Nevada Democratic Party Drops Out…
Here is FNC VP David Rhodes statement on the news that the Nevada State Democratic Party caved in to left wing pressure and pulled out of the debate FNC was airing…
News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, Moveon.org has said they ‘own’ the Democratic party—while most Democrats don’t agree with that, it’s clearly the case in Nevada.
UPDATE: Earlier in the day Bill Richardson bailed out. The AP’s Kathleen Hennessey wrote about the saga and noted that State Democratic Chairman Tom Collins had said they weren’t cancelling…
Discussions continued Friday afternoon, even as MoveOn.org and other Web sites declared the debate dead. Collins said the reports were untrue.
“No, we’re not canceling, I am not canceling. We’re not dropping Fox,” he told The Associated Press.
Looks like the Nevada State Democratic Party’s left hand didn’t know what its right hand was doing…
I am a Democrat and Moveon.org does not own me or my vote.
Comment by Goldfish — March 9, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
But I think it has taken over your party!
Comment by Olivia — March 9, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Well, I guess this is kind of a disappointment but an expected one nonetheless. If anything, I would be interested in seeing what exactly led up to this happening, whether it be the actual organization coming up to this conclusion itself or a third party (MoveOn, etc.) had overwhelming influence in making this happen.
Anyway, either way, I can’t overwhelmingly blame the Democratic party canceling an event of this type, I honestly wouldn’t want to deal with some of the commentators afterwards if they did some after interviews with the different candidates. If it was Hume or one of the other actual anchors, it wouldn’t be bad and it could work well, but competing against Hannity would honestly drive me nuts, probably not letting one word through and framing myself as a “cut and runner” or as one of those “west coast liberal” or whathaveyou.
Anyway, it would have been a great opportunity for FNC to possibly present a truly “Fair & Balanced” debate, but I guess that wont happen.
Comment by Chris — March 9, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Democrats holding a debate at FOX would be like blacks meeting at a KKK rally.
Comment by MikeD — March 9, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t know how Dems plan to win if they limit the outlets by which they broadcast their message. Especially since FNC is the highest-rated cable news network. They look like cowards and they will be called out on it, for sure. You will have to go to FNC eventually. The GOP isn’t afraid of CNN, MSNBC, NPR or public television. John Edwards has appeared on FNC many times for interviews, so I’m not buying his spiel this time.
Comment by Goldfish — March 9, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
I don’t particuarly like FOX either, but this was a good platform for Democrats to reach a more conservative audience with many prominent Democrats present. The DNC should try to get debates on as many platforms as possible. I think this was a very poor decision.
Democrats should engage this conservative viewpoint… not hide from it.
Comment by Danny G — March 9, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
I think you have a point Danny
Comment by Chris — March 9, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
So much for intellectual diversty and the free exchange of ideas. They must not have much confidence in their message if they can’t take a little heat. This is much like the liberal speech codes and the silencing of all dissent on our nation’s college campuses. The new liberals aren’t interested in debates or open forums.
Comment by spiffo — March 9, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
If Dem candidates are unwilling to face questions from FNC commentators, then get out of the race now. They can’t avoid it for long.
Comment by Goldfish — March 9, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Hardcore repubs, AKA FNC’s audience, wouldnt vote for a democrat to begin with. AND vice versu.
Comment by Me — March 9, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
“The GOP isn’t afraid of CNN, MSNBC, NPR or public television.”
None of these organizations are propaganda organs for the DNC.
FOX “news” caters to the lunatic fringe. These people are brainwashed. They don’t think. Many of them believe we found WMD in Iraq and that the war is going well. They would never vote for a Democrat anyway. Dems who go on FOX are wasting their time.
Comment by MikeD — March 9, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I know a lot folks who watch Fox and they are not hardcore Republicans. People from all walks of life watch Fox News. They watch news from all of the cable outlets.
Comment by Goldfish — March 9, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
MikeD, you’re sounding paranoid. And about MSNBC, you have got to be kidding me. I watch MSNBC and I’m sure they lean left. So does NPR.
Comment by Goldfish — March 9, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Believe it or not, I used to see the Democratic Party as the party of tolerance. Anyone who thinks that is still the case needs to open their eyes.
Comment by erljr — March 9, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Mike D knows all about the “lunatic fringe”, he’s their poster child.
Comment by spiffo — March 10, 2007 @ 12:10 am
MikeD,
You sound extremely beligerent and idiotic. Take your paranoid rantings to one of those hate-America far-left web sites and let intelligent liberals have a place here.
You’ve obviously never watched FOX judging by your ridiculous rantings. If you truly think liberals don’t watch FOX you’re incredibly misinformed. What possesses you to act like such a moron?
Comment by ChrisM — March 10, 2007 @ 12:14 am
MikeD — I feel sorry for you — It is thought like yours that helps fuel all the hatred in America. I watch FOX, MSNBC and CNN. I want “ALL” views, I know when I watch FOX that they present the Conservative point of view, however they “BY FAR” have a better cross over of guests that more intelligently voice the Democratic view. Also when I watch MSNBC I know that I am getting the liberal point of view. Unfortunately they do not let anyone except a “TOKEN” Pat Buchanan voice any opposition to their liberal agenda.
Comment by Aunt Mary — March 10, 2007 @ 12:36 am
ChrisM & Aunt Mary: Dollars to Donuts that Mike D is not an American.
.
Aunt Mary: Pat Buchanan has always been against the Iraq War and Tucker Carlson and Scarborough regularly bash the Bush Administration. In reality, there are no conservatives left at MSNBC.
Whoever said that Rita Cosby is leaving MSNBC for political reasons may be right!
Comment by Ira — March 10, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Ira wrote:
“Aunt Mary: Pat Buchanan has always been against the Iraq War and Tucker Carlson and Scarborough regularly bash the Bush Administration. In reality, there are no conservatives left at MSNBC.”
Ira - I think that Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are solid conservatives - they bash the Bush Administration because the Bush Administration, to many conservatives I know, has not acted as a conservative administration. Case in point - most conservatives find President Bush’s amnesty program for illegal immigrants to be problematic as well as their lack of fiscal discipline. Note that such pundits will speak with nostalgia of the Ronald Reagan years.
I think Carlson and Scarborough are Conservatives (although the former, I think, would be better described as Libertarian) that are disgrunted with the Republican party of today.
Comment by FishOil — March 10, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Fish:
Maybe so. But to watch the way Scarborough acts toward FnC, it is obvious he is doing and saying what he does and says merely to keep his job on a network that has affirmed its leftward tilt by re-signing Olbermann.
Comment by eddiebear — March 10, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Ira, wait, so every conservative is supposed to be promoting the President of the United States? What about those who believe in fiscal conservatism, or promote the ideas of small government, both of which Bush doesn’t appear to promote.
Comment by Chris — March 10, 2007 @ 1:51 am
FishOil — Ira is very much correct about this. The reason I did not add Tucker or Scarborough in as “TOKEN” conservatives is because I would be making a false statement. I watch both of their shows everyday — Tucker on Crossfire presented the conservative point of view very well — Scarborough I have a long history with — Both Tucker and Joe know that MSNBC has a very liberal audience, therefore they cater to them. They do not go against the liberal grain at MSNBC — WHY? Because they want a “JOB”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — March 10, 2007 @ 2:04 am
They’ve both compromised their principles. Tucker has always been a conservative apologist. Now they both are.
Comment by erljr — March 10, 2007 @ 2:13 am
Chris — There is a difference in disagreeing with someone on certain topics and bashing, bashing, bashing, bashing for ratings.
Comment by Aunt Mary — March 10, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Aunt Mary - I see your point and I think that you are correct….however, to a certain extent. I too have watched Tucker and Scarborough Country many, many times. What I see are two men who espouse conservative views but do not hesitate to take on the Bush Administration when they think it is not performing well. Is this to pander to a liberal audience? Perhaps, to a degree. Then again, I think that we may be confusing party loyalty with ideology. When he was on “Crossfire,” Carlson was the Republican and, yes, defended their positions and actions to a fault. What I see now is a conservative at odds with the current Republican party. Just as an example, the Republicans have a legacy of being small government with little interference into people’s daily lives. Carlson espouses this every week with his stance on drug laws and such (hence he could be misconstrued as a libertarian at times). I think his ideology is intact and he has not sacrificed it to appeal to a liberal audience. Many times I’ve heard him bash Democrats for “not having any plans” in regards to Iraq. He is certainly not the apologist that Olbermann is.
Anyway, you make a good point that Carlson and Scarborough have to, say, preach to the choir, but then again I would not say that they “do not go against the liberal grain.”
Comment by FishOil — March 10, 2007 @ 2:30 am
Points all taken FishOil… until you say Olbermann is an apologist. Huh? Olbermann has never apologized for anything. Did you misspeak/miswrite? I don’t get it.
Comment by erljr — March 10, 2007 @ 2:47 am
FishOil — I will concede 50 percent on Tucker — maybe that is why his ratings are always so low — MSMBC’s very liberal audience does not support him. However, I can not budge on Joe — I watch their shows “EVERY” day and you can have a great debate and disagree with Bush on whatever subject you choose without the “let’s make sure we BASH and make enough personal attacks on Bush to keep our liberal audience entertained”.
Comment by Aunt Mary — March 10, 2007 @ 3:06 am
erljr - You are correct - “apologist” is not correct in regards to Olbermann. I was thinking of “apologist” in terms of never taking on the Democrats, but that is not the correct usage.
Comment by FishOil — March 10, 2007 @ 4:22 am
For MikeD - Comment 11 - “CNN, MSNBC, and NPR are not prpoganda organs for the DNC.” Gee, what alternate universe do you live in. Fox is no further to the right than the above mentioned are to the left - that is a simple fact. But then “intelligent” liberals like you have trouble with facts and the truth. So typical of the lefties. You sir, are clueless.
Comment by saneman — March 10, 2007 @ 6:46 am
CNN, MSNBC, and NPR not propoganda organs for the DNC - what alternative universe to a lot of you Democrats live in!!
Comment by saneman — March 10, 2007 @ 7:00 am
“CNN, MSNBC, and NPR NOT propanda organs for the DNC - yea - right - got any good swamp land for sale.
Comment by bill — March 10, 2007 @ 7:02 am
Makes the Democrats look weak.FNC is going to pounce all over this.
Comment by phil — March 10, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Big mistake by the Dems. Now they’re pinned to their loony left fringe again, but what else is new. I’ll just have to accept that these fringey’s are always going to be what the Dem partry is all about from here on out. Being on FOX would have given them a chance to woo conservative voteers. And that party definitely needs a man-size good ol’ kick in the rear that sends them towards the middle/right.
Now, by ducking FOX, they’re just cutting and running again all over. Just change the name of that party to the Loony’s.
Comment by Libs R Moonbats — March 10, 2007 @ 9:59 am
come on yo guys you all seem pretty smart but your overthinking this stuff the black and white of it is fox news has traditionally slapped democrates around more than other channels thats a fact so it right they should get the shaft from the democrates the last comment by their boss about Omoma was out of bounds were the democrates suppose to roll over again? fox isn’t the only news outlete out there. Its abou time the democrates stood up on their hind lets and snapped back, good for them about time.
Comment by HUGH — March 10, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Yea, I’m so glad CNN and MSNBC wouldn’t ever slap Conservatives around.
Comment by spiffo — March 10, 2007 @ 11:20 am
“I think that Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are solid conservatives - they bash the Bush Administration because the Bush Administration, to many conservatives I know, has not acted as a conservative administration. Case in point - most conservatives find President Bush’s amnesty program for illegal immigrants to be problematic as well as their lack of fiscal discipline. Note that such pundits will speak with nostalgia of the Ronald Reagan years.”
I can’t believe the real conservatives aren’t all over the administration for the serious, scary erosion of privacy and civil rights.
And it is demonstrably true that people who watch FNC as their primary source of news are not only less informed than people who get their news from other outlets, they are MISinformed.
Comment by Arthur — March 10, 2007 @ 11:58 am
“FNC is going to pounce all over this.”
I thought so too but I watched nearly all of F&F this morning and didn’t hear a word about it. Go figure. Maybe I missed their mention of it while I was in the bathroom brushing my teeth?
Comment by STP — March 10, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Which of these traditionally slaps democrates[sic]?
Chris Wallace
Mara Liasson
Juan Williams
Jane Hall
Neal Gabler
Bob Beckel
Kirsten Powers
Julie Rogini
Laura Schwartz
Wendy Murphy
Alan Colmes
Susan Estrich
And a new contributor has been hired. Harold Ford.
Further, it isn’t Fox News that is getting the shaft, it’s the candidates themselves. I doubt FNC will lose anything in the ratings, but wherever the debate winds up, it won’t have Fox viewership numbers.
Comment by Pat R. — March 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
I think all of us conservatives need to support our amazing president. George Bush is a man of God who is the best presdent our country as ever ever had. We need to suport our president in this time of war. If we weren’t fighting them over there we would be fighting them over here. The secualr progresifes are rubning our great country. We all need to rejooce that we have some a smart campasionete president. He speaks for all of us with no voice.
Comment by ron — March 10, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Only the Bolshevicks on the left want no opposition News. Like it was in the USSR
Comment by Dennis — March 10, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Aunt Mary: Thanks for the defense after my log off A young boy occasionally needs some rest.
Chris: I don’t expect any conservative to be in lockstep with the Bush Administration, certainly I’m not. But on MSNBC there is nobody even close to being supportive of the surge or much else with Bush.
As a former Congressman, Scarborough seems way out of his element (a) covering Hollywood and especially (b)bashing Fox. I’m shocked the suits at MSNBC allow a guest such as author Bob Kohn who refutes Joe about Fox.
Funny, but when O’Reilly first started attacking NBC/MSNBC I thought he was a tad paranoid because of Keith. But once again “BillO” as Olbermann likes to say, proves correct.
Anyway, back to the topic. It is apparent that John Edwards is mimicking the Howard Dean campaign of 2004. Dean got plenty of buzz but eventually failed because in the end, in America, the noise coming from the far-left crazies far exceeds their numbers. Any slim chance Edwards may have had just went out the window.
Comment by Ira — March 10, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Addendum:
Did anybody see the tape of Bill Maher lamenting about the assassination attempt on Dick Cheney not being successful?
And who was sitting next to Maher, quiet as a clam? None other than that renowned MSNBC Republican/Conservative Joe Scarborough!
I rest my case.
Comment by Ira — March 10, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Apologist - 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
You’re very welcomed.
I’m starting to feel the ’80s nostalgia, btw, with all the references to Bolsheviks and Mother Russia. Missing Reagan, are we? Well, given who’s leading the GOP these days, it’s no wonder.
Comment by Arthur — March 10, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Ira - #42 - Do you have a link? I have to see this.
Arthur - an ideological apologist is someone who apologizes for his/her own views. It’s ironic because ideologues are expected to have the courage of their convictions. And for the record, there are just as many Democratic apologists as Republican apologists.
Comment by erljr — March 12, 2007 @ 2:48 am
erljr: Check YouTube. I originally saw the clip on TV.
Comment by Ira — March 12, 2007 @ 12:31 pm