Big Mistake for any Dems to skip those FOX debates

[cleveramerican]

ITS JUST SO WRONG( and damn foolish) TO ASSUME YOU KNOW WHO'S WATCHING AND HOW THEY WILL RESPOND TO YOU.

If you are serious about winning you should be willing to sell yourself and your views to anyone anywhere anytime.Even to....gulp! Republicans!

Plus it sends a bad message that you don't need the support of folks who may have been sold a bill of goods last time around and genuinely want to hear what sort of an alternative you are.


Americans of all stripes agree that we do not need another president who only thinks of himself as representing those who voted for him.Who will only appear in front of hand-picked adoring audiences.


If you can't handle Sean Hannity don't even pretend you can handle Kim Jong Il.

[napi21]

1. I think they should have accepted the offer to debate too!

At the time Edwards first refused, I said it looked to me like he and the rest who joined him were CHICKEN! They appeared to be afraid to go on FOX! SHAME ON all of them!

If you watched the Pub FOX debate a few weeks ago, you surely have to admit they did a much better job than MSNBC did in either their DEM OR PUB debates!

[MichaelHarris]

2. said it once, said it a thousand times

FUCK FOX!!!!!

[cleveramerican]

3. and how is that different that what W does?

by only appearing before loving audiences?

I expect more than that.
I expect Dems to be willing to face their critics and argue their side.
I don't want a dem who employs W's tactics but give them a pass just cause they are on my side.


I'm not interested in electing a different flavor of liar.

[gobblechops]

5. It would be nice

if debating your critics were the format but you know as well as i do it wont,going on the hannity show is pointless you can't prove a point cause he yells over you and when you make a good point you get edited its rigged man.

[charlyvi]

55. Dem candidates don't handpick their debate audiences.

W's handlers pick his. The other networks have "loving" audiences? You could have fooled me. There is no equivalency here. Anyway, the audience is not the problem with FOX. It's the network itself. Their mission statement: lie, exaggerate, spin, edit and cut to make ANY Democratic candidate, or any Democrat for that matter, look like a crazed, treasonous, airheaded elitist out of step with mainstream America. And showing up for the hanging makes Dems seem as though they agree. I'm glad that our candidates are the ones who finally point out what this network is--a propaganda outlet for the Bush regime. They have put it right out on main street, and people are now wondering just how "fair and balanced" FOX news really is. Kudos to them.

[cleveramerican]

82. By ASSUMING nobody can be reached

in that TV audience on that evening a candidate is cementing the image that they are an unappealing candidate uninterested in any broad appeal at all.


Rule#1 in campaigning is NEVER ASSUME YOU KNOW WHO'S LISTENING.
Pro's know this.

[gobblechops]

4. I can see your point

But the reason for skipping the fox debate has to do with not giving them credibility and sends a message to there network we are tired of there shit,people who did not notice there slant before may question the fair and balance claim when Dem's wont go on there network due to there hate

fox spews racist crap all day long and I honestly don't want to add credibility to a network who not only undermines the progressive movement every chance they get but spread intolerance misinformation and racism.

you have to draw a line in the sand sometime,and I for one think it would be cowardly to simply ignore there disdain for us so that we can get some face time,they are not going to ask us questions that show the country our message.

Debating on fox would be like playing a game you know that is rigged for you to lose everytime pointless.

[cleveramerican]

6. its not about the network

its not ,in the end, about the candidates.
Its about the voters and our nation.

Its important enough to put aside any differences you might have for a greater good.


Stop thinking about the host and start thinking about the voters watching.

[gobblechops]

7. but its not a debate

there not going to ask us anything anyone cares about,waist of time man and will do nothing but turn off voters not help progressives in anyway,your right its about the greater good,but this will do nothing but harm.

[cleveramerican]

10. there are not many oppurtunities....

to speak DIRECTLY to the voters WITHOUT the filter of MSNBC,FOX, CBS, CNN,etc.
This is one of them.
If your smart you don't pass it up.

[Toots]

67. They will debate on CNN and the voters that wish to hear will listen

There may be one out of ten Fox viewers that might possible vote Democratic if they listen long enough. Most wouldn't even think of it. So why bother. Why go to a girls shampoo parlor to sell fishing supplies. Wrong clientele and the same applies to Fox News. It is obvious to almost every single American that Fox is quite right wing. Stands to reason right wing people are it's audience.
This is a very good move by Democrats. Let the powers that be know and understand their bullshit is not flying anymore...Fox News is beneath a decent person and Democrats are letting that be known to all.

[A wise Man]

44. I agree with you 100%

Fox is looking for ratings and legitimacy. Rupert Murdock wants to completely own all media and the one sided influence he imposes. Fox will not ask any questions that we the people want to hear and answered legitimately. Once they've committed themselves to Fox's trickery, they've committed themselves to failure and laughter.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. It's ALL about the network.

Voters are able to change channels and watch debates elsewhere.
Die-hard FOX viewers who are unable to watch other outlets aren't ever going to vote
for a Democratic candidate.

[cleveramerican]

26. the election of '06 shows that to be wrong

loads of former republican voters are coming over. They are not blind. They have seen what W has wrought. do you want their votes or not? hint...NOT is the wrong answer.

[TankLV]

58. Over 80% of these repuke fucks still support the WAR CRIMINAL!

Less than 20% or so of the ENTIRE COUNTRY supports this sick fuck!

WE DON'T NEED THE REPUKES! THEY ARE A SMALL MINORITY OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

"NOT" is the ONLY answer!

YOU don't know what the fuck you are spewing...

[MethuenProgressive]

69. You delude yourself if you think we "need" FOX

"the election of '06 shows that to be wrong"? Complete nonsense. If anything it showed how fed up with FOX many American voters have become.

[cleveramerican]

74. Ever heard of Reagan Democrats?

[MethuenProgressive]

78. There was no FOX during Reagan, sonny.

[cleveramerican]

80. But there were undecided voters

and there still are. Undecided between parties I mean.

Write 'em off if you want,look weak and afraid of moderate dems and moderate republicans.
But don't expect me to applaud your obfuscations.

[Change has come]

64. It's not about the network

because Faux is not a network. I applaud :applause: the candidates for not giving credibility to this right wing propaganda machine. These Faux watching voters will have every opportunity to watch the debates.

[madrchsod]

8. one has to take a stand against the forces that have

been in part responsible for the government we have today. since before 2000 fox news has done nothing to balance their coverage of the political process. to argue that fox news would further the cause of the democratic party and it`s candidates is naive. remember this is the network that can legally lie about anything in it`s news casts. why would anyone trust them?

[godai]

9. It's not about fear, it's about avoiding a biased news source

It's more likely that those candidates participating will be subject to post-debate negative comments on other faux shows. There aren't enough viewers to do it for the added exposure and none of these viewers is likely to change their mind about Democrats.

[cleveramerican]

12. the election of '06...

proved that many already have changed their view. And smart candidates know theres more of them out there watching.To think your not going to change anyones mind anyway is deadly to any political campaign, even for dog-catcher, its fatal to presidential candidates.


I don't think its fear, Its strategy. Bad,Bad strategy.

[Ethelk2044]

11. They should not attend the debate

I know it is being given by the CBC however they do not need to be there. Why would they give them credibility? Everyone knows it is not a real news agency. Also, they keep picking on Obama because of his name. No one needs to assist them with doing this. Have a debate on their network will only fuel the fire.

[stillcool]

13. Promoting Fox 'News'...

as some kind of legitimate platform for ideas, is so wrong. Fox's purpose is not to educate but to poison people with hatred and intolerance. Rabid dogs, frothing at the mouth, like Sean Hannity do not need to be 'handled',...they need to be quarantined for the health of those around them.

[cleveramerican]

16. avoidance of potential critics and potential voters

is not an admirable quality in a candidate for me.
I understand some may have a different view, but they are wrong.

Who watches Fox? Voters.
Thats the whole story.
Are you serious about reaching them WHEREVER they may be?


You either are or you are not.
Skipping sends the message you are not.

[stillcool]

20. So....

You declare views other than your own,...on the decision to use a certain 'venue' for a debate are wrong..and at the same time argue that opposing views can be 'debated' on your forum choice?

[cleveramerican]

22. I am not a candidate

I am a voter. That is my role and I am comfortable with it.

what do you think my reaction would be to a candidate who deemed my vote not worthy of the effort required to get it?

[stillcool]

24. and you would deduce...

that a candidate did not view your vote as worthy... because of the choice of venue for a debate?

[cleveramerican]

29. the voter would never even consider the candidate

because that one voter was never exposed to their view. One voter at a time adds up.

Any candidate who deems even one voters vote not worthy of appealing to is a fake. In the race for all the wrong reasons which skipping brings into specific relief.


Any candidate who is running to get even will lose.

[stillcool]

31. and you would deduce...

that a voter would never be exposed to a candidates view, if your choice of venue for the debate were passed by for another?

[cleveramerican]

72. excuses are easy to come by

and I'm sure every candidate could come up with some objection to every outlet.

If you only desire to appeal to those you already appeal to, why even bother running?
just wait for that coronation that ain't coming.

[charlyvi]

50. So, debating on FOX is the only way to get your vote?

You're not familiar with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS? Newspapers, magazines, blogs? Democratic candidates must confer legitimacy on a Republican propaganda network to get your vote? A network, I might add, that pushed the ridiculous lie of one Democratic candidate's attendance at a terrorist producing madrassa? It's not about the voters, it's about the venue.

[cleveramerican]

73. How do YOU know no voters could be reached by appearing?

I just think a winner wants to get into it. Lives for the good fight.
A wimp says theres too many rocks on the field and goes home.

[TankLV]

59. Only mostly REPUKES watch Faux - that's a FACT!

We don't WANT or NEED repuke voters - they will NEVER support a Democratic Candidate.

[zulchzulu]

14. If I were a candidate, it would be a perfect opportunity to outfox Fox

You could turn leading questions into a shot across the bow at the MSM that refuses to talk about or want to do homework about real issues. You could really pull the stuff out about how they cheerleaded the wars, didn't investigate the myriad of Bush's lies and corruption and more...

If you were a fighter and not a wimp, you'd want to take them on...on their turf.

Faux Snooze is bad, but CNN and MSNBC are just as pathetic. The candidates, if using the same (cowardly) template and excuse not to debate on Murdoch's channel, shouldn't EVER debate. We could be crybabies about all the MSM if we want to be "poor me" cake eaters.

If a Fox Newsdroid asks a question like "Does your vote against the troops make you more or less of an American?", you could leash into how generals and even over 50% of Republicans in Iowa want to get out of Iraq. Are they unAmerican?...

If you're witty and have nothing to hide (or can defend it well), it's a no-brainer. And besides, the last Fox debate was pretty fair...actually better than MSNBC's.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Nonsense. FOX Propaganda needs to be shunned.

Cheers to the Democratic Party members with the courgae and intelligence not to play along.

[zulchzulu]

18. I think it takes courage to go ON Faux Snooze and fight it out

If you're a good candidate, you can handle it. If you can't or want to make cake-eating excuses, then that shows what kind of leadership you would have in a crisis.

What do we want, Kissy Hug Hug Softball Question Hour?

[cleveramerican]

21. would you feel the same for the general election?

would you favor having the republican nominee speak for a full hour while the dem nominee sits it out?

[w4rma]

46. FOX does that anyway. (nt)

[MethuenProgressive]

70. I'm in favor of real Americans shunning propaganda machines. You aren't?

Fine. Watch all the FOX you want. It's a Free Republic.

[cleveramerican]

75. I am not defending fox

I am saying that appearing unwilling to reach out to those voters because its too hard makes you look like a weak privileged dilettante.

if thats the image you want to present, then its a good plan.

[MethuenProgressive]

77. You think the reason to boycott FOX is "because its too hard"????????

Now we see the root of your confusion: You've bought into the FOX "News" propaganda.
The reason to boycott FOX debates is because FOX is not a legitimate news vendor.
It is a completely biased ultrarightwing propaganda distributor.
Appearing on FOX gives it the air of legitimacy.
So tell us please, was it Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly who told you the reason
Democrats were shunning FOX was "because its too hard"?

[cleveramerican]

81. hurling insults won"t change a thing

who told you a wimp, afraid of the voters can win anything ever?

its not about the host, it's about the voters!

[baldguy]

19. You forgot the :sarcasm: tag

[tsuki]

23. I disagree. They were wise not to give that vulgar little man and

his Saudi prince sidekick ownership rights to a debate among Democrats.

[Doctor_J]

25. Anyone tuning inot FOX will NOT be doing so to hear the candidates

they'll be watching Hannity and th rest of the anti-american scum who work there. And those critters don't need our candidates in the studio to serve as punching bags.

[cleveramerican]

76. and How do you think they will be treated in their absence?

I'd rather my guy be there to defend himself rather than allowing himself to be defined by his primary rivals.

I think those that skip will be refereed less charitably than those with the stones to stand up and defend their positions by the other dems.

If I was a skipper I'd be more concerned about being savaged by my primary rivals than anything any Fox host might spout.

[Doctor_J]

27. You're really wrong on this one ca

There is NO reason for ANY of our people to appear on Fox, ever. You wouldn't expect the CBC to debate on the White Supremecist Network, and this would be just about the same thing.

[JNelson6563]

28. Bullshit

It's not that the Dem candidates "can't handle" Hannity or any of those other Faux news putz-people. How odd that you would phrase that Faux news style.....

No matter, I agree that it is a good plan to disregard Faux completely. I'd never, ever give the enemy anything, not even recognition/acknowledgement. Screw that. As to DUers who parrot Faux talking points, pathetic.

Julie

[cleveramerican]

30. how odd that you would....

completely sidestep the issue, FOX style.

Do you want undecided fence-sitters to vote for you or not?

Skipping says you don't.

You think W's plan is a good one huh? only appear in front of friendly audiences? How very Fox of you.

[Sukie1941]

32. Who besides Edwards?

I think I missed something somewhere....

[Rydz777]

33. I agree, and it is a bit condescending to the Congressional

Black Caucus to imply that they are dupes of Fox. I think that Kucinich, Gravel, and Biden too, will hold their own quite well and make it worth watching.

[terisan]

34. Just saying no to the Republican Propaganda Outlet Helps its Viewers De-Program

Until they learn to reach for the remote they will continue to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

[xchrom]

35. fox will control the message no matter what the candidate does or doesn't say.

this is as much about fox's continuing ways of manipulating ANY democratic message to fit their ''fair and balanced'' news philosophy.

and they don't control it for a day or two days -- they control it for many days -- look how long they have run incorrect ''facts'' about democratic candidates, thier stands or what they did or didn't say.

it's foolish, stupid and playing into the republican noise machine to appear of fox -- ever.

[terisan]

36. Stop Building Up Fox as a Political Outlet. They are losing viewers. Let the trend continue.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. This is about standing up for democracy

this is about Americans standing up FINALLY and saying NO to the degradation of our fourth-branch of government. The free press was supposed to protect us from a criminal element in the white house and bring transparency to the government and instead FOX (especially--but the others too) are feeding us lies and distortions to keep their criminal element in power. They are lying to us.

It is not a mistake. It should be a mandate.

[SoonerPride]

38. The learned that the stink doesn't come out

The learned that the stink doesn't come out no matter how hard you scrub.

[Adelante]

39. Really not smart

Particularly for Clinton and Edwards. Biden and Kucinich are going to have the floor to themselves to talk about the 2002 NIE and how the other two didn't read it before voting on the IWR.

I don't favor the Fox boycott, anyway, because it makes Dems look like crybabies. Show me one Democrat who can't handle Fox; you can't. Yet this is the perception left among Fox viewers. Way to go insulting 2008 GE voters.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

40. CNN's not much better than FOX

Let's not kid ourselves, MSM is bullshit sensational infotainment. Now it's basically become a round-the-clock tool for political branding (i.e. caring liberal vs. tough conservative). Policy is extinct from the platform.

Fuck the MSM. Both Fox and CNN AND NBC.

[LBJDemocrat]

41. Did you see the MSNBC debate?

They asked bulls*** questions and even asked bulls*** questions to the Republicans. The FOX debate for the GOP was actually pretty well-done. At least the questions related to policy and not s*** like "who's your favorite philosopher."

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

42. I disagree. FOX unfairly grilled Paul about "inviting 9/11"

They're both the news equivalent of junk food, except they rot the mind instead of the body.

I read Counterpunch instead.

[Clark2008]

51. Counterpunch is no better.

It's just the left's version of the same rot gut.

Seriously.

You should find better sources.

[some guy]

53. "Unfairly grilled"

Maybe (I didn't watch, because I haven't owned a tv in many, many years), but the fact remains that viewers who did watch that debate got exposed to an idea regarding the 9/11 attacks which was something other thsan the 'they hate us for our fredoms' nonsense; maybe for the first time.

If even only one viewer stopped and thought about what Dr Paul said and considered it to be plausible, that's one more person who might be open to voting for a Democratic candidate in 2008.

The CBC sponsored debate will give the Democratic candidates who show up a chance to speak for themselves. Fox may spin it afterward, but for that moment in time the candidate will have access to potential voters.

edit to add: Additionally, based on what I read of the transcript, it was Guiliani, a candidate, not the moderator who got most upset at Dr Paul; that sort of thing is less liokely to happen in among Democratic candidates.


*bias disclaimer* I am a Kucinich supporter, so I think it is also good for him to attend this debate, especially if Clinon-Edwards-Obama don't, because he will get more questions. In the transcript of the first Dem debate that I read, most of the questions seemed to go to those three, so if they don't attend, the attendees get more questions by default.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

65. Good point SomeGuy

:hi:

[Colobo]

54. The FOX debate was excellent, and Giuliani grilled Paul, not FOX.

[Forkboy]

43. I don't think it's a mistake at all for the top tier candidates to not go..

It won't hurt them in the slightest.

While I would prefer no one went on Fox,I can't blame the lower tier candidates using any outlet they can to get their message out there.

[w4rma]

45. I could not more strongly disagree with you on this. It is not about "handling" Hannity. (nt)

[Jade Fox]

47. Nonsense.

We need to recognize that Fox is the GOP far right propaganda machine. Nothing and no one Democratic is going to impress their hardcore audience. Those poor "folks who may have been sold a bill of goods" have other news options, if they would take them.

The Democrats need to stop allowing right wing crackpots, like those at Fox, to set the agenda for political debate. The Dems have other options to reach potential cross-over voters. Not appearing on Fox hardly makes the Dems look like they will "only appear in front of a hand-picked adoring audience". It makes them look like they have the commonsense to not genuflect before a network (and an audience base) who've made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are out to destroy the Democratic Party.

[lynne]

48. I thought it was all about getting votes and winning the election -

- and to do that you must reach the voters. Many moderates ripe for the picking watch Fox. Because of that, I think that skipping the Fox debates is a BIG mistake, too, as an excellent opportunity to reach moderates - and possibly turn the heads of disgruntled conservatives - is lost.

[Jade Fox]

52. Moderates watch Fox News?

On what planet?

The Fox News audience has been steadily shrinking for the past few years, boiling down to the hardcore true-believers who wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

[otohara]

49. It's Just So RIGHT

it's time the dems stand up to the GOP network. If FOX were in the least bit fair and balanced, I'd say okay, but they are not and it would just be a nasty ass trap to get a whole lotta gotcha moments.

[ChiciB1]

56. FWIW.. I Say DON'T Go! WHO Cares What THEY Think?? It Matters

NOT if they go or not, NOTHING will stop them from finding "something" to use as a DIG IN some way!!

DAMNED if you, DAMNED if you don't!! THEY just want to "nail" something or throw something back at any Democrat. And I don't care IF the Black Caucus is involved. I don't UNDERSTAND that either!!!

[TankLV]

57. Totally disagree - you couldn't be more WRONG!

Faux is a REPUKE propaganda MOUTHPIECE! Period.

They are nothing more, but nothing LESS...

Time to stop fooing yourself with your delusions...

We don't NEED the repukes - over 80% still support bush* and less than 25% of the entire country supports bush* - they are a SMALL MINORITY of the American populace...forget them and move on!

[loyalsister]

60. Totally agree

The dems need to be able to handle themselves in front of any audience.

Asking the candidates to boycott is asking them to do OUR dirty work.

It is up to the public to expose Fox's lack of credibility. Getting masses of people to put energy into such a project is not easy, but that's the way it has to be done.

The candidates have other things to do right now. One is to try to get as much press coverage as possible.
It is a huge mistake to think they are going to get in on exposing Fox as illegitimate news source by denying themselves coverage.

They are simply excluding potential voters.

[Jillian]

61. What about those Republicans out there that are so fed up with this admin?

Maybe Fux is all they watch.

This is an opportunity for our candidates to show those people why they should vote for a Democrat this time around.

I feel like the candidates that are not going to appear are like little scared puppy dogs with their tails between their legs.

Same thing with those that are not willing to debate Iraq next week at the debate on June 6th,the one that the Financial Times and the Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies are hosting!

Bunch of wussies!

[WCGreen]

62. Fox needs to be marginalized...

And the best way to do this is by ignoring them as a news outlet...

Don't appear on their shows, don't do anything that will in anyway enhance their reputation amongst the people...

Look, they have sepnt the last fifteen or so years with only one goal in mind; the complete marginalization of the left in this country...

They don't qualify as a true news organ, so let them be treated as such...

[depakid]

63. Any Dem who attends is a fool and a panderer

There is NO upside whatsoever for enabling Fox news- or playing to their viewership.

Ridicule and scorn are far more effective means of dealing with the far right. People who haven't learned that by now- after the past 12 years are past the point of naivety.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

66. MSM is MSM. CNN and MSNBC are no better n/t

[depakid]

68. There's a qualitative difference

Fox is unabashedly and emphatically anti-Democratic. They make no pretenses about it- and their viewers are much the same.

This is a network that promotes torture for crissakes.

For that reason alone, no respectable Dem ought to ever appear on their shows.

[ChiciB1]

71. ANYTHING Fox News Does Is Akin To a TRAP!! I Don't Trust ANYTHING

or ANY Agenda they are pushing! It's not about having whatever it takes to go toe to toe, it's about THEM having THEIR control over EVERYTHING!

Rupert Murdock is a heartless piranha and NEEDS Democrats to legitimize his FOX!!

Screw them and the disgusting vile they spew!!! I'm still stupid enough to think that my point of view even matters, I'm blogging and preaching to the choir! It totally SUCKS!!

As a person who ALWAYS believed that "we shall overcome" I now realize that no matter what I do it IS OF NO IMPORTANCE! I just blog my way through this maze of stupidity and wish that the nightmare would end. And I feel drained and hopeless!!

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!! PUUULLLEEEEZZE!!

[cleveramerican]

79. The Nominee will eventually appear there come GE time.

why put it off? You've got to face those voters eventually.

[janx]

83. "If you can't handle Sean Hannity don't even pretend you can

handle Kim Jong Il."

Is this a joke?