top gun

BIG BREAKING NEWS!!!
FOX NEWS has been dropped as host of the Democratic debate in Nevada.
MoveOn.org members got like 270,000 signitures on a online petiton calling for them to go. First Edwards said he wouldn't particapate... then the Nevada Democratic Party said they'd bring in an additional host... then they just dropped FOX altogether!

This makes sense. Having FOX host a Democratic event would be like having Lee Harvey Oswald host President Kennedy's motorcade.

Scribbler1

Although FOX definitely has a conservative agenda, I'm not sure just what kind of spin they could put on any debate. Of course, if they get to control the questions that's another thing entirely.

Remember when the League of Women Voters ran the show? We never should have stood by and allowed the federales to take it over.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Scribbler1

The "Commision for Presidential Debates" has full control over the debates and have had it for some time. It's supposedly a "bipartisan" group, headed by the leaders of the two respective parties.

It's bipartisan, all right. SO BIpartisan that no third party has a chance at a debate.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Troianii

Heh, of course they're going to shy away.

However, having FOX host a Democrat debate is just like almost any other big news station hosting a Republican debate.

FRYandBENDER

I find this whole situation hilarious. What a bunch of poon tangs. Would any Fox representatives be asking them questions or would Fox just be covering the debates. I think it is pretty funny how democrats make fun of Fox using the "fair and balanced" slogan and then turn around and keep them from sponsoring a democratic debate. lol x 1000. Should politicians be able to keep news outlets from sponsoring/ reporting on their debates?

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Scribbler1

If memory serves, there was a big debate within the commission itself whether to allow Perot in. I think it was because he polled quite high in the leadup to the debates. He spent a hell of a lot of money on getting himself in the public memory and apparently it paid off.
But Perot represented himself as a candidate, without actually having a real party behind him. His Reform Party was in essence a creation of his own and I believe it was a fluke. Either that, or Perot's money opened a few doors for him.

My own feeling is anyone who represents a party on the ballot in all 50 states should be allowed. Most of the 50 some-odd registered political parties in the US would therefore be excluded, leaving one or two candidates (Green Party and the Libertarian Party) who could be allowed.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

top gun

I agree with Srcib again???... I don't think there really was much they could do except maybe phrase the questions a little different... from a more conservative slant I guess. But they'll have to answer tougher things than that during the race anyway so who cares?

I too liked the League.

What this did do for the Dems is it got them a free shot at highlighting FOX as a conservative bias news organization. A lot of people don't know one station from another or how their coverage leans. So that's good I guess.

top gun

I'll go this far and say the other major news organizations may lean slightly to the left. Mainly though they tend to be critical of incumbants of either party. They tend to be antiestablishment no matter who's in power.

FOX on the other hand flashes a warning on their news channel openly bashing liberals. That's makes them a little hard to open up to.

top gun

I guess the real issue is "it's their debate". If they feel the questions or the coverage won't favor them why do it. The whole point is to promote their candidates and their party.

I've got a feeling if MoveOn or any other progressive group offered to host a Republican debate on any channel the same reasoning would apply. They're publicly supporting the other side why would we set ourselves up for that?

Scribbler1

I like Dave Ross' take on it. In his 1 minute CBS Radio commentary today he said they shouldn't have forced FOX out as they would then have the ability to criticize the Bush administration and FOX would be forced to broadcast it. He went on to say the only thing better would to have Ann the man Coulter be the host so we could watch her head explode on national TV.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.