Republicans Shun Debate, and Right Cries Out »
Posted by: deathray 1 year, 1 month ago437 Comments Report this Story
When the leading Republican presidential candidates started to squirm last week about attending a Sept. 17 YouTube debate, in which the public would ask questions via video, there was a surprising backlash from the world of Republican and conservative bloggers.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 437
-
0%
deathray1 year, 1 month ago
FTA: "The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease," said Patrick Ruffini, a prominent Republican blogger and the e-campaign director for the Republican National Committee from 2005 until earlier this year.
The "disease," he said in an interview, is the Republicans' failure to convey that "the online community matters to them," even if they have active Web sites and are using them to raise money. He has helped start an online petition to urge the candidates to participate in the YouTube debate.
Reply-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 1 month ago
They are scared to death of answering questions from the general public. They have nothing to stand on and are mired in controversy of their own making.
Reply-
0%
funatwork1 year, 1 month ago
I wonder if it is fear or as the article suggested are they simply scoffing at the idea that having an online presence is important? A Youtube debate should have the greatest influence on young voters but lets face it the turnout for your voters is absolutely pathetic.
Don't get me wrong I would like to see it and god knows I have nothing against the internet but I am skeptical about how much of a difference the "internet" vote will actually have on an election.
Reply-
0%
tehranchik1 year, 1 month ago
Maybe after you read this you'll change your mind.
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/07/31/netsc...
Reply-
0%
tehranchik1 year, 1 month ago
These numbers are only at netscape. Imagine all the other sites and the millions they pull in. I think the internet is going to have a huge influence.
Reply-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 1 month ago
I personally think the Republicans have better things to do with their time than to answer questions about snowmen and what flavor ice-cream they liked to eat...
I guess none of you saw the worthless Democratic "Snowmen" YouTube Debate...Do you REALLY think that made a difference? None of the questions asked of the candidates were remarkable and not once did they ask a question about "terrorism"...Not once. No tough questions were asked of the candidates, but I am sure questions for the Republicans would be much tougher like "Mr. Thompson, what's it like being married to a "trophy" wife?" because we ALL know the Democratic Candidates wives are so much smarter, classy, etc....And that most questions asked of the Republican Candidates would be an attempt to smear their party or reputation...
Forget it...I wouldn't do it either...
Reply-
0%
DoerNotASayer1 year, 1 month ago
I have just come up with a name for this so typical type of reponse from neocons.
The "Neocon Lash Out"
Every time anyone says anything remotely negative about Bush and Republican policies and performance, you get this immediate spew of defense through accusation and smear (90% of it is completely false and made up) comimg from these ill-informed, unreflective idiologues.
(Of course, it is always a complete regurgitation of the the talking points heard from 1000 conservative sources.)
It's as predictable as the sun - the Neocon Lash Out.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
Why dont you just be good lil' cons and keep your mouth shut. You are to be seen but not heard. Ahhh...the days when the peoples party (Democrats)controled the house for 40 years and 3 friendly tv networks to towed the line. (Talk about media consolidation!)
A thousand sources for talking points? I think you want to say 'the same talking points from a thousand conservative voices or a thousand conservative platforms' or whatever
Reply-
-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
I guess every point of view is a talking point then.I guess any disagreement or argument is an assault and a smear...if it comes from the wrong people.
You can take on the point. Or you can write it off as a smear or just claim the point is irrelevent because of who said it.
How can you lose?
Reply-
0%
DoerNotASayer1 year, 1 month ago
The point is that no matter what the Bushies do, the defense is to bash Clinton, Kennedy, or liberals in general.
Clinton has some problems and shortcommings, for sure, but when it comes to being a competent president, Bush makes Clinton look like Rushmore material. It makes the constant Clinton bashing seem all the more vapid.
Reply-
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
How can a man whose administration hired incompetent idiots to run major agencies like FEMA and the AG, not to mention name idealogues and fanatics to major judiciary posts and you have the audacity to call Bush "average"???
If George Bush is "average" then the Grand Canyon's a ditch and the Apollo missions to the moon was a Sunday drive in the country!
Reply-
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
Nope... And I don't think a Rhodea Scholar is in any way "average". He may have had his personal failings, but he was able to balance the budget for the first time in decades plus have an economy that helped *everyone*, not just the privilaged few like Little Georgie has.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 1 month ago
"Every time anyone says anything remotely negative about Bush and Republican policies and performance, you get this immediate spew of defense through accusation and smear (90% of it is completely false and made up) comimg from these ill-informed, unreflective idiologues."
Gosh...Talkin about the pot calling the kettle black...LMAO...
You're such a funny little liberal...
Shoo-fly...Shoo...
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
More likely, he's looking for wives for his boys and some of his other Mormon friends... ;-)
Reply
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
Well Well Frosty Shake U Guy who epitomizes EXACTLY what Doer posted. Seems you like to regurgitate the Limpaw talking pointws verbatim as a defense for your failed ideology. All one needs to do is read your posts, you make NO points, you post NO ideas, you attack and attempt to downgrade the messenger. You tend to be the poster who is MOST like the description Doer made.
Look at the bright side you finally won something.
Reply
-
0%
NavArmy1 year, 1 month ago
Good name, but FSU is a D*ck that only has the use of one side of his brain. He's an idiot that I just block!
Reply
-
-
0%
badnootka1 year, 1 month ago
The democratic Youtube debate was a waste of time with stupid questions poorly answered. This may be the forum of the future but who ever sifted and chose the questions was trying to make it as easy for the candidates as possible. There were no questions requiring detailed answers and anecdotes and personal opinions were the norm. Ask the real questions and seek real answers. "look at the person to your left and tell me what you like and dislike about him/her" Excuse me, are we in kindergarten? Who would care what one candidate thinks of another, Is it relevant to the candidates ability to lead this country. I think not. A waste of time without real hard ball questions. Warm & fuzzy does not get my vote.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
Doer, FSU posts will NEVER match up against what he claims HE said. It usually takes a stretch to even see a correlation. He continues to just bash dems and repeat the talk radio BS he listens to all the while claiming he's debating and presenting valid points. The following will help you in understanding him:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemi...
Reply -
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 1 month ago
No I said the same thing...The Democratic YOUBOOB display was just that..>The questions were weak, boring and meaningless...What purpose did it serve other than the Dems bowing up there own feathers like a big f-ing peacock? What tough questions were asked of the Dems, do-nothing, not saying?
Exactly.....nothing, nada....
You try pulling that with the Repubs, and you libs would be raising so much hell because no tough questions were asked...If you say you wouldn't, you'd be a liar...
Which we`all know anyway...
Reply-
-
0%
FSU92grad1 year, 1 month ago
Funny, how you avoid the questions...
Are you always evasive like this when you get caught with your pants down around your ankles? You can admit when people are right regardless of political affiliation, you know...I've done it before with other liberals, just not you...You're full of chit 90% of the time...
You're good at calling people names, not so good with substance...
Reply-
0%
DoerNotASayer1 year, 1 month ago
You live in a world I can't comprehend. I have clearly refuted any conherent thing I could dig out of your confusing, rambling diatribes.
I haven't avoided anything, you just repeat the same delusional lies over and over. At some point I have to move on to something else. I know you are used to Rush repeating the same lie over and over for 30 to 45 minutes at a time, but if you want to join in here you are going to have to try to keep up.
Dammit....here I am taking you seriously again...way to go, Colbert!!!!
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago
shhh, don't tell these nitwits Colbert isn't one of them, they'll be suicidal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
PsychoHosebeast1 year, 1 month ago
"I personally think the Republicans have better things to do with their time than to answer questions about snowmen and what flavor ice-cream they liked to eat"
Answered like a good little sheep. After all, we all know that Republicans would consider doing just about anything to be more important than running for president... the respect they hold for the office in THIS administration is glaring.
So basically what you're saying is that Republicans are too arrogant to deal with hoi polloi... have I got that straight?
Reply -
0%
zonkra1 year, 1 month ago
Why, they might be taken aback
and a scripted answer would lack
if asked "You Republican clown
our bridges are falling down
while we spend trillions on Iraq!
Do you think we ought to get out
and imprison the lying louts
whose bill of goods we got sold
even though he was told
even his dad had his doubts?
How many more bridges must fail?
Shouldn't you creeps be in jail?
your lust for oil has caused your treason
so you've lost all your reason
shouldn't you be rode out of town on a rail?"
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
BuffaloJ1 year, 1 month ago
I don't believe it has anything whatsoever at all to do with the Republicans not thinking the online presence is important.
Its because in an internet debate they cannot control the questions or the audience. If the American public asks real questions then the Republicans won't have time to come up with a new clever little phrase like "Cut N Run" or "If we leave we lose". These kinds of phrases are not clever to me and apparently 70% of my fellow citizens agree. Chances are, Republicans would spew the usual nonsense like "Cut N Run" and would be straight laughed at. They know this, so they don't want to do an internet debate with real people.
Reply
-
-
0%
newsquew1 year, 1 month ago
A lesson learned from the same "scared to deathness" that struck the liberal left when they ran with tails between their legs from the Fox sponsored debate.
There is little new here except for the side of the fence the two major parties are on. The same one.
The tube needs to be inclusive of the third party candidates, or they too are playing into the hands of the majors.
Reply-
-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
O'Reilly was captain of the boat that sunk with G W Bush, G H W Bush, and Bill Clinton as passengers and there were only enough room and supplies for three people on the life boat. They agreed that someone would have to leave and as captain, O'Reilly was in command so he would decide. To make it more fair, he would ask each a question and the one that couldn't answer correctly would leave the boat.
O'Reilly asked G W Bush "What was the greatest disaster in American history?" G W answered "9/11" O'Reilly said correct.
Then it was G H W Bush's turn so O'Reilly asked him how many people died?" G H W answered "Around 3000 people died". O'Reilly said that was correct.
Next it was Clinton's turn to take a question and O'Reilly asked Clinton "Name them"
Old joke but it would be a FOX format.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
NEWSQUEW:
"A lesson learned from the same 'scared to deathness' that struck the liberal left when they ran with tails between their legs from the Fox sponsored debate. There is little new here except for the side of the fence the two major parties are on"
Actually, there IS a difference for those intelligence enough to distinguish it. Democrats had originally agreed to attend a debate co-hosted by Fox DESPITE objections from Democratic activist groups and their core constituents. Democrats only pulled out after Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes referred to Osama bin Ladin as Barack Obama:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rtndf_1...
"AILES: And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"
Reply-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
NEWSQUEW:
"It was fear."
Great. Then present your documentation proving that Democrats canceled the debate due to "fear." I've already presented documentation citing that the debate was canceled in response to Roger Ailes' cheapshot against Obama. In fact, the Democratic candidates had originally agreed to attend the Fox's sponsored debate DESPITE the fact that the DNC refused to sanction it. It was only after Ailes' cheapshot comment that Democrats canceled the debate in a show of unity with Obama.
If the Democrats were so afraid of Fox, they wouldn't have originally agreed to debate on Fox in the first place. But you seem so sure Democrats were afraid, so show me your documentation. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Go ahead and post your nonpartisan, primary source documentation. I'll wait although something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.
Next time, keep your self-imposed idiocy to yourself.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
Democrats boycotted the Fox-hosted debate not out of "fear" as NEWSQUEW mistakenly believes, but instead in indignant defense of their fellow colleague. So yes, NEWSQUEW, there IS a difference.
The truth is that Fox News already suffers a credibility problem among non-neocons. (For example, how many Peabodies do Brit Hume, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin have for excellence in broadcast journalism? In contrast, how many Peabodies have NPR or PBS been awarded, and how many Pulitzers have the New York Times won?)
The ONLY way Fox News can desperately capture credibility is by buying it, which is why Rupert Murdoch recently made an unsolicited, overpriced bid for the Dow Jones company--he wanted to buy the credibility that comes with the Wall Street Journal and funnel that credibility to his News affiliates.
It's equally laughable that NEWSQUEW plays the victim card by implying that the general public is as pro-Democrat biased as Fox News is pro-Republican.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
This mentallity puzzles me.
I remember the Roger Ailes joke about Obama, Osama, and Bush. I was a joke about the inability of Bush to recognize a distintion between Osama and Obama. And yet I hear many critics claim that Ailes was referring to Bin Ladin as Obama or... comparing Obama to Bin Laden. What a stretch. I certainly do not think you are too blinded or stupid to understand a joke. Rather I suspect you may think others are so stupid to hear the joke and still accept your spin.
It's the same with the righteous defensiveness over being patriotic. I cant count the times when some republican will claim some war critic is wrong about the war or the consequences of the critique and the critic will create the leap and jump to cry that they being called unpatriotic!
There have been more lies told to assert lies told.
The Peabodies and Pulitzers are just self congradulating gestures handed out within the same journalism clique to pat each other in the back.
Reply-
0%
lfergie8121 year, 1 month ago
Yeah! I remember Kerry telling a joke that the Republicans took out of context. What's your point. Why don't you tell us about the Republicans attempt to tie Obama to Muslims by pointing out that he may have went to a school taught by Muslims.
"The Peabodies and Pulitzers are just self congradulating gestures handed out within the same journalism clique to pat each other in the back."
Again, what is your point. Who else would hand out an award to journalist for outstanding work. It's only a meaningless award if you don't get one. After all, Bush hands out medals for outstanding achievement to his appointees just before he fires them.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
Oh people understood the context of that joke about not studying you might wind up fighting in Iraq. I saw the whole thing.
Most thought it was a slight to the abilities of people who make up the military.
Kerry's explaination was that he was making a joke about Bush not studying and winding up getting us stuck in Iraq. The brilliant, eloquent Kerry said he just botched the joke. The irony is that Bush a bit better than Kery in his college days.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"The irony is that Bush a bit better than Kerry in his college days."
Actually, it's difficult to compare the their grades since Kerry majored in the more difficult Political Science department curriculum, while Bush majored in the easier History department curriculum. Recruited jocks at Yale generally choose easier majors like history or psychology, and avoid the more rigorous math, science, engineering, and political science majors.
However, Bush never accomplished anything academically noteworthy at Yale; he was admitted as a legacy child and recruited varsity athlete. At least Kerry was known as a great orator and debater, won the Ten Eyck prize for oration, and was chosen by his peers to address his graduating class at the commencement ceremony. These are academic skills which Bush conspicuously and, at times embarrassingly, lacks.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"I was a joke about the inability of Bush to recognize a distintion between Osama and Obama."
It sure does puzzle you. On the surface, it was a joke about Bush's inability to distinguish between Osama and Obama. But the joke also associates Osama with Obama, which in effect is a fear-mongering tactic designed to link the two and make the public apprehensive about voting for him. If you listen to conservative talk radio, watch conservative news commentary, and even simply read the posts of conservative members here on Netscape, you will notice that abusing Barack Hussein Obama's name (by linking Obama with Osama and Hussein with Saddam Hussein) is a COMMON smear tactic employed by the conservatives. Considering the source of the joke, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes' remark was not simply a joke at a Republican president's expense.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
So if I hear a news report say that Obama says we should pursue Bin Laden in the war on terrorism then do I assume the news source is using the tactic of connecting to two?
Saturday Night live and the late night talk shows have told some variation of the same joke...all where Bush is the butt of the laugh. Are they using the same insidious 'tactic'? Oh, I forgot you mentioned we should consider the souce of the joke. A conservatives motives are always malicious. They are just not allowed to mention the holy Obama name.
If you want to refer to the cackle that goes on here on Netscape, please....there is a lot of name abuse and innuendo in the daily tit for tat. You have been around this site long enough to know no side has the monopoly on this kind of abuse.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"So if I hear a news report say that Obama says we should pursue Bin Laden in the war on terrorism then do I assume the news source is using the tactic of connecting to two?"
Why is it so difficult for you to see the distinction? There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between responsibly reporting that Obama wants to pursue Osama Bin Ladin and irresponsibly, purposefully, and malicously "confusing" Barack Obama for Osama Bin Ladin.
SCHMIRT:
"Saturday Night live and the late night talk shows have told some variation of the same joke."
Again, you fail to see the distinction. SNL's primary motivation is humor. A news organization's primary motivation ought to be to deliver objective news. Fox has been shown REPEATEDLY to be motivated by political ideology, as my documentation showing Fox's persistence in claiming Obama was educated at a madrassa demonstrates.
Curiously, you have ZERO documentation to present. All you have is conjecture and sophistry.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
So Ailes was not trying for humor. Same joke but when it is Rogers Ailes, then its not an attempt at humor? He is not in the anchor chair.
My documentation is what you have provided--its just amazing to me how you read such different things out of it.
As far as Fox news bias...I never tried to deny that. I dont disagree that a news organization should be motivated to deliver objective news. But we dont get that anywhere. If think you get objective news on all the other networks then good luck! The real joke is when networks claim to report objectively (yes-I will 'include Fair and Balanced') and anyone buys that stuff. Yes, I easily concede Fox has bias! The extent of bias is scrutinized and exaggerated by critics; however, because it is bias in the 'wrong' way. I would only HOPE such scrutiny were given ALL the media all along!
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
I was responding to your explaination on why Democrats boyctted debate on Fox. Your point was that Democrats rallied to the boycott because they wanted to stand with Obama in response to Roger Ailes (not on broadcast)telling a joke about Bush that used Obama's name. (How dare he).
Ive seen your doc. He's telling a joke...knocking Bush! Mixing up Obama and Osama--get it? Could have been mixing Zakaria and Al Zwahari but not as funny for they are not as notable.I certainly do not think its proof that Fox news is no longer pro-Bush! It would take quite a partisan and paranoid mind to interpret that as a smearing of Obama. If that is truly the Democrats response, it just makes them more difficult to take seriously.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"So Ailes was not trying for humor. Same joke but when it is Rogers Ailes, then its not an attempt at humor?"
The fallacy of your argument lies in the false dichotomy you've constructed. According to you, either Ailes' joke was a humorous knock on Bush, or it was a cheapshot against Obama--but not both. But Ailes' quip did serve BOTH purposes, not solely one exclusive of the other.
SCHMIRT:
"It would take quite a partisan and paranoid mind to interpret that as a smearing of Obama."
It would take a partisan mind NOT to interpret it this way when Fox has a record of Swift-Boating Democratic politicians, i.e. when Fox claimed Obama had been educated in a madrassa even AFTER reports surfaced disputing Insight Magazine's story.
SCHMIRT:
"If that is truly the Democrats response, it just makes them more difficult to take seriously."
And if Ailes' joke is what you call a "sense of humor," then it's hard to take you seriously.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
Does not add up. Ailes SO partisan and YET is an EQUAL opportunity slammer of the republican Bush and democrat Obama.
I guess you are suggesting that Fox is just so swift-boating, Obama=Madrassa biased,that the joke HAS to be a slam at Obama no matter what we hear with our own ears.
Fine. I never said Fox does not have a bias; but, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If any one is still reading these posts, they can decide for themselves...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rtndf_1...
Thanks for the Madrassa story links 'dog. We may not agree to what extent the story was exploited; but, they did show me one thing: It appears the journalist clique is well prepared to provide rapid response and run flak for your precious Obama this year. He should be OK.
If Fox is as aweful in credibility as charged, they will loose in the market.
Stay on the Fox watch 'Dog, they may only get better for it. Too bad the other networks will never get that special"quality control".
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"Too bad the other networks will never get that special"quality control"."
No network is perfect. But no network is as in desperate need of "quality control" as Fox News is.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles...
"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions [regarding the Iraq war] varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11975731/
"Vice President Dick Cheney has a checklist of requirements for his hotel suites. The vice president also requires that all televisions be tuned to Fox News."
(continued)
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/02/fox_poll_to...
"'Fox and Friends' followed the Anna Nicole Smith saga, even as its own poll showed the media has been spending too much time on it. Co-host Steve Doocy alluded to the poll by Opinion Dynamics, which found 78% think the media is overdoing the coverage."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/05/fox-news-an...
What's more important: Anna Nicole Smith or quality health care for our troops?
References to Anna Nicole Smith:
FOX: 121
NBC: 96
CNN: 40
References to Walter Reed:
FOX: 10
NBC: 84
CNN: 53
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gibson-iraq...
"While many cable news shows have moved on to other stories, Fox News host John Gibson remains fixated on Anna Nicole.
GIBSON: 'Oh, there's a war on, there's a war on. Maybe, people are a little weary, Mr. Cooper, of your war coverage...People want to hear about the Anna Nicole story, I'm happy to tell them.'"
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
http://www.journalism.org/node/5712
What's more important: Anna Nicole Smith or the Iraq war?
"Fox News has devoted less time to the war in Iraq, for instance, and attached itself a good deal more to the death of Anna Nicole Smith. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, among the three cable news stations, FOX NEWS came in on Iraq War coverage."
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/200...
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
Thanks for the presentation. Its been quite a while since I watched cable news.
Make it easy for you: I acknowledge this stuff.
I may not see eye to eye on some of the particulars. My view is that all TV news is crap. Maybe Fox is the worst...but the others are not off from then. You campaign to straighten them out all you want. I have one method...turn em' off. Maybe I will check in every half year to see if I am getting real news.
I dont like intellectually shallow Sean Hannity, I think Lou Dobbs is trippin', Katie Couric has nothing to offer, and Chris Matthews is a cartoon of himself.
Sometimes I like a goood meaty documantary. Thats about it.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"Ailes SO partisan and YET is an EQUAL opportunity slammer of the republican Bush and Obama."
Ailes' joke is hardly a "slam" on Bush for two reasons:
1) Ailes comment suggests that Barak Obama's and Osama bin Ladin's name are so similar that it's understandable for someone to mis-speak one for the other.
2) Bush embraces his anti-intellectualism and even speaks with a folksy Texas accent, despite being born in Connecticut and studying in New England. It's not a "slam" on Bush since Bush makes self-deprecating remarks about his academic shortcomings all the time.
However, Ailes comment is a "slam" on Obama, who has NEVER claimed to be a Muslim and NEVER made self-deprecating jokes about being the world's most wanted terrorist.
The fact that you can equate the two (anti-intellectual humor against Bush and accusations of being a terrorist against Obama) reveals a lack of comprehension in the subversiveness in Ailes' "joke."
Reply-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
It's certainly telling that you failed to follow the reasoning. All I'm asking from you is to look beyond yourself and try to walk in another man's shoes. I guess that was too much to ask of you.
Somehow, it's fitting that you espouse the mantra "a cigar is just a cigar" since Freud's theories have largely been discredited by the scientific community.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"Your point was that Democrats rallied to the boycott because they wanted to stand with Obama in response to Roger Ailes (How dare he)."
Exactly. Let me try to explain by analogy.
Suppose you lived next to an obnoxious neighbor, who invites you to dinner. You accept. The morning before you meet for dinner that neighbor appears on national television and jokingly hints that your brother is a terrorist (i.e., your brother's name sounds Muslim and that your brother even attended a madrassa). Would you think this was just a joke? Imagine the possibility of being fired from your job (i.e. "not re-elected") if enough people mistakenly believed your neighbor's lies. Still think it's funny? You'd either be foolish or blinded by ideology if you'd claim that you'd still have dinner with your neighbor.
The Democratic candidates owe Fox NOTHING. They originally agreed to attend the debate DESPITE the fact that it was NOT sanctioned by the DNC. Ailes blew it.
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
Thanks for the analogies 'Dog.
Message to all news outlets: Dont touch the Obama!
My message to Barak: Its going to get rockier than this on the way to the White House (with or without Fox). By virtue of the office, you will become the new 'Great Satan' in Iran and you wont have the 'dog there to set em' straight! Are you going to back down from you vow to meet with the Iranian leader and stiff him because of the 'Death to America' rallies every Friday?
To 'Dog: Better toughen Barak up, the 'tit for tat' gets real on the world stage.
Look 'Dog, we both know your problem is Fox news. This Obama stuff is just more crap (however weak) to make your case against Fox. You are part of cultural, journalistic, and political war against Fox. Guess what? I am ok with that. They will either fail or survive the test of fire.
I think the republicans look weak avoiding the U-tube/CNN debate. I think the democrats look petty avoiding Fox and Obama is just an excuse. They all lose.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"Its going to get rockier than this on the way to the White House (with or without Fox)."
I don't mind the media testing Obama. In fact, the vetting process is precisely what helps determine which candidate is most suitable for the presidency. All I'm asking is to keep the questions and accusations real. Enough of this nonsense that Obama is a Muslim fundamentalist who studied at a Madrassa and whose name rhymes with Osama. This provides no benefit to the public discourse. But by all means, grill him on his approach to foreign policy, energy policy, nuclear policy, etc.
SCHMIRT:
"the democrats look petty avoiding Fox"
How many times must I repeat myself? The Democratic candidates did not "avoid Fox" out of fear. If they were afraid of Fox, then why did they initially agree to attend Fox's debate DESPITE the DNC's refusal to sanction it as an official debate? Democrats only canceled the debate AFTER Ailes' comment. It was Ailes who blew it.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"Look 'Dog, we both know your problem is Fox news. You are part of cultural, journalistic, and political war against Fox."
You and your conspiracy theories. You assume too much. I wouldn't mind if Fox catered to the conservative demographic if Fox actually reported the news more responsibly. But their shoddy brand of journalism is so filled with partisan attacks, half-truths, and innuendo that it's impossible to discern where the objective news ends and where the partisan commentary on the news begins, without reading the primary sources from de-classified government, intelligence, and military documents.
Contrary to what you've assumed, I don't hold an irrational grudge against Fox. In fact, I only know so much about Fox because my brother works for 20th Century Fox's feature films division and his roommate animates for The Simpsons. I only ask that Fox fulfill their civic responsibility to meet common journalistic standards. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Reply-
-
-
0%
nccneon1 year, 1 month ago
"Fair and Balanced" is the same newspeak as "Clear Skies Initiative". That is their most used tactic ... to label something precisely what it is NOT. By them, I mean the Bush regime ... but why should've Faux News make use of it too? After all, they are very close.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"comparing Obama to Bin Laden. What a stretch."
A stretch? How many times has Fox implied that Obama may be an Islamic fundamentalist by falsely accusing Obama of being educated at a madrassa? Roger Ailes' joke wasn't the first time Fox News tried to "Swift-Boat" Obama.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842036/site/newsw...
"Even after the story was debunked, the folks at Fox News Channel wouldn't apologize, and in one case kept pushing a line on the air they knew was false."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.ma...
"Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate, according to CNN reporting. The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story 'appallingly irresponsible.'"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290001
"The Peabodies and Pulitzers are just self congradulating gestures"
The excuses of an apologist...
Reply-
0%
schmirt1 year, 1 month ago
News report was about accusations made by others, not a report that they had information about Obama at Madrassa's.
Come on, we used to get stories about someone accusing Bush of being a cocaine fiend. Some news organizations have reported on such accusations---do you think I was stupid enough to not make the distinction between a news outlet reporting Bush was a cocaine user and reporting that someone is saying Bush was cocaine user? I simply think it is projection to worry that viewers or so stupid to accept the implications by themselves .(By projection I mean to accuse others of a sin that they recognize so well for they are so consumed and engaged in that sin themselves.)
I agree that news organizations should be careful about reporting about the rumors/allegations made. I think Fox was careless and they retreated. Cable competitors and Obama campaign complain...like they dont have anything at stake in trashing Fox?
Who is master of victimhood and righteous indignation?
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
SCHMIRT:
"News report was about accusations made by others, not a report that they had information about Obama at Madrassa's."
First, it's an act of irresponsible, shoddy journalism to air a story that you haven't verified for yourself--particularly when the source of your story is Insight Mag. ABC and CNN easily disputed Insight's article by simply contacting the school.
Secondly, even AFTER the story was disputed, Fox reporters CONTINUED to insist that the story might be true.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=2823943
"But on 'Fox & Friends' on Jan. 19, Fox News' Steve Doocy fueled the fire by insisting that Obama spent, 'the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa & financed by Saudis, they teach the religion that pretty much hates us.'"
(continued)
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct1 year, 1 month ago
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290001
"Further, despite reading a copy of Obama's statement, Gibson continued to parrot the InsightMag.com report and suggest that there may have been truth to the report's claim that Obama attended a madrassa. In the segment with Holt, Gibson said: "I'm going to put it up on the screen: Barack's madrassa past." He later referred to the story as "the madrassa bomb dropped on Barack Obama." Gibson has not addressed the smear since his January 19 program."
Excusing Fox News' incompetence by claiming that "someone else aired the story first" is invalid. As a major news outlet, Fox should have verified the story.
Reply -
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
