CBC Institute/FNC Debate: Two more drop out…
The AP reports that Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd will not take part in the FNC debate. Richardson just gave FNC access last week…
May 30, 2007
33 Comments »
TrackBack: http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/05/30/cbc-institutefnc-debate-two-more-drop-out/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
It’s like a Monty Python skit.
“Run Away! Run Away!”
Comment by TBDave — May 30, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Wimps. All the official GOP candidates did their first debate on MSNBC and subjected themselves to the inanities of Chris Matthews.
If they’re afraid of Brit Hume, what would they do, if elected President, when having to deal with Ahmadinejad?
Comment by Amused — May 30, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
And only a few weeks ago Chris Dodd appeared on Fox News Sunday.
Comment by Ira — May 30, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
TB
It is not running away, but more like holding one’s nose against the vile stench that Fox News emits.
Comment by elmonica — May 30, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
‘Wimps’, please. They’re taking a stand against a massive news distortion outlet. Let it be known (sorry, that’s not new information)! FNC is losing its credibility with every passing month. Who’s going to be the ‘wimpy’ cry baby when the debate doesn’t take place…?FNC, that’s right! Gosh, FNC is always RIGHT.
Fair, and ahh, sort of balanced…well, not really balanced at all. Never been balanced.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 30, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
So the Dems are “taking a stand” by running away? That’s almost as hilarious as their “speaking truth to power” catch phrase.
Comment by TBDave — May 30, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
People, what are you talking about? Why is FNC going to be crying when the debate doesn’t take place? Because they’ll STILL win in the ratings? Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be real bent out of shape about that.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 31, 2007 @ 12:14 am
The easy thing to do in this situation would be to do the debate. The democrats by refusing, are picking a fight, not running away from one.
Comment by Steve — May 31, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Steve, I see your point about picking a fight… but how do you pick a fight with an organization that can’t fight back? The Dems get up, call FNC all kinds of names… use all kinds of smears… and what can FNC do? Not much!
Still seems kinda wimpy to me.
Comment by ImNotBlue — May 31, 2007 @ 12:48 am
At this points those are the only fights democrats can win.
Comment by Steve — May 31, 2007 @ 12:53 am
The way I see it, this only gives the Republicans some red meat to chew on. If a presidential candidate is going to balk at Fox News, then how credible will his/her message be that they will mend fences around the world that they claim have been damaged by President Bush? If you’re going to refuse to face Brit Hume, then it is fair to ask why they would talk with the leader of Iran instead. It doesn’t make sense from a strategic standpoint.
Also, the argument that “conservatives watch fox news, so they have nothing to gain from going on the network” is also nonsense. Their registered Democrats will watch whatever network they are on to hear where they stand on the issues.
Finally, it doesn’t make sense to think that Fox would be disrespectful to the candidates during the debate because the losers in that situation would be Fox, not the candidates. Do the Democratic candidates think that Sean Hannity would be moderating and asking questions like - “Why do you hate America?”
The whole thing is absurd.
Comment by FishOil — May 31, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Damn cowards! What are they afraid of? Dodd and Richardon just got exposure on FNC recently, Dodd on the Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace, and Richardson on his campaign trail with Martha McCallum. They are, collectively, plagued by herd paranoia. Wimps!
Comment by RGL — May 31, 2007 @ 6:32 am
They don’t win in the ratings (for the night) when they can’t broadcast a debate that would attract a few millions viewers minimum. Furthermore, I’m sure they would love to have additional debates in the future (with the Democrats), who most likely will not participate. That’s an additional ratings failure of their own making. You can’t tell me Fox News is ‘happy’ with this stand the Dems are taking. FNC is a loser in this case, so people, take it in and cope!
The only wimps, are at FNC. This is a big ole strike and you’re out!
It’s absolutely hilarious listening to how angry you people get! It will be absolutely fun to see over the upcoming months to the election as FNC loses whatever credibility (lack for a better word) they have left, because the ‘real’ Dems refuse to appear on their shows, how angry you people will get! Maybe O’Reilly can boycott the Democrat candidates, oh that wouldn’t be good. Than he could proclaim a boycott of their country of origins. That wouldn’t be a surprise coming from his spouting dumb mouth.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 8:44 am
If fnc is losing credability then why are they #5 in all of cable news and msnbc did not even make the top 30 and cnn was number 25. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Comment by Cathy — May 31, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Ok, for all of the FNC detractors, how do explain the Richardson’s actions? Did he decide that particular day that it was acceptable to appear on FNC? He’s just the kind of principled leader we need in DC.
I’m not angry . . . just amused by the whole situation. BTW, O’Reilly has nothing to do with this issue. Unlike MSNBC, FNC wouldn’t be dumb enough to utilize a pundit as a debate moderator like say Chris Matthews. It looks like Biden and Kucinich will get some much needed exposure.
Comment by Buck — May 31, 2007 @ 9:51 am
The Dem’s are following Chavez’s lead.
Comment by Noelle — May 31, 2007 @ 9:52 am
My gosh, people, Jerry Springer has high ratings, does that translate to ‘credibility?’ It precisely means he has loyal viewers, as you all are to FNC. Loyal viewers DO NOT translate to the news organization being credible. Loyal viewers are also biased viewers.
1)Richardson on FOX? His campaign is obviously at the bottom, and needs any publicity he can gather up.
2)As for O’Reilly. O’Reilly has EVERYTHING to do with FNC. His show fueled the station’s growth in its early days.
3)Buck, please, pundit like Chris Matthews? And Brit Hume, is not?
4)As for #16, beware of blanket statements, they are dangerous.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Do FNC viewers give a hoot about the democrats? I think not. Why would the dems want to be on a channel that constantly I mean CONSTANTLY dawgs them and doesn’t “report”. Goes back to the blur between FNC’s “news” and commentary…there’s no difference. If FNC was a pure ‘news’ channel I don’t the dems would have a problem. BUT you’ve got crazy people on the air like hannity, gibson, hume, and O’reilly that make the case of FNC’s republican agenda.
Comment by Me — May 31, 2007 @ 10:42 am
“They don’t win in the ratings (for the night) when they can’t broadcast a debate that would attract a few millions viewers minimum…..”
FNC will knock the stuffing out of MS and CN combined when they go to air live, with the 9 empty seats on the night of the debate.
You people don’t understand baseball or blankets.
Posted by Hmmm - May 31, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Comment by Hmmm — May 31, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Hmmm, what a reply. Wow. You shine light on what the Dems would be dealing with at FNC and with its viewers. Thank you.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
FNC is losing its credibility with every passing month.
PeoplePeople: With who? You, “Me,” Elmonica and the far left blogs heavily populated by foreigners?
Who cares!
Comment by Ira — May 31, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Again, Ira, what a reply. Wow. You shine light on what the Dems would be dealing with at FNC and with its viewers. Thank you.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
People, FNC had more viewers tuned in to Hannity and Colmes talking about the Dems debate on MSNBC, than the lib network had watching the actual debate. You can keep rooting for the network to fail all you want, but until CNN & MSNBC stop leaning so far to the left, FNC will dominate.
Comment by bigred — May 31, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
PeoplePeople: I get sick of constanly hearing this “losing credibility” line. I ask again, losing credibility with whom? Obviously not the viewing public.
You shine light on what the Dems would be dealing with at FNC and with its viewers.
And who will the Dems be “dealing with” in a debate: Chris Wallace, Wendell Goler, Brit Hume? BTW, Bill Clinton had no problems “dealing with” the latter when he was the ABC White House correspondent in the 1990s.
Comment by Ira — May 31, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Right. I keep forgetting, the only “people” who have “credibility” is you and left pols. Therefore there is no need to debate because everyone else is wrong before a word is spoken.
You shine a light on our uniformed electorate. Thank you !
Posted by Hmmm - May 31 @ 1:18 pm
Comment by Hmmm — May 31, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Obviously credibility with the viewing public, seeing that FNC’s ratings continue to slide slowly down. FNC hit their prime (pretty pathetic), now witness the decline. Mark my words.
#23, so basically you’re saying CNN & MSNBC’s rating ‘problem’ is that they are leaning so far to the left? I get it. So that would mean FNC’s success is based upon leaning so far to the right? Please get with the program bigred. Not EVERYTHING is based on Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative, as FN would like one to think.
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Oh gosh, Hmmm, keep ranting, it’s amusing. The electorate I agree is not informed (I believe you wanted to write uninformed). As for myself, I’m quite informed, and surprisingly, not a liberal. Why don’t you email FNC and suggest, since they’re airing ‘9 empty seats’ as you put it, and ask them if they would allow you to ‘fill’ one of those empty seats? Then you could go on for 90 minutes and teach us some politics? I would watch!
Comment by Peoplepeople — May 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Yeah DEMS!
at last they have conviction and assertiveness about SOMETHING!
to hell with Faux Noise…
considering half the country thinks like they do, and the other half gets split between ALL THE OTHER CHANNELS, no wonder faux noise does well.
Comment by kevbo — May 31, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
So, are you saying all the other channels are balanced? Only FOX is slanted? Is that it? You claim not to be a lib but I don’t see you slamming any network except FOX for having bias.
MSNBC’s two main commentators are left (Matthew) and hard left (Olbermann). Their bias is blatant. Yet you’ve never posted one negative comment about them.
“Not EVERYTHING is based on Republican/Democrat or Liberal/Conservative, as FN would like one to think.”
Then what is your anger toward FNC based on?
Or is it simply that because FOX has commentators that offer a point of view that you don’t agree with that you constantly slam them?
No one disputes that most FNC commentators lean to the right. But you can’t put Chris Wallace & Wendell Goler in that category (much as Clinton would like you to), and Brit Hume has been a fair journalist for decades although he is a conservative, so why are your Dem friends running from the debate? Because they caved to dailykos & their tinfoil hat club.
Comment by bigred — May 31, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
People: You are relatively new here so I’ll give you something of a pass with your ratings comments.
You certainly have noticed that Spud posts ratings day after day, month after month and year after year. Despite the spin from press releases, and all of the wishful comments from your side, the ratios between FNC, CNN and MSNBC have basically remained the same for at least four years. Althougth the MSNBC numbers occasionally get close to CNN, neither gets anywhere near Fox either in the 25-54 demo or overall audience.
So you can keep hoping and praying that the dummies of America see the light and switch to CNN. Hate to burst your bubble but there is no indication that it is going to happen anytime soon.
Comment by Ira — May 31, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Peoplepeople, to respond to your points.
1.) I recognize that Richardson is at the bottom and is a long shot at best. However, that doesn’t resolve the discrepepncy between appearing on FNC last week and many times before and deciding to bail on the debate.
2.) Yes, O’Reilly has a lot to do with FNC and fueling it’s rise to the top. However, my point was that the CBC has control over who moderates and I’m almost positive they wouldn’t pick him. On the flip side, did the Republican candidates refuse to appear on the MSNBC debate because Keith olbermann, someone who repeatedly attacks the Republican party, was providing analysis. No.
3. As for Hume vs. Matthews, sure opinions will vary as to the strength of their political persuasion, yet only one worked for Tip O’Neil and in the Carter Administration and has a track record of asking incoherent questions.
Also in my previous comment I forgot that Senator Gravel had committed to the debate as well. He’s the most direct and entertaining of the lot so those three should make for some entertaining TV.
Comment by Buck — May 31, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
And yet Matthews voted for Bush in the last election, did nothing but trash Gore in the one before that, and pops a woody every time Rudy is mentioned in this one so it doesn’t really matter that he worked for Tip O’Neil 25 years ago.
Comment by Steve — May 31, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
It does in that I’m sure that shaped his political perspective. The Carter Administration and O’Neil’s office weren’t exactly bastions of moderate thinking. Opinions on him seem to vary quite a bit and let’s not forget his fondness for Hillary not to mention that Rudy isn’t exactly the true conservative candidate.
While we disagree on his politics, I doubt anyone can dispute the fact that Matthews is a terrible debate moderator. Time and time again he proves this with irrelevant and idiotic questions not to mention his monopolization of time. His recent performances at the FL gubernatorial debate last fall and the MSNBC debate were atrocious.
Comment by Buck — June 1, 2007 @ 11:31 am