Edwards still too scared to debate on Fox

[Stinger]

Edwards to Skip Fox News Debate

""We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager."

:rofl

The highest rated cable network. I guess he will debate on CNN or the MSM with it's liberal slant.

Scared you might have to answer hard questions Mr. Edwards.

 

[Skip]

The highest rated cable network. I guess he will debate on CNN or the MSM with it's liberal slant.

As opposed to Fox with its conservative slant?

Besides, before the primaries why should he pander to the right-wingers on Faux News? That'd be a waste of time.

 

[Karmashock]

Edwards has already effectively lost the primary which means he won't be president... which means I don't care about his campaign for presidency... as it's already over.


Hillary has a chance and so does Obama... though Hillary is strongly favored.


One of those two will go against whomever the republicans decide to nominate at their primary. Currently it's looking like Giuliani... McCain is already out of it. He has no chance of winning the republican primary. The most he can do is run as an independent which would actually in typical John McCain fashion torpedo the republicans and ensure a democratic victory... this sort of behavior is why the democrats generally like McCain...


So it really comes down strangely to two people that spend most of their time in NY City... which when it comes to people that win US presidential elections is uncommon.



Anyway, in regards to the topic of this thread which was Edward's snubbing the fox channel. That's really not helping anyone. Fox for all it's problems would probably put on a meaningful presidential debate so long as they didn't let Sean Hannity or john o'really... or any other divisive ideologue interfere with it. What's more, there are other networks with similar problems to what fox has... and have had longer then fox has even existed. So if you're going to boycott one network because it has bias issues then you're demonstrating bias yourself if only boycott them because that bias happens to go against you.


What we need are balanced and impartial theaters for debate. I think most of the networks including fox can do this especially if we let them know that we don't just want more ideological filibustering.

 

[Skip]

Edwards has already effectively lost the primary which means he won't be president... which means I don't care about his campaign for presidency... as it's already over. Hillary has a chance and so does Obama... though Hillary is strongly favored.

First, it's April 2007. The first caucus and primary are nine months away. Everyone's still in it. Secondly, Edwards is running pretty hot right now, in many places hotter than Obama. Depending on who you look at, he could be considered the #2 candidate at the moment. So I have no idea where you get your facts from... but they're false.

One of those two will go against whomever the republicans decide to nominate at their primary. Currently it's looking like Giuliani... McCain is already out of it. He has no chance of winning the republican primary. The most he can do is run as an independent which would actually in typical John McCain fashion torpedo the republicans and ensure a democratic victory... this sort of behavior is why the democrats generally like McCain...

Again, nine months. Get pregnant now and have a child on the day of the Iowa caucus! Second, McCain is also still a very strong candidate. Giuliani could prove too moderate for the Republican base. We will have to wait and see. A lot can happen in nine months.

Anyway, in regards to the topic of this thread which was Edward's snubbing the fox channel. That's really not helping anyone. Fox for all it's problems would probably put on a meaningful presidential debate so long as they didn't let Sean Hannity or john o'really... or any other divisive ideologue interfere with it. What's more, there are other networks with similar problems to what fox has... and have had longer then fox has even existed. So if you're going to boycott one network because it has bias issues then you're demonstrating bias yourself if only boycott them because that bias happens to go against you.

I disagree with you. Is there a liberal bias in the MSM? I'm not sure. At times I believe there is, and at times I don't. Is there a neo-conservative bias on Fox News? ABSOLUTELY. It is so pronounced the only way you could miss it is if you were purposely ignoring it. There is bias in each and every thing that they do. I'm unable to believe that they could put on an unbiased debate until I actually see it happen, which is doubtful.

What we need are balanced and impartial theaters for debate. I think most of the networks including fox can do this especially if we let them know that we don't just want more ideological filibustering.

I agree that debates must be impartial, but I don't think we've had much of a problem with that already. C-SPAN, the mainstreamers, et. al. are doing an excellent job of running debates. I haven't noticed bias, have you?

 

[Karmashock]

First, it's April 2007. The first caucus and primary are nine months away. Everyone's still in it. Secondly, Edwards is running pretty hot right now, in many places hotter than Obama. Depending on who you look at, he could be considered the #2 candidate at the moment. So I have no idea where you get your facts from... but they're false.

The edwards campaign was still born. It's a blue baby with red blood shot eyes.

Hopeless.


He's not raising enough money and doesn't have the right allies in the dem party to take him to the finish line. Hillary does and Obama has a chance to make those ties.


Unless something major happens... as you say it's a long way off... but currently hillary has the upper hand and something needs to change for edwards to get back in the game.

Again, nine months. Get pregnant now and have a child on the day of the Iowa caucus! Second, McCain is also still a very strong candidate. Giuliani could prove too moderate for the Republican base. We will have to wait and see. A lot can happen in nine months.

No, McCain has ZERO chance to win the primary. He's burned the core republican voters and is generally seen as "untrustworthy" by the party in general. He's turned around and torpedoed the reps too many times to be considered for that post... ever.

I disagree with you. Is there a liberal bias in the MSM? I'm not sure. At times I believe there is, and at times I don't. Is there a neo-conservative bias on Fox News? ABSOLUTELY. It is so pronounced the only way you could miss it is if you were purposely ignoring it. There is bias in each and every thing that they do. I'm unable to believe that they could put on an unbiased debate until I actually see it happen, which is doubtful.

I didn't say fox didn't have a bias issue. I said it has problems but those problems are shared by the other networks as well. What's more I even singled out specific people as being unacceptable.

I agree that debates must be impartial, but I don't think we've had much of a problem with that already. C-SPAN, the mainstreamers, et. al. are doing an excellent job of running debates. I haven't noticed bias, have you?

C-Span is fine. CNN etc have problems.


As to noticing bias, yes I have. Has it effected hosted debates? I don't think so. Has fox news ever hosted a debate that showed bias? No.


So that's a wash. Find me something that fox does that's unacceptable that the other networks do not do. And it shouldn't be "conservative bias" because types of bias are merely subjective. We're looking for bias in general. After all you wouldn't honestly tell me that liberal bias is superior to anyone else's bias or more acceptable... you might believe that but you wouldn't expect anyone but the converted to believe it.

 

[rathi]

Who's the moderator for the fox news debate? Where do the questions come from? Although fox is obviously right-biased that doesn't mean it couldn't run a decent debate with an independent moderator and objective questions.

 

[Karmashock]

Who's the moderator for the fox news debate? Where do the questions come from? Although fox is obviously right-biased that doesn't mean it couldn't run a decent debate with an independent moderator and objective questions.

any of their actual anchor men would probably be fine... just none of their personalities... as to questions... my understanding is that they're selected from questions that people wrote in... OR that the candidates selected themselves.



best if it's a mix of the two... you don't want them just talking about what they want to talk about because that paper's over their weak points. And you don't want them just answering questions from people because that puts too much power in the hands of the people "selecting" the questions.

 

[RightinNYC]

The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the Sept. 23 debate hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute

That damn right-leaning Congressional Black Caucus, always trying to ruin things for Edwards...

It's the second time Edwards has decided to skip a debate because of its affiliation with Fox News. Edwards decided in March that he would pass on an Aug. 14 debate in Reno, Nev., co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party.

And I guess the Nevada Democratic Party is a bunch of fascists too.

 

[Stinger]

As opposed to Fox with its conservative slant?

Besides, before the primaries why should he pander to the right-wingers on Faux News? That'd be a waste of time.

Interesting the spin of calling it "pandering" when it is the highest rate cable news network. I see you have jumped on it. And the fact is most of Fox's audience is not conservative, but they see this as avoiding having to into a debate where the questioning may be more than he bargined for. It's an insult to those who watch FOX conservative and moderate and even liberal alike. And stupid. He's afraid to face a fair and balance questioning preferring the safety of Larry King I guess.

If say Tommy Thompson goes on CNN is it "pandering"?

 

[Skip]

Interesting the spin of calling it "pandering" when it is the highest rate cable news network. I see you have jumped on it. And the fact is most of Fox's audience is not conservative

Sure, I watch Fox. "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" are two of my favorite shows. There's the big difference. Liberals will watch Fox, regardless of its bias, for entertainment. Conservatives will boycott CNN because of its perceived "bias".

but they see this as avoiding having to into a debate where the questioning may be more than he bargined for. It's an insult to those who watch FOX conservative and moderate and even liberal alike. And stupid. He's afraid to face a fair and balance questioning preferring the safety of Larry King I guess.

Are you suggesting that every single other debate not hosted by Faux News has a liberal bias? That's what it sounds like. "Fox will give him more then he bargains for, they'll be fair and balanced!" And no one else will?!?

If say Tommy Thompson goes on CNN is it "pandering"?

Different situation. Like I said, CNN is not widely regarded by those on both sides of the aisle to hold an extreme deep-rooted bias, whereas Fox is. Face it, even the moderates have ended taking Fox seriously. We all just wanna see O'Reilly yell at Geraldo.

 

[Navy Pride]

I really don't know why Edwards is afraid to debate on FOX..Its not like he would be debating a Republican like when he did Cheney in 2004 on CNN and Cheney wiped the floor with him........I would just be anotherlight weight liberal like Hillary or Hussein Obama.........They would just be arguing as who was the most far left..........:rofl

 

[BubbaBob]

Fox for all it's problems would probably put on a meaningful presidential debate so long as they didn't let Sean Hannity or john o'really... or any other divisive ideologue interfere with it.

It's a tiny little point, but it shows how little people know before they weigh in on a subject they are ignorant about...it's BILL O'Reilley, not JOHN.

BubbaBob

 

[Stinger]

It's a tiny little point, but it shows how little people know before they weigh in on a subject they are ignorant about...it's BILL O'Reilley, not JOHN.

BubbaBob

Heck I think putting the Dems up there with O'Reilley moderating would force them to stand up for their positions rather than just spout what the consultants tell them to say. Or have Hannity AND Columbs both question them. Edwards must be looking for a place he can skate and get away with his empty rhetoric.

 

[Karmashock]

It's a tiny little point, but it shows how little people know before they weigh in on a subject they are ignorant about...it's BILL O'Reilley, not JOHN.

BubbaBob

that was a typo... I know who he is...:roll:


I used to watch him a lot actually before he went crazy and started trying to sell stuff on his show... and of course somehow along the way came to think of himself in quasi messianic terms... If you dismiss my opinion because of a typo then you're really doing it because you're looking for a reason... any reason to do so.


Respect the middle.

 

[dragonslayer]

Edwards to Skip Fox News Debate

""We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager."

:rofl

The highest rated cable network. I guess he will debate on CNN or the MSM with it's liberal slant.

Scared you might have to answer hard questions Mr. Edwards.

Good Idea, it would have been rigged to make sure anyone but a Fascist came across as stupid. If he made a good point, it would have been quietly deleted by Fox. Fox is so Bias as to be unAmerican. It is unamerican, it is owned By Rupert Murdock who hates America.

 

[Karmashock]

Good Idea, it would have been rigged to make sure anyone but a Fascist came across as stupid. If he made a good point, it would have been quietly deleted by Fox. Fox is so Bias as to be unAmerican. It is unamerican, it is owned By Rupert Murdock who hates America.

Sarcasm is not an argument.

 

[adamanarch]

I find it sad that the Democrats decided to bail out of the FOX Debate. FOX "News" is obviously not the prestine example of fair and balanced media, however, the challenge it would have given the Democratic hopefuls would have been valuable for a party that has had trouble rising to the occasion in past presidential elections. If Democrats hope to win the presidency in 2008, they are going to have to try and depolarize the country by appealing to the middle and right wings of the country. Something they aren't going to do by refusing to appear on FOX "News" due to it's apparant conservative slant.

 

[Skip]

If Democrats hope to win the presidency in 2008, they are going to have to try and depolarize the country by appealing to the middle and right wings of the country. Something they aren't going to do by refusing to appear on FOX "News" due to it's apparant conservative slant.

The moderates of the U.S. don't care about Fox News either. Only the most rabid 20% on the right watch FNC for the "news" it provides, the rest recognize its bias and watch for entertainment. No Democrat needs Faux News to be elected.

I'd like to see a debate where Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter asked the Democrats questions, and Al Franken asked the Republicans questions. And the question asker would have a :spin: button, and if the question was avoided they'd press the button and a bucket of slime would be dumped onto the candidate's head.

 

[adamanarch]

The moderates of the U.S. don't care about Fox News either. Only the most rabid 20% on the right watch FNC for the "news" it provides, the rest recognize its bias and watch for entertainment. No Democrat needs Faux News to be elected.

The point I was trying to make is that it would be unwise to cause polarization by dropping out of a debate due to the hosting network's apparant political bias.

 

[Stinger]

Good Idea, it would have been rigged to make sure anyone but a Fascist came across as stupid.

How, they only produce it.

If he made a good point, it would have been quietly deleted by Fox.

How it would be live without editorial control.

Fox is so Bias as to be unAmerican.

Why is giving both sides on an issue equal billing unAmerican?



It is unamerican, it is owned By Rupert Murdock who hates America.[/quote]

 

[Stinger]

The moderates of the U.S. don't care about Fox News either. Only the most rabid 20% on the right watch FNC for the "news" it provides, the rest recognize its bias and watch for entertainment. No Democrat needs Faux News to be elected.

Are you talking the "news" programs or the "opinion" programs? There is a distinction.

 

[Skip]

Why is giving both sides on an issue equal billing unAmerican?

:rofl Oh Stinger your partisanship never fails to amuse me.

 

[Stinger]

:rofl Oh Stinger your partisanship never fails to amuse me.

Not nearly as much as your :spin:

Or dodge, try again

Are you talking the "news" programs or the "opinion" programs? There is a distinction.

Every show tonight on FOX and an equal airing of both sides of the issue.

These guys are showing why they don't have the metal to hold the office, if they are so scared to go on FOX they have no business leading this country. If they are going to be so partisan they have no business leading this country. I've never seen such an act in all my years.

 

[dragonslayer]

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Sarcasm is to an argument.

Liberty and Justice for all.
For restrictions, refer to the patriot act.


Only a Democratic Fool would debate on the Fox Network. that is the heart of the enemy camp. Fox is place where news is created from scratch, and a person could be lost forever and ever, and never see civilization or intelligent debate again. Yet it may be Ok, with the proper vaccines and a good immune system. Yet why would any American take the Chance????????????????????????

 

[Karmashock]

Sarcasm is to an argument.

Nor for that matter are kinderguarden "are too" "nah uhhh" or "is toooo!"


To have a case you have to have more then a conclusion.