Yep.  That's exactly what he's sayiing.

For years, the vast majority of the DP leadership --- including HRC -- declined to be interviewed by Fox News.  They obviously didn't relish a genuine interview when they can play softball on the major networks.

But I think the Dems have a new approach:  Make at least one appearance on Fox (I think Frank has had several), declare that the network is biased, and decline to return for any future invitations one might deem untimely or uncomfortable.   By dismissing the objectivitiy of Fox out-of-hand, they can essentially say that they appeared on a conservative talk show, but will not go back.

Well, Cwg, I think the best I can do here is meet you half-way. If a politician wants to object to the way a question is phrased, or maybe insert a caveat into his answer, sure, he has that right. But to refuse to answer, well, can't agree with that. These people chose to make a career of living in the public eye. A little late to decide they don't have to account for things they say or do in that forum.

As for the Republicans using this "tactic," well, I think the perception would be spun in a whole different direction. In fact, strike the word "think." I KNOW it would be. "What are you trying to hide, Congressman?" Imagine any Republican doing what either Clinton or Frank did. What would be the reaction?

The MSM would figuratively chase him up a tree and set fire to it. He'd be a gone goose.

I agree that the Republicans need to develop a back-bone, something they've sadly been lacking for years. I just don't think they could make this tactic work for them, not without the MSM covering their backs the way they cover the Dems.

Wow. Homo say what.

Barney. Hypocrite.  Pompous hypocrite.  Wonder how'd the media would report on a Republican having a house of prostitution run out of his house in Washington?   Somehow, I don't think Barney would be very quiet and 'tolerant' of that action.  He'd be one of the first crowing, or mangling the English language with impunity, per usual. Can't touch a homosexual without being attacked.  How great is that?

Hey, what liberal media?

"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere"          -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph

Well aero, I'm sorry that you are appalled by my remarks, but I do not believe in giving Dems/libs a free pass.  Why should Franks get a pass on something that would not only NOT be tolerated but would be an incessant drumbeat from the left if Franks were a Republican?  Why shouldn't I refer to him in the harsh derogatory terms??  Did you hear what that nutjob Howard Dean called conservatives/Republicans?? 

There are those that will insist that we must take the high road, be noble; not stoop to their level.  Guess what?  We've tried that course along with the facts and are getting nowhere.  But call Franks "Ball Sack" or 'faggot' and look what happens; we've got their attention. 

To be heard, you've got to be noticed.  Sometimes to be noticed, you have to be shocking.  Besides, that's something that liberals embrace. 

Now that that is out of the way, NO politician should shirk from answering questions, especially when the questions have EVERYTHING to do with their campaign promises and what they sold the American people.  Their refusal and lame chastising of the press would not have been tolerated if the shoe was on the other foot.

Personally I find the "retarded" references much more painful and disgraceful.  People can choose to act like an ass, be homosexual and refuse to answer questions; individuals with mental retardation cannot. 

Fight Terrorism at home - defeat a liberal!