CNN presidential debate
News is coming out that only two of the many GOP presidential candidates have so far agreed to participate in the upcoming CNN debate. Could it be that most of them are afraid of modern technology, especially when it will expose them to the real world of real people on national TV, rather than—as Bush/Cheney/Rove have taught the past six years—to talk only to preselected and thoroughly vetted audiences as these people always do.
It is about time that all the candidates become exposed to what the majority of people think and feel, rather than just the minority who agrees with most of their positions.
It will be revealing to see if any more are willing to talk to the people at large. My guess is, in the end most of them will participate to keep from losing face entirely, but most of them will do badly and will be embarrassed by their positions when compared to the majority of the country.
This is what politics should really be about, exposing all who run for office to a large audience that represents a cross section of citizens, not to only those who have enough cash to buy scads of TV time for thirty second sound bites. Good for CNN and Cooper Anderson for offering us this revealing format.
This letter has not been edited.
They are scared to death, I bet they try to cancel this event. Taking questions and having to answer to the American public is not what they want. They need their talking points, I can't wait for the questions for the three who don't believe in evolution. If this event does take place it will be the most interesting debate in US history, watching these guys squirm...
Posted by Michael D on July 31, 2007 02:18 PMThey are as big of cowards as "An Amerikan" is.
Scared little, old, white men...
Posted by The Truth on July 31, 2007 02:22 PMRon Paul will answer the questions. All the rest, if elected, will give 4 more years of the same, no matter what lies they promise to the people.
2008 will be Americas last chance. We can defend the Constitution now, or defend our freedom and lives soon. Make a vote for something other than the lesser of 2 evils. Vote Ron Paul in 2008.
wasnt it the dumocrats who put their tail between their legs and ran like scared little rats when the CBC asked them to debate on Fox? oh thats right they would have to answer real questions and not ones like, did your mommy ever hurt your feelings?
or as the Republicans were asked 'so what do you dislike about America?' nice question from a big liberal tim russert.
get the dems to go on fox will never happen because they can not buy the questions first and choose the ones they like
Before the You Tube "debate" ,where CNN cherry picked mostly lib friendly videos,all the Dem candidates were supplied with each and every question.
So much for spontaneity and thinking on your feet.
Also,back in March, the Dems pulled out of a long agreed upon Fox sponsored debate in Nevada supposedly because of a Roger Ailes joke.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
The Dems won't talk to Fox but will talk to any and all rouge dictators and madmen around the world.
Wow truth. Cowards and little old white men. You got identity issues? My guess is that you are as white as they come. And I'll wager a thousand carbon credits that you tuck tail and run from all confrontation, except here, where you hide behind anonymity. You preen with your fellow libs, and swap compliments about your feel good credentials, but in my gut I know that none of you have ever placed yourselves in harms way to defend your right to spout your ridiculous liberal ideology. And no, a protest rally and pretend arrest don't count. I'll bet that even Hillary Clinton could kick your butt.
Posted by Guess who on July 31, 2007 09:56 PMWhy should the Dems debate on FOX and help generate revenue for an obvious Republican network? So little snots like Chris Wallace can ask mindless questions he thinks he already knows the answers to? Might as well have Ghouliani asking the questions, or Fred Thompson if he can stay awake long enough.
The Repukicans are araid of the youtube format because it allows the 'little people' to ask them questions, and if you make under $150K, per year, or are black, or a woman, these pompous Repukicas dont want anything to do with you.
"where you hide behind anonymity"
Pretty funny coming from one who tagline is "Guess Who".
Me thinks thou doest protest too much. What's the matter, did that hit too close to home?
In my gut I know you are a first-rate assclown.
Posted by The Truth on August 1, 2007 08:11 AM"Why should the Dems debate on FOX and help generate revenue for an obvious Republican network?"
That's it? That's your rationale for excusing the dems from being afraid to debate on Fox?
You may dismiss things that easy but most of the voting public is still asking why since FoxNews is the highest rated cable news channel. They continue in surpassing CNN and MSNBC each and every week.
I know the dems are scared of OReilly but he wasn't even going to be at the debate.
What's the deal?
Posted by KW on August 1, 2007 09:40 AMcnn is not a creditable news outlet.It is a liberal propaganda media machine.
Posted by bart on August 1, 2007 10:26 AMActually, I think this is why the dems didnt want to debate on faux news:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
FAux news actually went to court to protect their "right" to lie, distort, and falsify news. At least they're finally admitting to it.
F'king disgusting.
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 10:33 AMtbone-head,your parents named,label you correctly.
Posted by bart on August 1, 2007 10:45 AMTBone - The dems reneged on the Fox debate this year. Your link is an opinion piece from a college back in 2005. Was the author just being prophetic?
Any other propaganda you wish to assert/share with us?
Posted by KW on August 1, 2007 11:00 AMKW, you'd make a great news anchor on Faux.
That link was about a COURT RULING. Please tell me you know the difference between opinion and a court ruling. Cause if you don't, well, it explains a lot.
First friggin line: "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. "
and bart - if I could understand what you're trying to say, perhaps I could retort.
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 12:26 PMStop the presses. Here's another reason repubs don't like the youtube debate. And yes, KW, this is opinion.
"Let’s get something straight here. The reason the Republicans are running from a YouTube debate has nothing to do with embarrassing themselves and everything to do with the horror that is the Republican base. Imagine a whole two hour debate composed entirely of questions from men lovingly cradling their assault rifles, matronly polyester-swathed frumps of much avoirdupois braying and squawking about abstinence-only education and the danger of Harry Potter in our schools, angry old men taking a break from standing on their porches shouting, “Get the hell out of my yard!” to stare Mike Gravel-like into the camera and demand to know what the candidates plan to do about “th’ dayumn Mexicans”.
Good stuff there.
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 12:31 PMWow, that IS good stuff. I was looking for the Rocky Mountain News...Did I get somehow directed to the Daily Kos?
Guess a lot of people come here when they get momentarily weary of fellating each other over the brilliance of their latest 9/11 conspiracy theories or exchanging creative suggestions for placards at the next "Impeach the Bu$hitlerCheneyHalliburton Neocon Cabal" gathering.
Posted by Kevin on August 1, 2007 01:55 PMWrong TBone - Your link was to a liberal college paper article. Zero quotes from the court, zero transcript verbage and a whole lotta bashing of Fox and everything conservative. The author felt quite contented to retranslate what the courts actually said rather than quote them.
But I'm sure it seemed factual and unbiased to you.
I will give the article some merit. They identified what many of us have known for years. No law exists that requires news agencies to be accurate.
AP figured this out long ago and prints whatever headline they feel will be the best eyegrabber, regardless of how far it strays from the actual content of the article.
Olbermann is another fine example as well.
Posted by KW on August 1, 2007 03:35 PMYou guys want the court ruling?
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 03:53 PMRead my above post TB. I already acknowledged that no law exists requiring news agencies to be accurate or even truthful. If they did, over half the news outlets would be in court.
Your new link is at least more factual than a college paper, which is what I was giving you a hard time about in the first place.
The funny part is you labor under the misapprehension that only one outlet is guilty of twisting the truth. The all conspiring and evil FoxNews.
Heres a little secret TB...
THEY ALL DO IT!
Oh, I'm aware. But that doesn't make it right, does it?
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 06:02 PMT-Bone,
Lets see,
ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,CNBC,MSNBC,PBS-
All lean in varying degrees to the left.
Fox News- Stands alone and yet is vilified, and,
leans only slightly to the right ,
but still consistently employs and gives their lib commentators(Geraldo,Alan Colmes,Greta,Juan Williams,Neil Gabler,etc...) equal air time.
Can you make me up a list of conservatives currently employed and given equal time at the networks listed above?
Get Real requested:
"Can you make me up a list of conservatives currently employed and given equal time at the networks listed above?"
Media Matters has has done your research for you:
HOT TIP for Get Real: This is where you attack the messenger and dismiss the message.
Here's one for you CB. Liberal media bias exposed
Posted by KW on August 2, 2007 01:27 PMTBone - No. You are right, it shouldn't be tolerated but not enough people seem to care.
My first exposure to this crap was on Inside Edition (or one of those news shows) where they tried to show a GMC truck would explode upon side impact. After several tries they couldn't get on to explode so the added a detonator to get the desired effect.
Of course they never revealed this on the show and it wasn't until after GMC raised a huff that an apology was made.
Just recently the AP headline said to the effect 'Fed Reserve Chairman says recession likely.' If you take the time to read it, you find at the very bottom, and only when asked if recession was remotely possible the guy responded with "well I guess anythings possible."
Hardly an endorsement of an impending recession.
All we can do is be very careful about trusting any news media outlet and scrutinize everything you read, see or hear.
Posted by KW on August 2, 2007 01:35 PMTBone
I read the court decision re-the fox news flap. I noticed that the station asked for proof of the allegations against the BGH use and every time the reporters refused to provide it. I'd fire them too and the courts did decide that the actions were valid. But, to be faithful to the topic
Why on earth would any self-respecting politician subject themselves to a forum where no ideas are expressed and the arbiter of the entire circus is someone with an agenda dedicated to opposing the goals and ideas of those same politicians. (goes for the Republicans on Utube and the Democrats on FOX)
The Democrats have little to worry about when they are given softball and, from the cutsey side, snowman questions in a UTUBE style debate. Republicans can expect all the questions choosen for their debate to be attacks rather than questions that clarify positions or important issues.
Let's have a good old fashioned debate where each candidate gets time to state his case and then each one gets time to rebut the cases of the others and finally a roundup where each one speaks on the issues and the reasons to select him/her over the others. Not cutsey and probably a real ratings loser but a lot of information. I doubt that either Hillary or Obamaa could do much with this format. Edwards would shine and among the Republicans Ron Paul would shine like a thousand watt bulb.
No station or network would do that.
How about we do this:
Submit a list of questions to the candidates that ask real questions not sound bite ping pong and let each of them record their answers. Set time limits for each answer and enforce them by cutting the answer to each question five seconds after the time limit on each one. Edit the answers so each one answers the same question at the same time. That way they are not positioning themselves according tothe other guy but on their own ideas and ethics.
I'd also ask questions like: If you are elected president how will you look for your cabinet and what qualities are most important in each position? How would you make the decision to veto legislation? What should be the first priority of your presidency? If/when another terrorist attack occurs on American soil what will your responsibilies be to both those attacked and the rest of the nation? What is the best thing you would hope to accomplish as president? Questions that would each take no more than five minutes to answer and which would permit each candidate time to make his/her individual position and anticipated policies known.
Anyone want to help me get that one going? I'd especially like to see that one for those running for Congress and Senate.
KW pulled Brent Bozzell out of his arse:
"Here's one for you CB. Liberal media bias exposed"
Hilarious. Brent Bozell's outfit?
KW, did you read about the methodology in your MRC "study"?
http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/MRC.html
You're a joke K-Dub.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:45 AMWhat's funny CB is you think mediamatters is an unbiased source.
Get a clue my man, you desparately need it.
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 10:51 AM