Dennis Kucinich and the Fox News debate
Submitted by CarolNYC on March 12, 2007 - 2:22pm.
Dennis Kucinich | Democratic politics
What do you guys think of Dennis’ comments on the cancelled Fox News debate?
Cancelled Presidential Debates Smack of Manipulation by 'Run and Hide' Candidates
To: POLITICAL EDITORS
Contact: Andy Juniewicz, National Communications Director of Kucinich for President, +1-216-409-8992,ajuniewicz@aol.comAUSTIN, Texas, March 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The cancellation in the past two days of two planned nationally televised debates because of candidates' "scheduling conflicts" and unwillingness to participate smacks of "manipulation by some candidates who would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war," Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate.
(snip)
"Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection."
Kucinich said, "it's an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny."
(snip)
"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."
Kucinich said, "the public deserves honest, open, and fair public debate, and the media have a responsibility to demand that candidates come forward now, before the next war vote in Congress, to explain themselves."
"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."
SOURCE Kucinich for President
He's kind of getting blasted over at DU for these comments.
Imagine supporting a candidate whose cowardice you have to continuously veil with superficial bullshit-excuses? The bush-enabling Dem candidates?
It's got to be equally as tough as staunchly supporting bu$h.
as long as Wes hops into the race, we won't have to find out, will we? Isn't it great to support someone who is fearless?
probably arise before a declaration - won't It?
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
appears on Fox whether they'll ask him a question about the cancellation of the debate. I know he'll be ready to answer it!!
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
but I can see the point of the blogosphere as well, which was that by allowing them to moderate the Dem debate, we legitimize the station.
Unfortunately, Senator Reid was not clear in his public statement on why the debate was cancelled. He should have stated outright, that FOX News is a propaganda tool of the radical right, and that we refuse to give credence to it. He watered it down in his seemingly wimpy way by making it about FOX News comparing Obama to Osama.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I understand what Dennis is saying here. I also understand that he needs as much media exposure as he can get...
But I do also see how letting Fox moderate a Democratic debate might not be the best thing to do.
Got to agree with Dennis, though, that anyone who hopes to be President better be willing and able to speak to everyone about the issues, even those they don't agree with.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
I think if it wasn't so early, it would be different. Going on Fox as the first debate may not be a good idea for some of the candidates.
still have gone on the programme and mutually agreed, then each stated at the beginning of the that they welcome questions but they demand the questions are not of the gotcha kind - or something like. What would Fox do - cut them and the whole debate off? I don't thik so.
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
But I can see where they'd rather go on another network first to establish themselves, then go one Fox later to be confronted. That would be totally based on strategy, though, and NOT principle like they're claiming.
None of us like FOX, but as I said the other night, we weren't happy with many of the moderators from other networks either.
Maybe these "frontrunners" on the Dem side think they can manipulate all the networks by dissing FOX? Even if that was their ploy ... the "watch out, we are not going to put up with your pandering rightwing questions"... they will be in for a big surprise. JE has been through it before, but if my memory is clear, he didn't have the snarky questions that some others did. This time he might.
So...,I think Dennis is right. They should give all voters a chance to listen to what they have to say. And frankly, how do they get the rightwingers to come to their senses if the Dems run away, run away? Does it mean they think they have the votes from the Dem side and don't need to answer to the Indes and Repubs? That's a pretty arrogant way of thinking, isn't it?
I know many Repubs and Indes that watch FOX. I want them to hear Wes. Don't the supporters of the 'others' want that, too? Maybe not.
"Run away, run away!" Makes me think of Monty Python. LOL!
I agree with everyone that these candidates should have to face the tough questions. Who was the moderator? Who was to ask the questions?
In the debates I've seen, the quality of the questions have generally been very poor.
I'm not sure that the people asking the questions have sufficient objectivity to ask good questions.
Well, this is a thing too....If the Democrats wait to find some really fair to liberals/Dems network who will put on the debate with a quality moderator, there will never be any debates...And maybe that's what some of them would most like....no debates.
and demonstrate what a grasp the candidate has on the issue. Like the time Wes told Hannity: "You changed the question!"
In my opinion. Whatever needed to be said to Fox could have been said by the Dem candidates during the debate, right out there. Cutting an audience of potential voters out of the game is plain stupid.
---------------------
A Wes Clark Democrat
America Needs Wes Clark
Blogging Wes Clark for President 2008
It would have been an opportunity to confront Fox on their own network.
The thing that kills me about people on sites like DU and Kos is how they characterize all Fox viewers as idiots who would never vote Democrat. I KNOW that's so wrong.
I've said a number of times that my Mom, super Dem, is a regular Fox viewer. She would never even think of voting Republican and she feels like throwing things at Hannity and O'Reilly and Cavuto...but she watches. She says often it's the only network that's actually having news on (well, it's supposed to be news anyway). The others, like MSNBC or CNN often have special shows on and what she's looking for is an anchor telling the latest news....and so, if she can't find that anywhere else, often she can find that on Fox. She knows the stories will be slanted but she doesn't care. She watches anyway. I know she can't be the only one.
But these blogging communities with their high and mighty self-righteousness. They live in such a little bubble so removed from so much of the real world and they are anything but liberal when it comes to views about anyone not exactly like them...Sometimes I do think there is a segment of the Democratic party that really does revel in being the victimized minority. They wouldn't know what to do if we actually won everything.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
he had it in him and this certainly raises my opinion of him. He's right, of course, and I do think that he has spoken very wisely and that the far left would only accept such a statement from one of their own. Of course, they may not even do that, but demonise him as is their wont.
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
I was very impressed by the group of Democrats in the House who stood up and spoke out publicly against a "preventive" war on Iraq. Kucinich was terrific on that.
However when he was willing to trade caucus voters with John Edwards in Iowa, I lost confidence in his judgement as well as Edwards' judgement. They apparently cut a deal at the 2004 primary caucus in Iowa that whoever received more votes in each caucus would be given the other guy's votes at that caucus to add to his. Since Edwards won most or all of the caucuses, he got the best of the deal.
This "transaction" angered Kucinich's supporters who had trusted him and then felt betrayed especially because Edwards had voted for the Iraq War Resolution and they supported Kucinich because he represented their anti-war position.
This rule bending by both men doesn't speak well for their view of representational democacy or their voters IMO. I don't understand why they weren't called on it.
and any attention will do. Wes Clark's commentator/expert contract aside, Fox News was hardly likely to create a forum where the answers to any of the big questions would be aired. This is about an instrument of the right wing media machine trying to legitimize it's standing and control the Democratic Primary process. Bad idea.
(I agree with Dennis.)
It doesn't mean Dems have to "play nice" with FOX. It means they should grow a set. You don't "play nice" with Putin either. But you show up anywhere, anytime with your game face on. What are these guys running for again, American Idol? Naw, they'd probably wither under the gaze of Simon Cowell too. Poor babies.
Good grief.
Candidates should go on Faux anytime they can BUT....I don't think they should host a Dem debate....any Dem debate.
They have a very poor record of treating the Dems fairly in such a situation and I think refusing, sends them a message....and possibly a message to the MSM. Everyone knows they lie and obscure the truth to make the Reps look good and the Dems look bad.......EXCEPT THE MSM....THEY STILL TREAT THEM AS A VIABLE NEWS ORG........JHC!!!
So until the MSM comes right out and calls them what they are....a propaganda arm of the Bushites.......THWT!!!
Run Wes Run!
As I recall from the last cycle, the moderatos asked slanted questions. Of course they asked Wes Clark stupid questions. The worst part of the debate was the post-debate. They cut the General off during his final statement, and cut to Bill Bennett and someone else (can't remember who) who just bashed Wes Clark.
The problem lies with the first decision, to schedule the debate. It should have never been done, and certainly not this early.
Should Dems. appear on fox? To each his own, but I think absolutely. At least people who watch fox--even the dumbest---know that the station is biased. And then there is this: the other stations that are thought of as "liberal" or honest, are far more dangerous because people believe them. NPR can be ruthless. Nagourney is a complete jerk. Fox is bad; it is just a different kind of bad than the others.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
At least with Fox, most people know they're biased, in spite of the "fair and balanced" thing.
I saw Liz Trotta being interviewed on some local NYC show the other night and she was going on about how the media is "no friend of George Bush's as you well know" and the interviewer said, yes, well, except for your network. They like Bush.
She said, yes, they do...then kind of caught herself and said, well, they really do just try to be fair and balanced and she thinks that they succeed. Ugh!
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
He said if the Dems were not pansies that they'd take it to their turf and show them how it's done; like Bill did with Wallace. They really missed an opportunity to show everyone what they're made of.
Their network exists to blantantly push an agenda and bash the opposition. I say pulling this debate fom their control is a great start.
It's really silly and manipulative that news anchors are involved with party politics like this and that they are passed as qualified debate moderators. The DNC should choose the moderators and schedules of Democratic debates. The moderator should be qualified, like a professor of debate or a retired judge. The news should then cover the debates.
General election debates should be organized through negotiations between the DNC and the RNC. Again, a qualified moderator should be selected.
I've researched the topic. Too long for a comment, you can read why on the blog I've just posted, entitled, "How Fox took down Clark and Dean in Previous Debate."
Dennis makes a hell of a lot of sense! This is one of those times.
Of course, anyone who is supporting a candidate who has chosen to "Run & Hide" is going to blast the guy for saying this. It calls attention to their candidate's cowardice.