Kucinich Slams Fox Debate Cancellation

Under pressure from liberal bloggers, the Nevada Democratic Party has scrubbed a presidential candidates debate that was set for this coming August.

The bloggers were outraged that the Nevada Dems were partnering with the Fox News Channel who had been given the rights to broadcast the debate.

Count me among those who think the debate cancellation is a ridiculous ending to what was a ridiculous and counter-productive cause. Excuse me, but I thought liberals hated Fox precisely because it was NOT fair and balanced, because of the dearth of voices other than those from the Right.

So here was a chance to force-feed the conservative Fox audience a prime-time dose of Democratic campaigning; but now that's all been called off by --- Democrats!

You can read a more detailed accounting of my reasoning here.

Dennis Kucinich, now denied one of his few shots at a national audience, was the only Democratic candidate who spoke out against the cancellation.

"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."

"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."

I couldn't agree more.

Comments (54)

1. THere he goes again. Telling truth to power.

   Posted by Dale-Z at 03/12/2007 @ 03:26am

2. Telling truth to power.

   Posted by DALE-Z 03/12/2007 @ 03:26am

   Yes...but WHICH "power"?

   In this case it's....the Bloggers. Go read HuffPost or listen to or read the blogs from Air America. They were the ones pushing for the Dems to pull out of the debate to "not support Fox".

   "ridiculous and counter-productive"? ...yep, two KEY qualities of the Blogo Left.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 06:18am

3. Posted by MASK 03/12/2007 @ 06:18am

   so that makes him right, again. How often do we hear of the neo-cons speaking against their Qaida? It doesn't happen. Sheep are not allowed to wander from the flock.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 07:49am

4. you can't always do it on the mountain tops

   sometimes you have to climb down into the sewers too

   Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 08:02am

5. Especially if you want to get what your doing out to the hamsters

   Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 08:03am

6. Hell, Chimpy won't even use the name of Chavez, too afraid to say his name lest he conjure him up by invoking a True Name. I never knew Chimpy was afraid of witchcraft.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 08:03am

7. In this instance I must agree with Mr. Cooper. I also applaud him for being more substantial than he has been in some of his writing. He left out quips over theatrics designed to rouse a gathered crowd of enthusiastic supporters (sorry, but if the crowd had responded negatively to the puppet strings gimmick I'd have been more amenable to the overall column; but that was a minor issue, that unfortunately took precedence over going into detail about what the dismissed candidates were saying).

   But I digress. Kucinich, as usual in a position where he is free to tell the truth without worrying about how it will affect his campaign, said something that does indeed make perfect sense. While it is understandable to take offense with Roger Ailes' unfunny remarks about Barack Obama, which sought to confuse him with Osama bin Laden by raising the similarity in portions of their respective names in the minds of prospective voters, the reaction has been a bit silly. Yes, Fox Noise Channel is a right-wing mouthpiece for the Bush regime. Yes, any debate hosted by that network will be used by the network to smear the candidates and their positions. Yes, it will ignore candidates such as Kucinich, because the moderators fear what will happen if an actual liberal were to be allowed to speak in front of a room full of Democrats. But as Dennis pointed out, if a presidential candidate cannot go before a potentially hostile audience or network he is unfit for the job he is running for. George W. Bush, speaking only to hand-picked crowds of supporters, has demonstrated this weakness time and again. That's a lesson we should all take to heart.

   Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/12/2007 @ 08:03am

8. Little early for you in the west to be so uppity, isn't it Will? I guess that is what makes ChimpCO so good for us, we wake up outraged. (or giddy depending who has been indicted/convicted/exposed this week)

   who will it be this week?

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 08:10am

9. Not only should none of the Democratic primary debates be taking place on Fox news.Neither should any of the Republican primary debates,or later presidential debates. Fox "news" is not a ligitimate,or reliable news source.They never have been,and they probably never will be. I for one have known this to be the case for many years.Seriously, Fox news has always been a joke.The sensationalist,partisian,and outright distorted brand of information they put out,strays way too far from the ever crucial facts,and does so far too often,to ever seriously be considered. People need something tangible and credible to work with if they are going to develope a set of strong,well educated beliefs and opinions.Thus empowering the individual to make well informed decisions.Fox deprives it's viewers of this empowerment by withholding,and manipulating all types of relevant information.For poltical reasons no less.Forget fair & balanced.What about honest and professional? The citizens of this country are deserving of a much higher standard. Thank you. -E

   Posted by Takhoma at 03/12/2007 @ 08:16am

10. Obviously,no debates should take place on Fox unless they're going to take place on Air America or some other similar forum,also.Presidential election cycles are strange events.They resemble high school elections more than something for adults to participate in.The first thing that happens is the Democrats trash each other and the Republicans trash each other until a nominee is selected and then Democrats love each other and Republicans love each other and trash the other side.This cycle is especially embarrassing to America because most of the candidates have done so much flip flopping that no one knows what they believe in,yet they have many ardent supporters who give them money.As things stand right now we will have to choose between 2 people who we know nothing about except for their personal lives.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/12/2007 @ 08:44am

11. Little confused over the argument against...

    Is it... "Fox isn't fair and balanced, they don't give Dems a chance to fairly air their views!"..."so we're not going to go on it and let Dems air their views!!!!"?!?!?!?

    Or "Why should we help Fox with their ratings?"....yeah, because the lack of Dems debating is soooooooo hurting them now, huh?

    Or "Having our guys debate on their network LEGITIMIZES Fox!" With who? If you don't like Fox now, you aren't going to start watching it AFTER the Dem debate, are you? If you do like it, you already think it's legitimate.

    "They'll use the debate to attack Dems!!!!"....uh, how? Are they going to hold it at a Young Republicans rally and have Bill O'Reilly moderate? And even if they did, are you saying that our brave, intelligent Democratic nominee potentials...

    can't handle that?!?!?!

    So....what IS the argument against it? Seems with Fox's ratings, be good exposure. "Their audience is all stupid right-wingers who believe everything they hear on Fox!"

    Okay...well...that debate will be "on Fox"...maybe it's a chance to win over some people, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 09:37am

12. Having this on Fox would be akin to having it on the Comedy channel which is where it really belongs in the first place.Then we could finally have some honesty in politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/12/2007 @ 10:15am

13. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/12/2007 @ 10:15am

    "Comedy Channel"? Something humorous about the Democratic candidates?

    Do you think they're funny? How the f*** are they funny, what the f*** is so funny about them? Tell me, tell me what's funny!

    (sorry...channelling Pesci)

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 10:45am

14. Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and they should be treated as such. No one on the left should help them gain credibility as a legitimate news source. For that reason, I support the cancellation of the debate and would support a nationwide boycott of Fox News. O'reily and Hannity are a modern-day Joseph Goebbels and will hopefully be imprisoned one day for encouraging torture, an illegal invasion and occupation. DOWN WITH FOX NEWS!!

    Posted by ira42653 at 03/12/2007 @ 11:34am

15. "...would support a nationwide boycott of Fox News"

    Posted by IRA42653 03/12/2007 @ 11:34am

    There IS a "nationwide boycott of Fox".

    People who don't like it, don't watch it. People who take a different view, do.

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 11:53am

16. Its fox news. The 'live' viewing of the debate might be unskewed, but any subsequent showing would be. This is Rupert Murdoch, the dems will not get a square deal.

    Posted by utilis at 03/12/2007 @ 12:11pm

17. .."the dems will not get a square deal."

    Now you might begin to understand how the REPUBS have felt about CSB,NBC,ABC,CNN,PBS... you should have some empathy and understanding, and then realize that it is just another vehicle to be used to spread your message to a different audience..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/12/2007 @ 12:38pm

18. Fox News smears, attacks, misrepresents and lies about every liberal/progressive position all day, every day.

    You are beyond naive if you think they want this debate for any reason other than what they'll do with it during their programming schedule the following day; the day that Hume, Cavuto, Kilmeade, O'Reilly, Wallace, Pinkerton, Gibson, Morris, Hill, Novak, Liasson, Kristol, Geraldo, Doocey, Barnes, Coulter, Hannity et al will feature dozens and dozens of segments distorting every word, inflection and hand gesture from all the canidates into strawmen they can knock over, and thus continue their relentless 24 hour right-wing noise machine.

    In fact, this isn't enough; the Democrats should engage in a 100% blanket boycott of Fox News. They shouldn't appear on their channel. They should never agree to an interview. Nothing. Fox is not interested in news or public debate; they are interested in pushing a point of view. And that's fine. It's not illegal. But neither is refusing to have a damn thing to do with them.

    The mainstream media is broken--especially cable media--although a liberal can sometimes get their message across in most outlets (key word: sometimes). But not on Fox. Forget it. Fox is what it is, and it's a right-wing propaganda network. This was a good move by the Dems.

    Posted by Ro at 03/12/2007 @ 12:54pm

19. "Now you might begin to understand how the REPUBS have felt about CSB,NBC,ABC,CNN,PBS..."

    Yes, I understand that the Republican party had to become very good at 'working the refs' because they simply cant win otherwise. Unfortunately, however, their cries of liberal bias are nonsense.

    Posted by Ro at 03/12/2007 @ 1:01pm

20. The Nevada Democratic Party should have told the out-of-state bloggers like Kos and MyDD and the MoveOn.org organization to stick it.

    I am furious as a Reno resident that our issues in northern Nevada will not be addressed because of hypocrisy of the so-called "netroots."

    After all, in 2003-2004 Fox News hosted a couple of debates in the Democratic primary, and they weren't any worse than the other news outfits sponsoring them. I heard or read NO protests whatsoever by the "leaders" of the blogosphere.

    I will call lies on the netroots any chance I get. I was one who taped almost ALL of the 2004 primary debates, so I know what I am talking about.

    What the netroots did was shoot Democrats in the butt by their idiocy.

    Kudos to Kucinich for telling the truth.

    Posted by susannunes at 03/12/2007 @ 1:11pm

21. I'm with RO:

    Fox News is not the long-suppressed consvervative voice it claims to be. It is the bastard child of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. It does not deserve a place in our homes. It is unrestrained corporate power cleverly masquerading as populism. No single entity in American history has done so much to lower the quality of debate as Rupert Murdock and Fox News.

    Unlike Kucinich and Cooper I don't see this as something we have to live with. Now, that the country is waking up to the horrors that have been visited on our republic by corporate-run media its time to return to the independent news class that ended McCarthyism and the Viet Nam War.

    The canceling of the debate is a momentous historic event. It's the day the tide began to turn against Fox. The first cooperative effort to squeeze them out. The day a bunch of Democrats with conflicting agendas agreed long enough to say "no more".

    Posted by artboyz at 03/12/2007 @ 1:13pm

22. The first cooperative effort to squeeze them out.

    Posted by ARTBOYZ 03/12/2007 @ 1:13pm

    Please explain IN DETAIL how you wish to go about that? (Meanwhile, I'll pull out my copy of the First Amendment)

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 1:24pm

23. Posted by SUSANNUNES 03/12/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Isn't that amazing? Dennis Kucinich, as "pure" a progressive as the Blogosphere Left would want...and he's telling them they're showing cowardice for getting the Dems to pull out because "Fox talks mean about them!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 1:27pm

24. The problem is that Marc Cooper believes Fox News to be a part of the media. But they are not. Being a propoganda tool for the right wing does not make you a part of the media, even if you have the word "news" in your title.

    Posted by BrianJ1 at 03/12/2007 @ 1:31pm

25. Fox has had their little last-third-of-the-screen tickertape and voice-overs doing running character assasination on any Democrat that goes on their shows. And with the deck stacked against you, how many hamsters will you convert? Not "talks mean about them", lies. It's not worth going on a media outlet that out-and-out lies. It just isn't.

    Posted by brantl at 03/12/2007 @ 1:35pm

26. In case it has to be spelled out for you, Mask: it's like Richard Pryor going to speak at a KKK convention so the "other side will get to here what he stands for".

    Posted by brantl at 03/12/2007 @ 1:37pm

27. Mask,

    If you agree that America needs to be FOX-free we can talk about logistics. I don't have time to indulge in right-wing obfuscation.

    Besides, its not about free-speech. Its about the rules of media ownership. In any case, there's nothing free about the speech that comes out of Fox. It's all very well paid for.

    Posted by artboyz at 03/12/2007 @ 1:43pm

28. "the dems will not get a square deal."

    Now you might begin to understand how the REPUBS have felt about CSB,NBC,ABC,CNN,PBS... you should have some empathy and understanding, and then realize that it is just another vehicle to be used to spread your message to a different audience..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/12/2007 @ 12:38pm"

    Yeah, Maash, it's like Colbert says, facts have a well-known left-wing bias. Funny, you reel off five networks with alleged left-wing bias whereas we only bitch about one. Odd, how all of the news media is conspiring against you. If they are all of one mind, do you think it might be because they're better informed than you?

    Posted by brantl at 03/12/2007 @ 1:51pm

29. Posted by ARTBOYZ 03/12/2007 @ 1:43pm

    Well, I'm honestly curious as to how you plan on "squeezing out" a cable news network (or "propaganda arm" if you like)?

    Details?

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 2:15pm

30. In case it has to be spelled out for you, Mask:

    Posted by BRANTL 03/12/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Apparently the case needs to be spelled out for US House Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)....doesn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2007 @ 2:17pm

31. Sorry, I have to agree with Kos' assessment [dailykos.com]of the situation. Fox is not a legitimate news outlet; it a Republican propaganda outfit. We shouldn't lend it any credibility. The Kos post references examples of Fox "reporting" from the blog, "Welcome to Pottersville".

    Posted by bigmambo at 03/12/2007 @ 2:37pm

32. This talk of corporations having free speech 'rights' is absurd. Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise that the people are the root of all power and authority for government.

    Corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverting our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's with their nonsensical doctrine of "corporate personhood" (the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings) doesn't change the very real fact that only a PERSON is a person.

    Corporations are legal constructs that possess only the privileges we the people willfully grant to them. That's it. That's all.

    Posted by Ro at 03/12/2007 @ 3:40pm

33. I would not trust Fox "News" to frame the debate fairly. Keep in mind, the network always gets the last word. And who knows what arrangements were made about the format, questioners, etc. I love Kucinich, and I understand his desire for free nationwide coverage. But I agree with those who say progressives should have nothing to do with Fox. Nada. Zilch. I'm against "enabling" them. Democrats in Nevada (and everywhere) can do better than to team up with Fox "News." It's like jumping in a vat of Clostridium botulinum to talk about food safety. Sheesh.

    Posted by timweber at 03/12/2007 @ 4:31pm

34. Brantl,

    "Yeah, Maash, it's like Colbert says, facts have a well-known left-wing bias. Funny, you reel off five networks with alleged left-wing bias whereas we only bitch about one."

    Quoting a comedian? ok..

    I don't have a problem with Fox being to the right..It the others are to the left..and I don't have a problem with that either..its just the way it is..and thats why you and those here complain about 1 network and we complain about 5 or 6..I don't see the problem giving ones message on all the networks, especially when you are fishing for votes...the rest is anti 1st amendment in my opinion.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/12/2007 @ 5:10pm

35. "Odd, how all of the news media is conspiring against you. If they are all of one mind, do you think it might be because they're better informed than you?"

    No.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/12/2007 @ 5:11pm

36. Wow....you lefties sure watch alot of Fox. I'm impressed at the listing of personalities posted by one poster. Didn't know all those folks before.

    "We report, you decide" ...sounds like a fair trade-off.

    Continue to watch Stephanopolous, Matthews, Carville, Begala, Russert, and other ex-Dem employees and consider it news. If it makes ya feel good, do it baby.

    Makes me wonder if any Dem is gonna be able to handle Chavez, Ghaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Little Kim, when its their turn to punch the Presidential timeclock, if they can't handle a hottie like Michelle Malkin. Probably not.

    So much for "Celebrating diversity of opinion" and that little Inconvenient Truth called the 1st Amendment.

    BOYCOTT!!! (Reason #582 why liberals are not really "pro-choice")

    Posted by Sliver at 03/12/2007 @ 6:04pm

37. .."the dems will not get a square deal."

    Now you might begin to understand how the REPUBS have felt about CSB,NBC,ABC,CNN,PBS... you should have some empathy and understanding, and then realize that it is just another vehicle to be used to spread your message to a different audience..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    indeed. republicans hate integrity in journalism. sort of how 30% of americans think g. dub is right on and the rest of the planet thinks 30% of americans are complete dumbasses.

    Posted by satr9prdxns at 03/12/2007 @ 6:26pm

38. It's a question of where your priorities are. Fox News is basically one of the media arms of the Republican party. If your priority is putting Democratic Presidential candidates in front of that audience, then your comments make sense.

    If your priority is to marginalize a media outlet and a source of Republican strength, then it doesn't. I don't want more people watching Fox News, and I don't want them to be able to claim that they are being Fair and Balanced.

    Fox has a format that is based on creating a spectacle and that uses the views of people such as O'Reilly or Coulter as a foil to help right wing ideas get currency. Finding ways to make sure Fox remains more partisan rather than less, undermines its effectiveness.

    It's all well and good about Presidential candidates should be willing to debate anywhere. However, I don't have to watch that debate on Fox or allow it to take place there. Partisan politics cuts both ways.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2007 @ 6:37pm

39. For years I've been telling everyone I know that Fox "News" is not a legitimate news organization. I tell people to ignore what they hear on Fox "News" or at least take it with a large grain of salt. Better yet, don't watch Fox, is what I tell people. Because, again, they're not "news"; they are a propaganda outfit.

    When people appear on Fox, they undercut that argument. They make Fox look like any other "news" outlet. The more that people appear on Fox, the more credibility we provide them.

    The Nevada Democrats made a mistake when they agreed to let Fox "News" exclusively broadcast their candidate debate. They did the right thing when they cancelled.

    Fox "News" is anything but. It is a propaganda machine for an ultra-conservative point of view. However, they are entitled to be that. That's their right. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them claiming to be "Fair & Balanced". Clearly they're not. And I do have a problem with them pretending to be a "news" organization practicing "journalism". That's nonsense. They are very biased and have a clear agenda.

    When people agree to appear on Fox, they give them credibility that they don't deserve. Fox is not a legitimate news organization. And the people they attack, on a constant basis, should not be treating them as if they are.

    The Nevada Democratic Party has now done the right thing. And their action only reinforces what more and more people are realizing; Fox is not a "news" organization. They are simply a mouthpiece for right wing interests.

    No one is "running and hiding" from Fox. That's nonsense. We're just asking people to stop legitimizing them and giving them credibility that they don't deserve.

    Why do you think it's a good idea to play into Rupert Murdoch's hands?

    Posted by snesich at 03/12/2007 @ 6:40pm

40. I think the serious question here is...how serious is the left willing and wanting to reach out to the right?

    Representative Kucinich(?) was right in this respect that FOX News should not have been banned from sponsoring the debate. The object of this debate was to target the largest audience possible. But, because of grassroots meddling a lot of independant voters will never hear all of the views.

    Let's face it, none of the media outlets here is this country is fair and balanced and they all put forth a lot of propoganda. It's only a matter of who spins the best.

    Posted by ACook at 03/12/2007 @ 8:55pm

41. Kuchinich has it backwards; False News has no more business hosting a Democratic debate than Air America has hosting a Rethuglican debate. the Party was right to cancel. As other posters have pointed out, False News will use the debate to the Dems look foolish. But Democrats should continue to appear on the network's shows to simply call them on their bull$#^t. This tactic of ignoring them and not responding has been disastrous. hopefully, the Party has learned from Dukakis' and Kerry's mistake. So Yes, Dems, go into the lions' den and face down Hannity, o'Reilly & others. but don't trust False News for a debate. And when you win the White House, don't call on their reporters in your press conferences. Jnik

    Posted by jnik at 03/12/2007 @ 9:03pm

42. No network has "fair and balanced" reporting. None of them. Their bias is corporate. They "favor" whatever will draw the most viewers and maximize ad revenues. They all have serious problems and none of them serve the public very well in return for the use of our airwaves.

    But this sad fact doesn't counter the argument that Fox "News" is far different from the rest of the corporate networks. They have a clear ideologically driven agenda, they are not a real, legitimate news organization and no one with any standing should appear on Fox and give them credibility that they don't deserve.

    What I'm saying is this: For all of their many, many problems and failings, the other corporate networks are still legitimate news organizations with no clear ideological agenda. Fox is just a right-wing propaganda machine and people only enhance their power, their reach and their status when they willingly (and naively) appear on their shows.

    Posted by snesich at 03/12/2007 @ 10:41pm

43. Posted by MASK 03/12/2007

    Well, I'm honestly curious as to how you plan on "squeezing out" a cable news network (or "propaganda arm" if you like)?

    Details?

    Mask,

    Read my post, I was just applauding the democrats for doing that. Every journey begins with the first step.

    Posted by artboyz at 03/13/2007 @ 08:14am

44. As usual, Kucinich is the man of the hour. Too bad he's not 6 feet 3, 205 pounds and strikingly handsome. If he were, he would have been president a long time ago, as it seems most, and I mean MOST Americans, while they struggle with the issues (what issues?) they have no problem voting for someone who looks great.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 03/13/2007 @ 11:42am

45. As usual, Kucinich is the man of the hour. Too bad he's not 6 feet 3, 205 pounds and strikingly handsome. If he were, he would have been president a long time ago, as it seems most, and I mean MOST Americans, while they struggle with the issues (what issues?) they have no problem voting for someone who looks great.

    Posted by LUCEM FERRE 03/13/2007 @ 11:42am

    Actually, he is goofy looking, but living no more than 25 miles from his House District for most of my life, the memories of how the "Boy Mayor" almost put the City of Cleveland into bankruptcy are a little more haunting.

    Posted by Sliver at 03/13/2007 @ 11:57am

46. Those of you who are progressives that still watch Faux News, are being ridiculous. The 'unofficial' definition of insanity is repeating a process over and over again and expecting the same result. How long will you watch until you realize that Faux News does not matter to the nomination process of democratic candidates. It would have been ridiculous to feed the propoganda wing of the republican party. It is a far greater statement for the democratic party to formally boycott Faux News. The remaining people who still watch Faux News will never, ever vote for a democratic candidate and those amongst them who are not true right wingers will wonder why the democrats have boycotted the media outlet; and possibly seek alternative media venues. Those that remain loyal Faux News viewers are mostly sick, authoritarian minds with 'daddy' issues. These are the cheerleaders of torture and escalation of the Iraq crisis as well as further war with Iran. Any institution that still gives William Kristol a platform to spew his Jabotinsky-inspired madness should not be given credence by allowing them to host a debate between potential leaders of the free world. Get over it. The remaining loyal Faux News viewers would comprise the entirety of the Milgram subjects who continued to 'apply' electric shock and little else besides Norquist's crew and military industrial elites. You will never win them over with a reasoned argument.

    Posted by veeve at 03/13/2007 @ 12:23pm

47. I am SOOOOOOO sick of "Marc with a 'C'" Cooper. He is snide, irrelevant and shallow. His opinions are biased and accessible for all to see. WHY should Democrats submit to the corruption of FOX? The supposed 'liberal' view here is assuming everything is equal and deserving, that FOX should be seen as equivalent to MSNBC. This kind of thinking is why we have lost elections AND the confidence of Americans. Thank goodness that these days being PROGRESSIVE trumps being liberal.

    Posted by TopangaGal at 03/13/2007 @ 1:02pm

48. Political debates in the US will be much more meaningful and productive when rightwing media conglomerates like FOX simply don't exist and no one is being brainwashed by them anymore. That's the point Kucinich is missing. Have you ever seen a debate with O'Reilly for example? He just shouts down the other guy and makes him look like an ass by putting words in his mouth. There's nothing in the least enlightening about it.

    Plus, FOX isn't just dispensing any old propaganda. They have the blood of a half million Iraqis on their hands. Why reward them by having them host a debate? They should be in prison cells getting the Abu Ghraib treatment.

    Posted by rakhia at 03/13/2007 @ 3:55pm

49. Let Fox talk about missing babies and girls in aruba, and of course democrats named Mark Foley (D-Fl)

    No one credible should dignify that crap.

    Posted by Iconoclast421 at 03/13/2007 @ 5:38pm

50. Thank goodness that these days being PROGRESSIVE trumps being liberal.

    This makes me curious. I have voted for Democrats in the past, but don't consider myself either of those. What EXACTLY is the difference between a liberal and a progressive??

    Posted by Sliver at 03/13/2007 @ 9:53pm

51. "Actually, he is goofy looking, but living no more than 25 miles from his House District for most of my life, the memories of how the "Boy Mayor" almost put the City of Cleveland into bankruptcy are a little more haunting."

    And I'm sure Cleveland was in great shape before he got elected and the pride of American cities a dacade after he left. All I know is that until recently Cleveland was not a place on most peoples "got to visit" list. Perhaps the problems of Cleveland went much deeper than the proposed policies of the boy wonder. I'm not knocking Cleveland, I live 30 minutes from West Philadelphia, Wilmington Delaware, Reading PA and an hour from Allentown so I get a pretty good dose of corruption, bad policies, overreacting police departments, mafia, crime etc. on a daily basis. My point about Kucinich, though, is that he makes more sense than the front runners and has been consistant from the beginning. He had the wisdom and courage to go against the war in Iraq and did so for the right reasons. That leaves a lot of people on the left looking rather stupid and scared. I'm a flaming liberal of the Socialist/Capitalist economic mindset and my vote would go to him, if I didn't like Edwards and Gore so much, people who actually have a shot at winning. Obama has proven nothing (my wife is African American and my son is biracial)so race has nothing to do with my opinon of Obama. He hasn't said or done enough to be President. And Hillary is a sellout. Sure I'd vote for her against almost any Conservative, but it was her pretty boy husband who opened us up to Communist China in the name of big business and he who gave in to the Republicans by cutting welfare to the poor but extending it to the wealthy. Dems need to wake up! Does anyone care that our government, with the blessing of big business, is putting together a North American Union (currancy) similar to that in Europe that includes Mexico, America and Canada? Why are they meeting in secrecy and not going through Congress? Where are the Democrats! Impeach Bush and get on with putting the Constitution and Bill of Rights back in to practice.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 03/13/2007 @ 10:34pm

52. To the one that posted the Dems would look stupid if they got on Fox and debated. I find that hard to believe. the only way they could look stupid is by being stupid. If the Democrats' arguement is a stupid one, then it will be destroyed but any 3rd grader can see that on every issue out there the Republicans are blundering and stumbling and falling down every minute of every day so to say that in the face of that much amunition the Democrats would look stupid just because the camera crew was wearing Fox News t-shirts is rediculous. No debater worth his/her weight would turn down a chance like this but the dems have and my friends on the far left urged them on to quit. What a joke and a huge mistake.

    Posted by Lucem ferre at 03/13/2007 @ 10:41pm

53. I assume Fox would manipulate the event to portray democrats poorly. The moderator was going to be a fox reporter, for example. Their greatest bias shows in how they frame the news. Why let them frame a democratic debate? We'd get lots of stupid horse race questions and nothing about global warming, health care or any of the other major issues where the dems are light years ahead. but, of course, Kucinich is looking for greater exposure. it makes sense for him.

    Posted by anaxamander at 03/14/2007 @ 10:29pm

54. ""Odd, how all of the news media is conspiring against you. If they are all of one mind, do you think it might be because they're better informed than you?"

    No. John Maasch"

    What a surprise.

    Posted by brantl at 03/15/2007 @ 2:12pm