The second presidential debate is over. The dust is still settling as to who did the best or the worst but one thing is clear: Fox News proved to be a much better debate host than MSNBC.
Stephen Spruiell has a video comparison of MSNBC/Politico questions and those asked by FNC's staff:
Ed Morrissey puts it well:I think the MSNBC/Politico questions actually got stupider with age.
By contrast, the FOX News questions were serious and the questioners tenacious in pursuing answers. Even the questions that viewers submitted to FOX via e-mail were far better than "What do you dislike most about America?" and the other nonsense that got past the Politico's electronic gatekeepers.
Watch the video. I created a montage of MSNBC questions first, followed by a montage of FOX questions. The increase in the seriousness and difficulty of the questions is comparable to that between high school and college
There is no comparison between Brit Hume and Chris Matthews, and the two networks as well. This was crisp, sharp, with germane and substantive questions and a minimum of silliness. The MSNBC forum was so silly that it almost defied description. Perhaps the Democrats should reconsider their allergy to Fox.Michelle Malkin:
That was simply in a different league than the goofball format and goofball "moderators" on MSNBC. And I'm not just saying that because I work for Fox News. Given the crowded stage and time constraints, the debate still produced memorable moments, spontaneous conflict, and useful shakeouts.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fox was doing well until Carl
May 16, 2007 - 05:27 ET by Sir ThomasFox was doing well until Carl Cameron appeared for the analysis, painting Giuliani as the winner due to his reaction to Ron Paul's comments, only for Paul to beat him comfortably in the viewer poll. The truth clearly resonated more with the viewers at home than it did with the audience.
It's situation-normal. For
May 16, 2007 - 06:24 ET by sarcasmoIt's situation-normal. For a less-biased view of the exchange, see this link, which had this gem:
Romney: 27%
Paul: 26%
Giuliani: 18%
Romney, Mitt
MA
Raised: $23,434,634
Spent: $11,570,981
Cash on Hand: $11,863,652
Debts: $2,350,000
Giuliani, Rudy
NY
Raised: $16,623,410
Spent: $5,688,207
Cash on Hand: $11,949,734
Debts: $88,862
McCain, John
AZ
Raised: $13,087,559
Spent: $8,379,214
Cash on Hand: $5,180,799
Debts: $1,812,636
Paul, Ron
TX
Raised: $639,989
Spent: $115,070
Cash on Hand: $524,919
Debts: $0
The spinmeisters at Fox News finally got to Ron (with Hannity in interruption-fest mode...) at about 11:30 PM IIRC, and I was falling asleep at that point. And yes, I'm very proud my hundred bucks is among that efficient-money. :) Sticker goes on the car today.
JMR
News Flash
May 16, 2007 - 07:08 ET by allanfRead the absurdities in your link Sarcasmo.
Here is a news flash Sarcasmo.
There are people who hate us because they hate us. There are evil people in this world. There are dangerous people in this world. No attempt at rapproachment will change their behavior.
Middle Eastern terrorism was around long before the Iraqi conflict. There is nothing you can do to change that, unless you want to put your wife in a Burka and pray to their God. If you were killed in a terrorist attack many in the Middle East would rejoice..
Bin Laden and his ilk do not need motivation from us to attack. They attack us because they hate and despise us with every ounce of energy they have.
Why does everyone so quickly
May 16, 2007 - 07:54 ET by BeowulfWhy does everyone so quickly forget UBL's own words on why he hates the US? He hates us, and caused 9/11 because we are "Infidels", unbelievers who, by his interpretation of the Quran, are to be converted to Islam by the sword.
And the number one reason for the attack is that we are, by our presence in the M.E., "corrupting" Islam with our western ways. 9/11 was going to happen, period. If the Gulf War wasn't available as a reason, UBL would have found or created some other "justification".
9/11 was a follow-on to the 1993 WTC bombing. This was conducted supposedly for three reasons: 1. U.S. aid to Israel, 2. U.S. diplomatic relations with Israel, and 3. U.S. "interference" with all M.E. countries (interference meaning "presence" as well as any military action).
Seems to me that we've been supporting Israel for far longer than we've been conducting military operations in the M.E. Iran, Syria, even at times Egypt, have criticized us for our relations with Israel, and most terrorism aimed at the U.S. is supposedly based on said relationship. According to the Islamofacists, we are totally controlled by the Zionists. Our government, big business, and media are tools of Israel, and therefore, we need to be destroyed. Disregard how ridiculous this position actually is, it's still enough for the radical Muslims to base their animosity on. We will be fighting them until one or the other is dead. We can't talk to them, and they can't talk to us. They are not open to negotiation, as they are totally inflexible in their demands, and we will never agree to their unbelievably ridiculous desires. It's "all-or-nothing" for them, and "you've got to be joking" for us. There is no middle ground. And anyone representing them who tries to moderate thier position and negotiate with us is condemned and usually attacked, both verbally and physically.
People like Ron Paul and the liberal Dem leadership need to get it through their incredibly thick skulls that you can't negotiate with Radical Islam. You'd make more progress talking nice to a rabid dog.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Paul is a very intelligent gu
May 16, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Gat New YorkPaul is a very intelligent guy so I was shocked at how uninformed his remark on Al Qaeda was. You expect that from the feckless wonder on the left. His comparison to Lebanon was wrong as well. He kept digging himself a deeper hole. Anyone how has read the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood and bin Laden himself would know that this started before we were in the Middle East. Paul is living in the old world of isolationism and that simply is not how the world is. If you accept and participate in a global economy then you also participate in evey aspect of global politics. Isolationism is not a reality we can afford.
Bin Ladin has also said that
May 16, 2007 - 10:00 ET by BDBin Ladin has also said that Jihad must be waged against us because of our occupation of the original Caliphate by christians.
Does Ron Paul wish us to remove christians from Sicily, Southern France, Southern Spain, Romania, and Northern Mindinao as well?
Agreed about UBL. One should
May 16, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BeowulfAgreed about UBL. One should also note that he made the statements concerning the Caliphate after he condemned western presence and "contamination" of Saudi and the rest of the M.E.
This makes my point that 9/11 was going to happen regardless of our involvement with Iraq. SOME reason would have been dredged up to justify a major terrorist attack, at least in the Islamist's tiny little minds.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beo: A long standing position
May 16, 2007 - 11:12 ET by BDBeo:
A long standing position from the Islamo Fascists such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the mid part of last century was that the loss of the Caliphate was not to be withstood and the Caliphate had to be reformed.
Sort of an acre-by-acre reacquisition through any means necessary.
Again, I agree. This is a tru
May 16, 2007 - 15:19 ET by BeowulfAgain, I agree. This is a true statement. I'm focussing on UBL and the 9/11 attacks.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Sorry, man.I like and respe
May 16, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Ken ShepherdSorry, man.
I like and respect Ron Paul's strong constitutional stances on domestic policy, but he's out of touch on foreign policy.
He may be on to something in saying that we should formally have declared war on Iraq. I certainly respect that traditional conservative/constitutionalist argument.
But in any way chalking up 9/11 to our policies is wrongheaded and just plain wrong. Besides, it falls into the liberal trap of excusing or justifying terrorist violence as though it were a legitimate political response, albeit a bloodier medium for it.
But in any way chalking up 9/
May 16, 2007 - 09:10 ET by dscottBut in any way chalking up 9/11 to our policies is wrongheaded and just plain wrong. Besides, it falls into the liberal trap of excusing or justifying terrorist violence as though it were a legitimate political response, albeit a bloodier medium for it.
I was stunned that he actually said it and Rudy was absolutely right to pounce on him for it, however in a perverse view of things in one sense Ron Paul's statement is correct. On one hand any idea that somehow 3000 people deserved to be murdered for US (as Ron Paul infered) intervention in Iraq (he said it) after they invaded Kuwait is an outrageous assertion. Any idea that innocent civilians deserve to be murdered or the murderers given a pass on it is unacceptable leftist anti-American tripe. On the other hand, we have BJ Clinton to thank for 911, his own feckless responses to numerous attacks against US interests and the utter failure in Somalia characterized throughout his 8 years emboldened OBL and OBL said so and only in that sense would Ron Paul be correct in such an assertion.
Ron Paul disqualified himself as a viable candidate, (1 down, 9 to go) if you can't get foreign policy even reasonably close then you have no business being POTUS.
“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
The poll pitted one outsid
May 16, 2007 - 23:47 ET by Arturo_VandelayThe poll pitted one outsider against 9 insiders. No surprise Paul got the lion's share of non-mainstream Republican (and Democrat) votes. Paul's supporters are well organized and out early, but they aren't likely to get a lot more people into the fold. As the mainstream Republicans drop off most of their votes are likely to coalesce behind other mainstreamers, not Ron Paul.
Democrats
May 16, 2007 - 06:59 ET by allanfIt is amazing. The Democrats believe in talking to everyone but Fox News. Kim Il Jung, no problem. Iranian President Ahmadinejad no problem. Castro no problem. Hugo Chavez no problem.
Fox News, we can't talk to them!1!
Bashar Assad, too.
May 16, 2007 - 07:17 ET by FishFace222Bashar Assad, too.
Hey, he's their kind of guy:
May 16, 2007 - 12:15 ET by kathleenirishHey, he's their kind of guy: a supposedly "moderate" despot! Democrats never met a dictator or totalitarian anti-American, anti-Israeli, pro-terrorist sponsoring (oops, sorry! "freedom fighters") state they didn't like. They tell us they know how to 'talk' their language, right? They never said a truer word.
Quick Reference=See: Castro and Chavez (alive); Arafat and Hussein (dead).
I hate 99% of Democrats in Congress. Greasy weasly traitors.
" 'Fred's Slacks' is a winner!!"
But we just witnessed why the
May 16, 2007 - 12:02 ET by taznarBut we just witnessed why they won't. Just imagine the Democrats having to answer serious questions about their own views and what they would do, as opposed to simply critiquing GWB. Half of them would have needed clean underwear before starting the second round of questions.
Actually Matthews did ask a q
May 16, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Gat New YorkActually Matthews did ask a question of them about a fictitious terror attack and the answers were very revealing:
Hillary: prudently retailiate.
Obama: make sure there are enough ambulances
Edwards: set up elementary schools in the Middle East
One of them becomes President only God can save us.
If one of them becomes Presid
May 16, 2007 - 14:11 ET by InsufficientContextIf one of them becomes President, I'm pretty sure God would abandon us....
Getting back to reality - Fox
May 16, 2007 - 07:03 ET by Iron LadyGetting back to reality -
Fox did a great job. The number of substantitive questions was great. The candidates had more chances to answer important questions in the first half-hour than they did in the entire last debate. No more ridiculous questions about Bill Clinton back in the White House (that one alone should preclude MSNBC from ever hosting another debate), etc. And they didn't just stick to Dem talking points, or questions spun to make only Dem answers seem logical. We actually had questions about war - about what to do after a terrorist attack, etc. Very interesting.
I would love to see the Dems in a debate like this - where each was asked about their weak points as well as how they would handle really important issues today.
As to RP - I can't believe that I - at one time - had some respect for him. The joke of a poll - done with text messaging that most adults probably have no way to do or no understanding of how to do - should disappear, as this candidate should before the next debate.
Fox showed how to do it
May 16, 2007 - 08:05 ET by c5thenIt was the contrast to MSNBC's amaturish attempt to control the answers that was so striking. FoxNews showed what a professional news organization can do.
Well Done!
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
The difference is the term &q
May 16, 2007 - 08:55 ET by BeowulfThe difference is the term "substantive questions and answers". MSNBC wouldn't recognize anything substantive it it sat on their face and wiggled. And the Dems (at least those in Dem leadership positions) hate the term with a passion. They haven't said or done anything "substantive" in a decade. Why start now?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
The Fox News debate was class
May 16, 2007 - 08:49 ET by bigtimerThe Fox News debate was class, pure class.
No wonder the leftists are playing duck and cover.
BT,And there were no "
May 16, 2007 - 08:53 ET by MightyMouthBT,
And there were no "punches pulled". But I can see why the dems are scared sh*tless to debate on fox! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Morning Mighty,I agree with y
May 16, 2007 - 09:06 ET by bigtimerMorning Mighty,
I agree with your points, I really wanted to get on here last night after the debate but I knew I would most likely stay up until the wee hours if I did.
I was wishing that the Giuliani/Paul debate could of went on a little longer so people could see what Paul is really like. I know what I have heard him say on the House floor over the years and he was getting some of that out there for all to see finally....I really used to like him, I respect his views in a lot of areas but my dislike for him has grown over the years.
I laughed until tears were coming down with the Edwards hair-cut statement by Huckabee, there were other ones to by Giuliani and McCain that had me laughing.
It was a great debate, covered a lot, I was extremely pleased and the first words I told my husband this morning were the debate and Fox handled all of it with class....something the rest of the networks should take a lesson from, but they won't they have to much vitriolic hatred for the conservatives, Pres. Bush and their grasp for power.
The fools.
"The fools."LOL..
May 16, 2007 - 09:13 ET by MightyMouth"The fools."
LOL...Ohh, but you're much too kind BT. :-) Have a great day!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The staff at Fox did as well
May 16, 2007 - 10:03 ET by BDThe staff at Fox did as well as can be expected in this format.
Now, the bottom teir candidates, (Paul, Thompson, etc) need to bow out and allow the real debates to begin rather than sound bite contests.
Speaking of sound bite contests. Chris Wallace BURNED those who attempted to simply slide by with a cheap soundbite.
Wallace certainly has aquitte
May 16, 2007 - 10:08 ET by dscottWallace certainly has aquitted himself well. I'm thinking better of him these days.
“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
BD and Ds...I concur with bot
May 16, 2007 - 10:14 ET by bigtimerBD and Ds...
I concur with both of your posts.
Wallace has really improved over the years.
I was really impressed by the whole debate...like I said earlier.
Class...pure class.
Yes, particularly in comparis
May 16, 2007 - 10:19 ET by BDYes, particularly in comparison to the song-and-dance show that was the MSNBC debate.
Both debates further provide evidence that liberals think emotionally, conservatives think logically.
I particularly found the hypothetical wargaming session Britt Hume provided to be an excellent thermometer of backbone.
BDi think that it is still ve
May 16, 2007 - 10:08 ET byBD
i think that it is still very early. Let's keep many ideas in the ring for now.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No, I think the time has come
May 16, 2007 - 10:13 ET by BDNo, I think the time has come for the bottom four to drop out since they are simply acting as chaff to the message traffic.
I was very pleased with the t
May 16, 2007 - 09:18 ET by dscottI was very pleased with the tone of the debate, the candidates even when tweaked by each other were civil and respectful. The questions were to the point and not carriers for hidden agendas as with MSNBC. I call for a boycott by the Repubs of any other network other than Fox News when it comes to debates, we should not allow the MSM to set the agenda by asking their inane questions. No Repub candidate should agree to any debate even with a Dem when it is sponsored by the MSM or other liberal shills like the League of Women voters. It's Fox or nothing.
“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
dscott...Couldn't agree more
May 16, 2007 - 09:27 ET by bigtimerdscott...
Couldn't agree more and have posted as such before the debate, especially after that debacle with Matthews and Politico.
I beg the republicans go on the debates up until the end, only on FOX.
What will the dem's do about it toward the end, not debate their biggest foe?
LOL!
Fox News Debates
May 16, 2007 - 20:15 ET by pbthinkerThe Republicans need to go on MSNBC so they can get a break from answering tough questions. Let's face it, the loaded ones that Matthews served up only made Matthews look foolish.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Seeing only the last 30 min
May 16, 2007 - 18:04 ET by GregESeeing only the last 30 minutes of the debate, I did notice a sharp contrast to the MSNBC Republican debate. I would really like to see the Democrats debate on Fox News, and would like to see the Fox News trio maintain the same professionalism they did in this debate. I know they would and it would be great to see, seeing as the Democrats are for some reason afraid to appear on Fox News. I do think they will though and I look forward to it.
Well instead of editing my
May 16, 2007 - 18:13 ET by GregEWell instead of editing my post, I'll just reply to my what-was-I-thinking statement where I said......."I do think they will though...." and rebutt with........"I stand corrected."
http://www.mediabist...
The Debate
May 16, 2007 - 20:45 ET by pbthinkerWell, after viewing that montage, I can understand why the Democrats don't want to debate on FoxNews, they don't have answers to questions like those!
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.