Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quoting Dennis Kucinich
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 12, 2007

Kucinich and I agreeing on something?

Yes, scarily enough.

I don't know if you've been following this little kerfuffle over Fox News televising a debate featuring Democratic presidential candidates in Nevada, but apparently, due to pressure from the netroots gang (or so they claim) to dump Fox, the entire debate has now been canceled. The primary reason, I gather, is because John Edwards decided to back out.

The supposed reason, of course, is because Fox News is a right-wing propaganda tool.

A few points.

It's a debate. The people who will be talking are the candidates. The people who will be televising it will be Fox. What's the danger here?

It's a bit like the Super Bowl. Yes, there are going to be talking heads predicting the game beforehand and there are going to be talking heads telling us about what we saw and "interpreting" it afterward. But no one makes you watch those things. And I don't. I turn the thing on at game time and off afterward.

Concerned about Fox New's alleged bias? Then don't turn the TV on until it is time for the debate for heaven sake. And turn it off immediately afterward.

What will Fox News have to do with the content of the debate while the debate is ongoing? My understanding was the debate was being sponsored and run by the Nevada Democratic Party.

Additionally you'd think Democrats might be interested in getting their message out to an audience who doesn't normally seek out their debates. If what they believe about Fox News is true, and they certainly claim it to be, this would seem like a perfect opportunity to get their message out there among the opposition. You'd assume that would be important to them as any they can persuade from that audience to vote for them is a net positive. So what are they afraid of?

Anyway, Kucinich berates those candidates who have caved into the pressure and says:
“If you want to be the President of the United States, you can’t be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically,” Kucinich said. “No one is further removed from Fox’s political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership.”
Seems to me the only "fear" demonstrated in this case is a fear of the netroots. And you saw how well that worked in CT.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Make no mistake. What’s at stake here is the Liberal Narrative. Possibly its biggest enemy (other the the truth) is Fox News (or Faux News, as the Democratic think tanks have come up with as a sobrequet). Prior to Fox, it was much easier to claim that the NYT/WaPo LN was reality and other information that disagreed was merely fringe, unsubstantiated (why do I always think of John Kerry when I see that word?) whacko theories which could be safely ignored.
A good portion of the sheeple actually believe that Fox is not credible (and the NYT is) and maintaining their faith requires that Fox be discredited. Certainly not treated like any other “credible” news source. Fox is not part of the LN and represents a crack in the dam of the liberal-dominated MSM. Characterizing this action as being sponsored by the nutroots is like reporting on the German/American Bund (a propaganda tool used by the Nazis in WWII) as being a home-grown American movement. And no, whatshisname’s law has not been violated; I am not comparing the two, just using the Bund as an example.

 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Yes, I should have said "in" an example.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
I’ll be damned, Kucinich got something right. I didn’t think that was possible.
Fox is an alternative to what they call “The main stream Liberal media” You may love Fox or hate Fox, but the more diverse the discussion is, the better for Democracy.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Note in passing that Kucinich openly supports the LN:
"No one is further removed from Fox’s political philosophy than I am [my emphasis]..."
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
It’s a debate. The people who will be talking are the candidates. The people who will be televising it will be Fox. What’s the danger here?
You’ve answered your own question... The danger is that it’s an actual debate, as opposed to a one-sided diatribe. What we have here is a bunch of people who run screaming from any serious debate... anytime their views get seriously challanged... particularly where facts are used. It’s too early, too dangerous for the the Democrats to so expose themselves.... assuming they ever will.

The difference between Kucinich and the remainder of them: Kuinich is more unhinged, even than they, and so doesn’t understand the danger.




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Yes, when I watch my biased reporting, I much prefer the standard bias of ABC/NBC/CBS or PBS over the bias of FOX.

Honestly I’m like McQ, I listen to the debates, or speeches, and turn em off as soon as they’re over rather than waiting to hear talking head demagogues tell me what I heard and that applies to FOX’s commentators as well.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I don’t know if you’ve been following this little kerfuffle over Fox News televising a debate featuring Democratic presidential candidates in Nevada, but apparently, due to pressure from the netroots gang (or so they claim) to dump Fox, the entire debate has now been canceled. The primary reason, I gather, is because John Edwards decided to back out
I don’t know that this dust-up requires much in the way of substantive comments.

The Dems are acting like little childish b*tches in this matter.

What more needs to be said?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"...the standard bias..."
Yes, looker, you have put your finger on the problem. There will always be biases; unbiased reporting is an oxymoron. The problem is that today in the MSM there is an easily discernible (not to the sheeple) "standard" bias. I personally think that the bias of PBS is in a class by itself, but that is another story. Whether or not you personally prefer it, the fact that it exists is the problem. Millions of sheeple have no idea that they are being fed propaganda because the bias of the MSM is so one-sided. There should be no "standard" bias.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
What a bunch of "girly men".

Edwards is now firmly on my "shirt" list.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If Bush could do a debate moderated by the CBS shill immediately after Rathergate, the Dems can man up and go on FNC.

Once again, Bush schools all of them.

Profiles in courage, all of them.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
After spending a quarter century in television photojournalism, I know you can not put aside your biases. No human can. What you must do is be fair. That’s not hard to do, unless you are pursuing you own agenda, and that’s not journalism.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Well, for whatever reason, Edwards took a stand* before all the votes were in and that has to count for something.

Full disclosure: Populist "Breck Boy" has a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting my vote.

*Yes, it is pander to the far left, etc. Remember we are talking about a Democrat here.

I didn’t get neo’s "shirt" reference. "Short" list? "hair shirt list"? "Sh*t list"? Beats me. Probably very funny, so I don’t want to miss it.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
I would be curious if Al Jazeera’s English service held a debate who would attend?

If Univision had one would Tancredo attend?

I was just thinking of possible counter-examples...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
So, Kucinich, and Richardson, and Reid dont want to engage me...

It’s going to be kinda hard for me to cast a vote in the general election for people who have such disregard for skeptics.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I would be curious if Al Jazeera’s English service held a debate who would attend?
Anyone who wanted to be decapitated.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Looking at all the “Bozos on the Bus” to the presidency, I can’t find one worth my time voting for.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
The old brain is working. "Shirt list" has to do with "short list". Beyond that, I still haven’t a clue.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Shane! I mean Neo!, come back!
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider