Debated Down
(AP/Mary Ann Chastain)
The Democratic presidential debate originally scheduled for September 23rd has been cancelled. The debate – co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute and to be aired on Fox News Channel – had already been boycotted publicly by frontrunners Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. According to the Associated Press:
Fox News and a black political group say they will not hold a Sept. 23 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, which the leading candidates already were planning to skip.Keith Olbermann, no fan of Fox News Channel, advised the candidates against this a month ago. We here at Public Eye made our feelings known in May when the invitees began begging off:
A new date had not yet been set, Fox News spokesman Michael Murphy said Thursday.
The campaigns of U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards had said they would not participate in the debate. Opponents have criticized Fox as biased against Democrats.
America’s media landscape is already polarized enough. Partisans listen to their own radio shows, watch their own media outlets and generally seek out information that reinforces their political leanings. The Democratic presidential candidates are missing out on an opportunity to get their message out, confront the channel they view as a foe, and define themselves in their own words, rather than letting themselves be defined by what they see as Fox's mischaracterizations.This announcement comes on the heels of some Republicans’ hesitation to participate in the CNN/YouTube debates. We here at Public Eye believe that whether it’s Jim Lehrer or Billiam the Snowman or Keith Olbermann asking the questions, candidates should seize the opportunity to express their views in their own words in the forums available – even when there’s a little bit of unpredictability involved. (And even though it seems like there’s a debate every week.) Even if a moderator were to ask a candidate a biased or leading question, the PR the candidate could get for challenging the premise would show strength and poise.
If you’re a bit wobbly or overly cautious on the campaign trail, what are voters to think you’ll do in the Oval Office without a net?
The secrets of tennis legend 
The Bush/Cheney Whitehouse contracted a private public relation firm called the John Rendon Group to plant false stories in foreign news papers and media outlets to posture thought that Saddam Hussein was planning a nuclear attack on the United States.
George Bush, Richard Cheney, Condoleeza %u201Cmushroom cloud%u201D Rice, and Colin Powelle sold the American Public on the notion that we should go to war again with Iraq. All this misinformation was completely supported non-stop 24 hours a day 7 days a week by the Fox News Network.
Obviously we as Americans cannot trust the word of our leader President Bush, how can we trust a leader that would lie to promote a war for profit, but more so how can the Fox News Network be trusted?
In my experience I have found that if someone truly believes in what they are saying and doing, they have no fears facing anyone that might question their opinions. They welcome the chance to share their views, beliefs and experiences with as many people as they can.
If they can''t face the American public on Fox news, which, contrary to popular belief, also has a large liberal audience, how can they possibly face the leaders of other countries and convince them of their plans, thoughts, and motives?
Even if I don''t agree with someone, I admire them, and respect them, when they are willing to stand their ground, discuss, share and defend their beliefs and ideas.
I could never support, or vote for, someone so unsure of themselves. Weakness shown now will only multiply itself in the future.
JUST CHOOSE THOSE WHO SUPOPORT YOUR VIEWS
AND DON''T GO WHERE ANY OTHER VOICES CAN BE HEARD.
"One_American" is exactly right here. If the Ds can not defend their positions in a civil debate, they are gurlymen and have no business trying to run a country.
It really does not matter. Either party is perfectly capable of running around like little girls, taking our rights in the name of OBL, and selling what is left of our country to China. Which is all the next administration, either one, will accomplish anyway.
Vote Ron Paul
FoxNews is a one-sided fear and beleaguered network whose only purpose is to deflate oppositional view, and deflect fact of the detrimental actions of the Right.
It%u2019s not a secret, why are you attacking other news outlets (if you do watch them) for voicing dissent while defending the most overtly biased News organization?
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein had no part in the WTC attack.
Bush is spending $12 Billion Dollars a WEEK on Iraq and Afghanistan, but diverting the $money to the %u201Cprivate sector%u201D with no real goal, progress, or results.
Proceeds from Iraqi Oil was to pay for Bush%u2019s overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but instead the price of Oil has been driven to almost $80 dollars per barrel increasing the cost of everything you and I have to pay for just to get along.
Maybe the right should look at themselves and what they%u2019ve done to Americans a little more then simply attacking the Democratic Party and non-Republicans.
You two are so full of B.S. and your own bias that it makes it difficult to even read the comments.
"Propaganda, attacks on opposing views, lack of proper represented debate of the issues," this is NBC and CBS style of "News". Every Sunday, Foxnews panel has Juan and Mara from PBS on the panel to offer the left wing point of view. The Chris Matthews show has all left wingers patting each other on the back as they bash Bush and the other Republicans.
Get a grip and open your eyes and ears!
Propaganda, attacks on opposing views, lack of proper represented debate of the issues, and actions taken by the Right Wing may seem bold and daring to some but, not dealing with the accurate and complete reporting like Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the complete implosion of 3 buildings on 9/11 (with two hit by aircraft), and an occupation of a sovereign nation to covet oil some people say could be cowardly.
Other then that, Republicans are really tough dudes!!
In politics, the phrasing and framing of the debate is usually more important that your responses. But it''s more than that. Democrats showed a willingness to push back, an unwillingness to be pushed around, and above all, very publicly brought FOX''s bias out into the open.
Notice, it''s the FOX News anchors grovelling for us to show up, not us begging for another beating. Sacrificing TV time for principle is a good thing, and whatever personal gain of appearing would be lost by giving partisan hacks a chance to appeal to Democratic voters.
- by one_american August 23, 2007 7:40 PM EDT
- "If you%u2019re a bit wobbly or overly cautious on the campaign trail, what are voters to think you%u2019ll do in the Oval Office without a net?"
- Reply to this comment
See all 13 CommentsExactly.
Weakness or cowardess is no strategy for success.
How can Americans expect Democrats to stand up to terrorists or hostile nations - when they can''t even stand upright in the face of civil debate questions from Fox?