Democrats vs. FNC…
The New York Times’ Lorne Manly writes about the increased Democratic attacks on FNC in the wake of the Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace interview…
Engaging Fox News in such an aggressive manner, however, may not be the smartest strategy. If there’s a base that needs energizing for these midterm elections, it belongs to the Republicans, and a Clinton-led attack may only revivify them. And so far, there is just one clear beneficiary: Fox News. The news channel has highlighted the contretemps on many of its programs, boosting the ratings in the process.
Democrats do not view Chris Wallace as a partisan gunslinger, as they do some other Fox News personalities. But his questions about whether Mr. Clinton did enough to destroy Al Qaeda ignited simmering Democratic and Clintonian anger.
To save you the trouble, I just checked dictionary.com, and the word “revivify” actually exists! I think it’s just “revive” with an additional syllable. But it sure sounds impressive (not).
Comment by Missy — October 1, 2006 @ 8:25 am
I’m back to this board now, and yikes! It’s two extra syllables, not one. That’s what I get for posting before having my coffee this morning.
Comment by Missy — October 1, 2006 @ 8:34 am
To attack the messenger, or the bearer of bad news as the Democrats in this case must have imagined, is dead wrong. Chris Wallance is about as conservative as Michael Moore. He worked for another TV channel before he landed on Fox after Tony Snow left, and he haw always been balanced in hosting Fox News Sunday over the past two years.
To use the proverbial phrase, the Democrats have made a mountain over a molehill, and they end up “revivifying” the
those tragic times when Clinton was desperately seeking cover for his dalliance with that White House intern. It’s eerie, when you align that angry Clinton wagging at Chris Wallace with that famous smirking statement, “I NEVER had sex with that woman, NEVER.” Yes, let the Democrats fry themselves over again.
Comment by RGL — October 1, 2006 @ 10:25 am
I don’t really care who did the questioning. After listening to enough right wing media and their repeated efforts to deflect responsibility from Bush to Clinton for just about everything, I found it cathartic to have someone finally rise up and fight back. I’d be just as angry if I were Clinton. He’s out of office, doing good and effective work in other sectors, and he has to be put on the defensive on national TV? And while the response was angry, it was also cogent and to the point - a style of response that Bush has yet to incorporate into his trite soundbite answers to any and all criticism.
Comment by Ginger — October 1, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Leftists like Ginger are overreacting as usual, reflexly defending a man they know got hysterical at a simple question that he could have answered in a civil manner. But no, he has to retrogress to the old Clinton, who has no business interfering anyway with what is taking place today.
Clinton has never been cogent, he is just glib. How a man with his character can be idolized by the left is beyond me. Years from now, when we look back, Clinton’s name will be but an asterisk. The left needs to stop exaggerting his importance.
Comment by RGL — October 1, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
Ginger, Wallace asked a very fair and appropriate question. Clinton did have 8 years to deal with Bin Laden and thus as a former President has a responsibility to answer the question. Just as I believe Bush should own up more to what he did or didn’t do prior to 9/11 to catch Bin Laden.
The conspiracy theories are a stretch and given that Clinton dealt with far tougher questions while in office, his response was excessive to say the least.
Comment by Buck — October 2, 2006 @ 7:58 am
From what I can see, liberals loved that Clinton came out swinging while the conservatives thought Clinton was incensed over the questioning and had something to hide and he was trying to cover up for it. It seems a wash to me really. You’ve got to look to the middle to see what the true impact of this interview was. But we don’t really get to hear from the middle on the internet now do we? Everything is so polarized that no one on the middle’s views seems to be represented so we have no idea what the “average” person thought about this interview. We need to hear more from the middle and less from the partisans to gauge what most Americans are really thinking.
Comment by Alison — October 2, 2006 @ 9:19 am
I think you’re right Alison, but I also think it’s going to get much worse. In our world today, people can get their info from lots of sources, so they pick the source that reinforces what they want to hear. Anything that caters to the middle, doesn’t sell.
This also ties into our current immigration problems. 20 years ago, people coming here had to assimilate or starve. Now, 20% of the TV channels I get are in Spanish. Same goes for the radio. And many of the jobs in my city require people to speak Spanish; and half of those jobs do NOT require you to speak English. And now those same people who pushed for forced bussing in the 60’s are now pushing for minorities to have their own school districts to “preserve” their culture (code for not assimilating). The world you and I live in is falling neatly into our own natural apartied.
Comment by erljr — October 2, 2006 @ 12:07 pm