Dems cancel Nevada Pres Debate on Fox

[chance1]

this is unbelievable - actually it's not

PANDERERS - that's what the Dem leadership is

MOVEON.ORG runs the party (into the ground possibly)

John Edwards is showing his true colors - first he hires anti Catholic bigots to work on his campaign then he says "I won't show" on a debate cause Fox News is covering it. What a weanie

It is truly pathetic (using it a lot I know) what the Dems are pulling here.

What a country





Democrats Cancel Fox News Debate Over Joke

By Dan Whitcomb
Reuters
LOS ANGELES (March 10) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by the Fox News Channel, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
In a letter sent to Fox News, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before.

The letter makes no reference to a crusade by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org to boycott Fox, which it calls a "right-wing mouthpiece." Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards dropped out of the debate Thursday, citing in part Fox's participation.

The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama and President Bush during a speech Thursday night.

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," Collins and Reid said in the letter. "We take no pleasure in this, but it the only course of action." Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded with a written statement criticizing the Democrats for caving in to MoveOn.org.

"News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Democratic Party," David Rhodes said in the statement.
"In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic Party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada," he said.

The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator.

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"'

During his remarks, Ailes also took indirect swipes at both MoveOn.org and Edwards, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates to "only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage."

Though he didn't refer to Edwards by name, Ailes said "any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters."


Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-03-10 14:44:45


http://news.aol.com/elections/presi...r/20070310144409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

 

[OtterJoq]

Ailes and company have made their hopeless biases very clear.

The stories of Roger's marching orders to his minions are well-known in journalistic circles.

It's abundantly evident that if FOX is involved, the truth will be shrouded.

Sorry the Dems aren't letting your guys fuck up the process, Chance. I know that must frustrate you.

 

[NW007]

Actually the Dems don't need any help messing up the process. If everyone would just leave them to their own whims, they will mess it up themselves. As we have seen the past few weeks with Edwards, Obama, and Hillary all having issues.

In regard to the Nevada debate issue, it is interesting how they choose whether they will participate or not anyway. Two weeks ago, Obama chose to skip his own party's Nevada debate and go to Hollywood to raise money plus a Dem political party storm. So, it isn't surprising to see this situation with the Dem's and Fox

 

[Andreus]

as a past member of the press i can tell you that when a meet or a get falls through because the people being interviewed get skittish, it is NOT the person being interviewed that has a problem, it is the news outlet or the interviewer.

it is not the job of the politicians to be interviewed by the press, but it is the job of the press to interview the politicians. When such a fall through occurs, it is easy to see who is incapable of doing their job correctly.

when you lose an interview it is because you have simply poorly performed your job and failed to make the person comfortable enough to show up. saying its the interviewers fault is like saying its the fish's fault that the poor fisherman didnt catch him by not jumping on his hook.

It is the Heigth of partisanship to say that when Fox bungles a get with a dem politician, it is the Politicians fault. It is also a ludicrous, uninformed, reaching, dishonest and manipulative interpretion of the real way that the media works.

i assure everone reading this.... the people involved will find a more appropriate way of conveying the information they want the voters to have and the only people who will have lost out is an obviously slipping and shrinking biased media source.

 

[OtterJoq]

My sister (a self-described Republican) has been a news anchor for CBS for over two decades. We've had long discussions about Roger Ailes and his tampering with news content at FOX. She's horrified by what she hears from her compatriots who have first-hand knowledge of the intentional slant given to coverage at FOX News. And yes, for the record, she had the same reaction to the CBS/Bush brouhaha from some years back...although she still thinks Bush essentially went AWOL and had his daddy's friends "fix things" for him. Most sentient beings agree.

Does anyone really believe that the "Obama/Osama" gaffe from some months back was an accident? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell them.

 

[swerve]

Well...

I was all ready to respond with a....

I can't believe he's chickening out response...

Then I read this...

as a past member of the press i can tell you that when a meet or a get falls through because the people being interviewed get skittish, it is NOT the person being interviewed that has a problem, it is the news outlet or the interviewer.

it is not the job of the politicians to be interviewed by the press, but it is the job of the press to interview the politicians. When such a fall through occurs, it is easy to see who is incapable of doing their job correctly.

when you lose an interview it is because you have simply poorly performed your job and failed to make the person comfortable enough to show up. saying its the interviewers fault is like saying its the fish's fault that the poor fisherman didnt catch him by not jumping on his hook.

It is the Heigth of partisanship to say that when Fox bungles a get with a dem politician, it is the Politicians fault. It is also a ludicrous, uninformed, reaching, dishonest and manipulative interpretion of the real way that the media works.

i assure everone reading this.... the people involved will find a more appropriate way of conveying the information they want the voters to have and the only people who will have lost out is an obviously slipping and shrinking biased media source.

And see it from a whole different perspective...

Andreus...

I'm SURE you were GREAT at your job...

you make people think...

Gotta go -- I promised not to get involved much in these debates since I can't get my thoughts across well...

*slinking away from CE&P*

 

[Sam]

Did a Reuters reporter really misuse the word "lead?" In the following quote, the word he should have been looking for is "led." Sloppy reporting, I must say...

"The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama..."

 

[chance1]

There is nothing wrong with this at all. I don't get the big deal. The Democrats have every right to choose to boycott a media outlet that needs to watch its slander.

yeah boycott a media outlet cause they don't kiss ur ass

good one

"Fox News doesn't treat me good" - picture John Edwards with a tissue wiping his tears

Pathetic

terrible leadership

Hypocritical

Panderers

scary that this is the state of the dem party

 

[OtterJoq]

Fox lies.

It's well documented.

Why do you have a problem with the Dems not wanting to associate with a sham "news" service?

Oh, wait...don't tell me...

 

[White Eagle]

Good for Edwards. It's about time someone put fox in their place. What Ailes said is pure bigotry. I believe Reuters is a reliable source.

chance you have told me before I need to watch Fox to see what they are really like. Well I don't need to watch it. I can see here in the vids posted just what Fox is like. The only thing I watch on TV is news. I don't even have cable to watch fox. I'm sure if I feel like I really need to see something there I can always go to youtube.

 

[chance1]

You guys are ridiculous

so McCain shouldn't go on MSNBC? or CNN? or ABC?

pathetic

hypocrites

lame

fill in the rest

 

[Andreus]

McCain will go to those agencies because they are professional enough to attract him and garner his trust

the onus is not on the politician

it is a reflection of the integrity of the news agency

there is only one source consistently running aground on this issue

it is fox

 

[JayHawk]

Shit sells.

What will tell the story of whether or not it was Fox or the candidates that became the strategic reason for cancellation is whether another outlet offers and then gets the bid.

If it re-materializes on another network then it was Fox.

If it does not then the candidates don't want to expose their flank by having unplanned reactions shown live from a debate.

My guess. It will never show it's head. Politicians don't like to speak to audiences that are not already on their knees sucking the candidates cock. Which when attached to the campaign finance issue makes our political process very much like jerking off with someone else buying the lube.

 

[NickCole]

I think it's great.

Kudos to Edwards. Kudos to Bill Richardson. Kudos to all the Democrats who took a stand.

Fox News is nothing more than an arm of the BushRepublican propaganda machine.

Why give them this veneer of credibility? Give it to a legitimate news station.

 

[OtterJoq]

You guys are ridiculous

pathetic

hypocrites

lame

fill in the rest

Let's see, gentlemen...according to chance, we're all pathetic hypocrites who also happen to be lame...and all of this is because we're smart enough to figure out that Fox News is hopelessly biased in favor of chance's beloved GOP.

Nice name-calling, flicker face.

I received an infraction for such behavior.

Ah, but why am I telling you this? After all, you're the one who reported me.

Apparently, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And WE'RE the hypocrites?

Oh, but don't worry...

Nothing personal.

Just my two cents.

Fuck off.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a post to report.

 

[OtterJoq]

And for those of you wondering about the horrible name I called Chance...the one that resulted in the infraction...you've already read it. It's in the post directly above.

Now...I'll leave it to you and the moderators to determine if "flicker face" is on a par with "pathetic lame ridicuous hypocrites." Certainly, all decent JUBbers will insist that Chance be treated in a manner that is "fair and balanced." (And yes, I know that's FOX News' slogan, but hey...they're not using it, so I figure it's fair game.)

 

[letme]

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?
Advertisement



But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

(From the Las Vegas Review-Journal.)

I think speaks well of the Lefts fears,and lack of a mass media outlet for there slanted views.

 

[White Eagle]

And for those of you wondering about the horrible name I called Chance...the one that resulted in the infraction...you've already read it. It's in the post directly above.

Now...I'll leave it to you and the moderators to determine if "flicker face" is on a par with "pathetic lame ridicuous hypocrites." Certainly, all decent JUBbers will insist that Chance be treated in a manner that is "fair and balanced." (And yes, I know that's FOX News' slogan, but hey...they're not using it, so I figure it's fair game.)

Thanks for your post. I took offense of the "pathetic lame ridiculous hypocrites" also, but since I have been called out on something I posted I decided to let it pass. What I posted was just misunderstood and deleted. It was taken as something I said about the poster when I meant bush. My fault as I wasn't clear on what I meant.
But ever since chances' yearlong ban that lasted a weekend he has been pushing everybody to the limit.
Also, I see nothing wrong with flicker face.

 

[OtterJoq]

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?
Advertisement



But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

(From the Las Vegas Review-Journal.)

I think speaks well of the Lefts fears,and lack of a mass media outlet for there slanted views.

One of the most interesting things about this editorial is that it begins by admitting Fox News' bias right from the git-go.

What follows is the usual right-wing hypocritical name-calling.

I'll print it out and read it again the next time I have a bout of insomnia.

 

[OtterJoq]

Thanks for your post. I took offense of the "pathetic lame ridiculous hypocrites" also, but since I have been called out on something I posted I decided to let it pass. What I posted was just misunderstood and deleted. It was taken as something I said about the poster when I meant bush. My fault as I wasn't clear on what I meant.
But ever since chances' yearlong ban that lasted a weekend he has been pushing everybody to the limit.
Also, I see nothing wrong with flicker face.

No problem, fb. As promised, I've reported him to the moderators for his personal attacks in this thread. Time will tell if they respond fairly.

The nasty attitude of his posts isn't really surprising; when a person willingly immerses himself in the angry rantings of the propaganda arm of the Bush White house (aka Fox News), it's to be expected that that person will begin spewing the same bile as Hannity, O'Reilly, et cetera.