is here courtesy of our friend at MsUnderestimated. You tell ME after watching this if Clinton got the best of Chris.

I think he most certainly did not; in fact, Clinton lost it.

Clinton lost it

I continue to be amazed at those who claim that Clinton "won" or "beat" Chris Wallace in this interview.  Clinton had come off a series of interviews that stressed his worldwide work, and this was the first one that challenged his record on Bin Laden.  In my view, Clinton lost it.  The smirk on Chris Wallace's face was that of a person enjoying the meltdown, on his program, of a former US president.  As Chris surely realized, his interview is the one that is remembered, not the numerous ones before that followed the Clinton script.

MAHER: The public’s problem

MAHER: The public’s problem with the Democrats is that they think they’re pussies. And this just feeds into that.

Maher finally got something right.

Seriously what a bunch of whiz-bangs...all of them.

The conservatives had better learn to fight...and fight back hard.

The leftists just shoot themselves in the foot not going on FOX...they have the biggest viewing audience...but the wussies have to cater to their leftist base and the moolah that it generates...

Now if the conservatives would learn something from this....and use it to their advantage.

"The conservatives had b

"The conservatives had better learn to fight... and fight back hard."

Amen!!!! For those who don't believe in God I say mega Ditto's to the above comment:)

Freedom of Speech is at stake in the next couple of years. Every conserative and moderate had better realize that.

The democracks really has no

The democracks really has no agenda when it comes to ideas. The "cut & run" democtoids are showing their true colors- cowards in the first degree. It's only a debate on Fox, for crying out loud. The leftoids always starts with a big noise, and that's about it, just a muffled noise without a thud. Losers! 

If you check out one of the D

If you check out one of the Democratic web site forums, over and over you hear common folk that are completely and utterly disgusted with the Democrats. Their were lots of democratic candidates prior to the 2006 elections that simply are not living up to their promises. For example, John Conyers promised the pursuit of impeachment; however, right after he won he said "no impeachment". Pelosi is guilty of the same thing. She talked over and over about "pulling out" however, when it comes down to it, she knows she can't do it. The Democrats know nothing except that they disagree with the Republicans. That's all. The Democrats ARE pussies.

we should be cautious

mostlymoderate, yes, it is a prevalent theme within the democrat forums that their narrowly won mandate is not being realized. But to further analyze this, I think the conservatives should be cautious and aware of the resultant candidates that will be groomed to replace the moderated democrats currently raking Bush and the administration over the coals. It could get much worse. And even if the majority swings back across the aisle in 2008, the replacement libs for the moderated dems will be even more difficult to deal with. Imagine Schumer, only twice as mean. Imagine Pelosi with an agenda and WITHOUT the stumbling political tactics. Yuk!

That's right, and if the Re

That's right, and if the Republicans would wake up and smell the coffee, they could get something done. The Dems are like bullies; if someone were to stand up to them, they would wilt. But the Republicans keep getting their lunch money taken away from them. Yes, sir, you want Rumsfeld to resign? No problem. You want Gonzales to resign? Sure, here you go. You want Rove to testify? What day and what time? They are the REAL Wusses.

Starting with the President: he should say, Alberto Gonzales is doing a great job, and he's going to continue to do a great job. Isn't that what Al Gore said when his campaign manager Tony Coelho got caught in a financial scandal?  Isn't that what was said about Donna Brazile when she got nailed on her "white boys" comment?   And the biggest "Stick it out until they get tired of it" master of all, William Jefferson Clinton. Even Hillary said you need to deck your opponent. And then THEY say that the Republicans are vicious and fight dirty.

The Republicans don't know anything about fighting at all, nevermind fighting dirty. The didn't show any backbone when they had the majority; why would they now?

Rather and Maher have both ap

Rather and Maher have both appeared on O'Reilly Factor (Maher more than once), so they speak from the voice of experience.  And Maher is right --- if you're strong in your convictions, they play an "away" game and try to win.

Edwards started this broohaha when he refused to appear at the debate at the urging of his puppet master, MoveOn.org.  Others then followed suit.  Apparently, MoveOn erroneously thinks it will hurt Fox News, who was merely co-sponsoring the debate with the Nevada Democratic Party.

But undermining the debate doesn't hurt Fox News at all.  Why should they care?

As for Clinton and the Chris Wallace interview, Maher has a very different assessment than most of us. 

I agree, Galvanic, and Edward

I agree, Galvanic, and Edwards has proven he doesn't have the stones to be President by pandering to extreme elements in his own party.  Obama is no different in this.  In this respect they make Hillary look tough.  The Dem nomination is strictly for Hillary to lose, none of the other Dem candidates have any stones at all.

Actually though when you think about the Dem nominating process, the libs have thoroughly captured/hijacked that process.  Keeping Fox News out ensures that the smallest possible audience, a liberal dominated audience, gets to do all the choosing.  So in this sense Moveon.org has not miscalculated, it has guaranteed the minimum interference from the outside for liberals to control the nominating process.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Excellent points, dscott.  I

Excellent points, dscott.  I think Edwards' willful association with vitriolic, anti-Christian bloggers on the Left, will prove to be rather quixotic, and aid his opponent Hillary. Notice that whenever Hillary concludes a campaign speech these days, she throws in the the tag: "God bless you." 

Freedome of the Press

Can you imagine the indignant chortling from the likes of Rather if Republicans were to attack the objectivity of that Democrat outlet NBC, or even CBS, ABC or NBC?

My guess is that one of the f

My guess is that one of the four "referees", most likely Rather, remembered that the Dem candidates had NO problem with appearing in a Fox-sponsored debate during the 2004 election cycle. Which shows how hypocritical they are in 2007.

Where there's smoke there's fire

So why do all liberals hate Fox News (and Rush, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, etc., etc.) so much? Because they're EFFECTIVE and they're WINNING THE INFORMATION WAR. Democrats have a harder time zomb-a-fying the sheep now, since 100% of the news isn't falling in line (now they're only controlling 95% of the information flow).

Obama throwing the hammer at Hillary on the screen in an Orwellian moment? No...it's really more like conservative media throwing the hammer at the liberal media up on that screen. The zombies have been awakened! The liberals aren't happy about it...

Cunservatyve military medical guy

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote!

I bet you’re looking out

I bet you’re looking out your window to see some airborne swine right about now.

Funny. (Actually, I was, but there were too many elephants blocking my view.)

Now, we have two really esteemed journalists here.

Downright hilarious.

I think the dems mis-calulated by not going through with the debate on the FNC. It made them look childish, even among other dims. It also highlights the fact that the nutroots have a lot of power over the Democrat Party right now. Not a good image if you are a mod in that party (assuming there really are any.)

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

Good Question

Chris Wallace asked former President Bill Clinton a perfectly legitimate question when he was on Fox News Sunday. Clinton reacted the way he did because Fox might be the only network not bowing to his every move since he was elected in the 90s. Another reason he reacted the way that he did:

"Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." -Whitaker Chambers

"JASON ALEXANDER: The only ca

"JASON ALEXANDER: The only caveat with it though I think was, and I don’t think they’ve gotten to this point about the format, but if, as long as it was not possible for the, you know, Fox wonk in the chair, the moderator to dial down their microphones so he could interject."

Can you say "lost without a script"?