I must say it is silly to boycott any network

[maineman]

Yes it has

The last thing Dems want to do in a debate is to answer real questions where they have to actually explain what they stand for

that's not the answer....

the answer is: the democrats are going to hold their primary debates in forums and venues designed to bring out, capture, and convince the greatest possible number of democratic party faithful primary voters. That is certainly NOT Faux News. Why would we give a shit whether a bunch of Faux watchers hears our party air its internicene differences? First, they have an attention span as long as their nose, and second, they will get a chance to hear the winner of our primary season go head to head against the winner of THEIR primary season.

And won't that be something to behold? Religious, bible belt right wing conservative republicans staring at a choice for president between a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate and a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate!

 

[Superlative]

And won't that be something to behold? Religious, bible belt right wing conservative republicans staring at a choice for president between a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate and a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate!

We've got more options when it comes to Ice Cream.

Not to mention more delicious.

 

[Gem]

im sorry, but I believe the democrats wont go on fox because they dont like fox news. Now, do i think o'reilly, limbaugh, and hannity bully and shout down people, yes i do. I think civility is lost on those men, not only those men, but we are talking about fox news. If you want to say, republicans on fox news, and democrats on msnbc fine.

I agree with you. I think that the Democrats pissed on Fox News because they were a) trying to win lefties over and b) were scared that they might be asked to answer some tough questions that they aren't used to having to answer with anything other than a smile and a laugh.

What I was saying was that Maineman's reason was a good one, and if the Democrats had handlers with half a brain they would have offerred that one, rather than trying to win friends away from their competitors on the left by looking like they could "stand up to big, mean Fox."

I think, however, that at the primary stage, it is, and has always been, more about winning support on YOUR side, rather than winning the support of the moderates or the OTHER side. Republicans and Democrats alike race as far to their side of the spectrum as possible in order to win the nomination and then spend the rest of the election cycle desperately trying to become as middle American moderate as possible.

The difference between doing this now and doing this in the past is that the media (and if the media doesn't, the bloggers do) record and remember the outrageous things candidates do in order to win their base...and replay them over and over as they try to win the middle.

I still think that turning down the Fox Election will hurt the Democratic candidates later. I know many disagree with me, but I think that if the Republican candidate has handlers with any sort of smarts, they will frame this refusal as the Democratic candidate demonstrating that he/she is only interested in giving news to the media outlets that are nice to him/her, that they hate the right so much that they would boycott a news outlet for being slightly tilted right while piling on love to news agencies that tilt left, etc. etc., that they are so afraid of actually sitting down and talking about what they believe in and their policies that they have to hide from people who might actually ask them.

I have been wrong before...but I viewed this as a crucial mistake. We are already seeing the cheesy line, "Can't fight Fox, How Will They Fight Al Qaeda?" being tossed around...how long before a Republican candidate handler with a brain comes up with something a bit more memorable and a lot more damaging?

 

[red states rule]

that's not the answer....

the answer is: the democrats are going to hold their primary debates in forums and venues designed to bring out, capture, and convince the greatest possible number of democratic party faithful primary voters. That is certainly NOT Faux News. Why would we give a shit whether a bunch of Faux watchers hears our party air its internicene differences? First, they have an attention span as long as their nose, and second, they will get a chance to hear the winner of our primary season go head to head against the winner of THEIR primary season.

And won't that be something to behold? Religious, bible belt right wing conservative republicans staring at a choice for president between a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate and a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New York moderate!

So Dems would rather go with a left leaning network with liberal reporters asking easy questions

Ok - we all understand the reasoning of the Dems to skip Fox News

 

[maineman]

So Dems would rather go with a left leaning network with liberal reporters asking easy questions

Ok - we all understand the reasoning of the Dems to skip Fox News

Obviously you don't.

Democrats would rather debate on a network that attracts the most hard core democratic primary voters. It is just that simple. Democratic primary voters do not flock to Faux News.

 

[red states rule]

Obviously you don't.

Democrats would rather debate on a network that attracts the most hard core democratic primary voters. It is just that simple. Democratic primary voters do not flock to Faux News.

Like I said, let them "debate" without answering real questions

I guess that is what Dem voters want - all good intentions without real soultions

 

[maineman]

Like I said, let them "debate" without answering real questions

I guess that is what Dem voters want - all good intentions without real soultions

why do you refuse to understand what I am saying? why do you insist on being willfully obtuse?

I say again: if you wanted to air a television show about the NFL Draft, you would do it on ESPN and NOT Lifetime..... democrats in a primary will chose the network that maximizes the viewership for their TARGET AUDIENCE. They do not give a shit if republicans watch their primary debates....nor do republicans care all that much if democrats watch THEIR debates. They are speaking to the faithful, not trying to convince the other side.

 

[red states rule]

why do you refuse to understand what I am saying? why do you insist on being willfully obtuse?

I say again: if you wanted to air a television show about the NFL Draft, you would do it on ESPN and NOT Lifetime..... democrats in a primary will chose the network that maximizes the viewership for their TARGET AUDIENCE. They do not give a shit if republicans watch their primary debates....nor do republicans care all that much if democrats watch THEIR debates. They are speaking to the faithful, not trying to convince the other side.

MM, as Wolfe Blitzed said - raise your hand if your sure

 

[maineman]

answer the fucking question:

why do you refuse to understand what I am saying? why do you insist on being willfully obtuse?

I say again: if you wanted to air a television show about the NFL Draft, you would do it on ESPN and NOT Lifetime..... democrats in a primary will chose the network that maximizes the viewership for their TARGET AUDIENCE. They do not give a shit if republicans watch their primary debates....nor do republicans care all that much if democrats watch THEIR debates. They are speaking to the faithful, not trying to convince the other side.

 

[red states rule]

answer the fucking question:

If Dems can;t shed their yellow streak to debate on the most watched cable news network and answer real questions - that is their problem

It shows the voters what the modern day Dem party is made of - jello

 

[maineman]

If Dems can;t shed their yellow streak to debate on the most watched cable news network and answer real questions - that is their problem

It shows the voters what the modern day Dem party is made of - jello

do you NOT understand my point? Or do you just willfully refuse to acknowledge it, like you do EVERY time when I hand you your sorry ass?

The folks who watch Faux News are NOT hard core democratic primary voters. THAT is the target audience for the democratic debates.

I ask you again: if you wanted to air a show about the NFL draft, would you chose Lifetime as your network, even if they made a bid deal out of asking you?

 

[maineman]

I am willing to bet that come the time for debate between the two candidates the Liberals refuse to do so on Fox.

how MUCH are you willing to bet?

 

[red states rule]

do you NOT understand my point? Or do you just willfully refuse to acknowledge it, like you do EVERY time when I hand you your sorry ass?

The folks who watch Faux News are NOT hard core democratic primary voters. THAT is the target audience for the democratic debates.

I ask you again: if you wanted to air a show about the NFL draft, would you chose Lifetime as your network, even if they made a bid deal out of asking you?

alot of libs watch Fox News - but then again, why should Dems be worried about showing fear over a cable new network?

They have no fear over showing their fear to terrorists by wanting to surrender to them in Iraq

 

[maineman]

alot of libs watch Fox News - but then again, why should Dems be worried about showing fear over a cable new network?

They have no fear over showing their fear to terrorists by wanting to surrender to them in Iraq

and a lot of football fans watch lifetime...but nowhere NEAR as many football fans watch lifetime as they do ESPN. Therefore, the NFL chose to broadcast the show about the NFL draft on ESPN. No doubt they missed those NFL fans who were watching lifetime, but they decided they would reach the biggest audience by going with ESPN.

and I am through responding to your inaccurate and childish reference to "surrender".... they are not worthy of response... no one wants to surrender to anyone and you know that.

 

[red states rule]

and a lot of football fans watch lifetime...but nowhere NEAR as many football fans watch lifetime as they do ESPN. Therefore, the NFL chose to broadcast the show about the NFL draft on ESPN. No doubt they missed those NFL fans who were watching lifetime, but they decided they would reach the biggest audience by going with ESPN.

and I am through responding to your inaccurate and childish reference to "surrender".... they are not worthy of response... no one wants to surrender to anyone and you know that.

Again, I hope the Dems keeps showing what a tower of Jello they are

Asa far as your inability to respond to the surrender platform of your party - it is hard to counter the truth

 

[maineman]

if you would be so kind as to cut and paste (your forte) the sections from the democratic Iraq troop funding bill where America is required to surrended anything to anyone, I would greatly appreciate it. In absence of such factual evidence to back up your claims of "surrender"...all we have is political right wing spin which you have been pitching non-stop and unchanged for a long time.... and oddly enough... you ignore the fact that a majority of Americans supported that bill and did NOT support the president's veto of it.

 

[red states rule]

if you would be so kind as to cut and paste (your forte) the sections from the democratic Iraq troop funding bill where America is required to surrended anything to anyone, I would greatly appreciate it. In absence of such factual evidence to back up your claims of "surrender"...all we have is political right wing spin which you have been pitching non-stop and unchanged for a long time.... and oddly enough... you ignore the fact that a majority of Americans supported that bill and did NOT support the president's veto of it.

Already done on another thread

The Dems were forced to surrender to Pres Bush instead of the terrorists. A victory for the troops, America, and Pres Bush

A defeat for the left

All in all, a good outcome

 

[red states rule]

BTW way MM - more bad news for your party

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/060707_release_web.pdf

 

[maineman]

Already done on another thread

The Dems were forced to surrender to Pres Bush instead of the terrorists. A victory for the troops, America, and Pres Bush

A defeat for the left

All in all, a good outcome

bullshit. that is your standard response. you are asked something in more than one thread and claim that you answered it in another..... what bullshit.

refresh my memory. I did a word search of the funding bill HR 1591 on Thomas and the word "surrender" is not in it.

"Surrender" = right wing spin and nothing else

 

[red states rule]

bullshit. that is your standard response. you are asked something in more than one thread and claim that you answered it in another..... what bullshit.

refresh my memory. I did a word search of the funding bill HR 1591 on Thomas and the word "surrender" is not in it.

"Surrender" = right wing spin and nothing else

to you allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase

even thought that is what would happen

same thing with the Dems surrender bill