Dems run from Fox debates. Why?

I remember not to long ago O'Reilly challenged people to step forward and debate the U.S.A Patrtriot Act when Michael Badnarik accepted his challenge Bill chickened out, maybe he was afraid his feelings would be hurt.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw143702.htm

 

The Nevada Democrats backed out of these "debates" because their supporters didn't want them to show any support for the extremely biased Fox "News."

 

If a so-called news organization repeatedly lied about you, I doubt you'd have much to do with them either.

Click Here

 

If you find out the real reason the democrats pulled out of the debate before you make such ignorant statements, it will keep you from looking like a fool in the future!

 

The real reason is that the Nevada Democratic Party gave into pressure from extremist organizations like MoveOn.org.

It is certainly their right. But did you see Harry Reid jumping like a cat on a hot roof? He said it was good because it would enable them to reach a new demographic. Then changed his mind under pressure from these radical groups. Republicans appear all the time on networks and shows that are to the left what Fox is to the right.

IMO, it would have been a great opportunity to take on Fox News, but they gave it up. I bet it will come back to haunt them.

 

Well, it was only the Nevada Democrats and the spineless John Edwards, moveon is their master.

They're making a protest! They don't want a debate, they want a bully pulpit where they won't be challenged. Fine, they can debate on CNN, MSNBC, Spike, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, Bravo, et cetera et cetera.

Give a choice, they'll always cut and run.

 

They need to pick a neutral location, like a town hall, and pick a diverse group of people to ask questions and have a fair debate. That's all I really want to see, on both sides of the aisle.

 

Lies and distortions are spouted on both disedd of the isle and by all the news agencies. Then there is always the claim that the other side is running from open and honest debate. No one can say that Bill Clinton has been always treated fairly and no one can say that President Bush has always been treated fairly etc.

Terri however has a reasonable solution to such debates.

 

I think that is what this was going to be. It was in Nevada, and there were several different questioners. Why shouldn't a conservative be allowed to ask questions, or sponsor a debate?

 

I conservative questioner would be perfectly alright, just as would a liberal, in fact you should have both and then some moderates as well. But, just as these people should be allowed, the candidates should be allowed to decide which debates they will attend and under what circumstances.

 

They should be, that is at least until the CEO and Chairman of the sponsor purposfully substitutes Osama Bin Laden's name with a current Democratic presidential candidate. Even if it was a joke it was in EXTREMELY poor taste and childish. If Fox does not see fit to take things seriously why should the Democrats want to participate in their debate?

I'm with Terry on this one. Give me a debate in a town hall type of forum with questions/questioners from all political stripes and colors. One that focuses squarely on the relevant issues facing the country. I want to hear something substantial. I am tired of the kindergarten politics that keep candidates on every side from dealing with the real issues and instead force them to defend themselves from ridiculous non-issue charges.

 

Actually, it's more likely because the democratic party in Nevada is owned by radical fringe groups such as Moveon.org.

If Republicans were cowards like democrats and stayed away from news sources they think are biased, they would have boycotted ABC,NBC,CBS,NYT,LAT,AP etc., long ago.

 

Doesn't seem to cause Republicans to tuck their tails, run and hide from networks they see as biased.

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-10-Sat-2007/opinion/13078877.html

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox
Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

SBIP

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

 

I dont remember thr Republicans running away from debates on ABC NBC CBS PBS and other obviously left leaning networks.

 

I agree concerning the inflammatory words I used, they was unnecessary; I apologize.

I jumped to the conclusion that you, like many other right-wingers here, are strictly anti-Democratic Party regardless of the issue. I thought that you might be one that only looked at what the Democrats said in order to find some new method of attack. Perhaps I misjudged you. I guess this is what is likely to happen when someone like myself engages in a preemptive verbal assault ( I guess it only works in war, right).