Am I the only one who didn't know there was a Republican debate on TV tonight?

[StateBoiler]

I'm not even a Paul fan but to just write off someone's ideas the way they are doing to Paul is just ludicrous. I'm hoping that he pulls in 10% in NH.

Note to self: watch Daily Show tomorrow.

[12th Doctor]

I'm not even a Paul fan but to just write off someone's ideas the way they are doing to Paul is just ludicrous.

Now imagine if every member of your party (not named Joe Lieberman) got treated that same way all the time.

One word for you... Dennis Kucinich

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1) Its good to see that the Democrats have such confidence in their ideas.

2) The whole idea of "reaching out" is to try to appeal to people who disagree with you.

It is useless trying to reach you on this issue, Soulty. If Democrats had a Fox News equivalent, you'd understand.

There's DailyKos and Moreon.org and Salon.com. Somehow those and Republican debate don't go so well together.

Well, except that those are usually more accurate.

I'm sorry that your candidates are acctually so scared of Fox that they won't even go there to debate.  Doesn't set up a good precedent shoudl they have to face down terrorist of North Korea in a few years.  Then again, I find a strage resemblance between Kim Jong Il and Sean Hannity, so maybe it is understandable.

If facing down Kim Jong II involved doing an interview with the Korean Central News Agency (http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm), you might have a point. But no, the Democrats don't need to go on either KCNA or Faux.

[Sam Spade]

Well, then let me ask you the relevant corollary to this question.  If certain Republicans believe that CNN lies and slanders about their party 24/7, does this also give them a right to essentially "stick the middle finger up at CNN"?

Yes, they do have that right. Although I have yet to see an example of CNN doing any of those things.

Well, in that case, it's their opinion that counts and not yours.  Moreover, Republicans may already think that, but prefer to answer to the other side, rather than to say that they "destroy political debate".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to help the quality of debate in this country, point your criticism towards Fox News. No media outlet has ever done more to destroy meaningful political debate.
[/quote]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Fox News, Democrats will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Fox News will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to watch Fox News.  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it.  

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Fox News so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Democrats would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Fox News.  

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Ron Paul from a Republican debate because his ideas are going to be kooky to most Republicans.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

[12th Doctor]

Hannity is really grinding his teeth saying that Paul won and keeps having to declare that he doesn't believe that he won.

Because he didn't.  This isn't exactly a sceintific poll.  And, for the second time, anytime libertarians have a chance to spam a poll or something else, they do it x10.

I didn't say that I thought that Paul actually won the debate or that the poll wasn't "spammed", my statements are a more of reflection of Hannity. I do think it's quite unfair to write off Paul like that though.

Well, I will grant you that.

[TheresNoMoney]

I'm sorry that your candidates are acctually so scared of Fox that they won't even go there to debate.  Doesn't set up a good precedent shoudl they have to face down terrorist of North Korea in a few years.

First off, that is a ridiculous statement and you know it.

Secondly, when the Republicans agree to do a Moveon.org debate, then you can complain about Democrats not doing a Fox News debate.

[Sam Spade]

Well, if the Fox News audience is 90% Republican, as you claim, then there is no better outlet for the Democrats to exploit if they really want reachout to Republican voters.

Those people are going to vote Republican  no matter what. It is futile trying to reach them.

So, you're not going to even try to talk and reason with them.

Why then, pretell, are you even in this "Republican" debate thread?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Moveon.org, Republicans will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Moveon will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to read Moveon  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it. 

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Moveon so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Republicans would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Moveon. 

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Dennis Kucinch from a Democratic debate because he is an elf.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

[Sam Spade]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Moveon.org, Republicans will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Moveon will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to read Moveon  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it. 

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Moveon so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Republicans would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Moveon. 

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Dennis Kucinch from a Democratic debate because he is an elf.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

Plagiarizing is certainly better than thinking.  You are clearly an expert at it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Moveon.org, Republicans will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Moveon will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to read Moveon  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it. 

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Moveon so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Republicans would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Moveon. 

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Dennis Kucinch from a Democratic debate because he is an elf.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

Plagiarizing is certainly better than thinking.  You are clearly an expert at it.

Satire is lost on you.

[Sam Spade]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Moveon.org, Republicans will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Moveon will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to read Moveon  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it. 

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Moveon so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Republicans would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Moveon. 

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Dennis Kucinch from a Democratic debate because he is an elf.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

Plagiarizing is certainly better than thinking.  You are clearly an expert at it.

Besides, my post had nothing to do with Moveon.org.  Why raise the strawman?

[TheresNoMoney]

Nice one, fern. The hypocrisy of the conservatives is quite amazing.

[Sam Spade]

And so by ignoring and boycotting Moveon.org, Republicans will somehow "improve" the level of debate in this country.  That simply does not follow.

Seems to me like that boycotting Moveon will shut off debate with a certain part of the country that prefers to read Moveon  Maybe that is what you want, but you should go on out and say it. 

It is certainly better than hiding behind the accusation that since Moveon so "destroys meaningful debate" in this country, Republicans would be better off in "encouraging meaningful debate" by boycotting Moveon. 

The effect of that remark is to say to a particular entity - "You're ideas are so illegitimate, and the way you present them is so unfair, the only correct answer from our viewpoint is to not let you present them at all".  To use a connection, it would be kind of like banning Dennis Kucinch from a Democratic debate because he is an elf.

Moreover, if your ideas are truly better than the other side's ideas, you should be able to win.  Fear is not an effective defense (nor offense).

Plagiarizing is certainly better than thinking.  You are clearly an expert at it.

Satire is lost on you.

Your version of satire is much like BRTD's version of humor.

[12th Doctor]

I'm sorry that your candidates are acctually so scared of Fox that they won't even go there to debate.  Doesn't set up a good precedent shoudl they have to face down terrorist of North Korea in a few years.

First off, that is a ridiculous statement and you know it.

Secondly, when the Republicans agree to do a Moveon.org debate, then you can complain about Democrats not doing a Fox News debate.

I know its ridiculous, I just wish you would see how ridiculous what you are saying is.  First off, Moveon isn't national TV.  Second, the Democrats are not gonna get mowed down if they go on Fox.

[TheresNoMoney]

Second, the Democrats are not gonna get mowed down if they go on Fox.

They'll get the same level of respect that Sean Hannity gave Ron Paul.

Again, it really doesn't make any sense for Democrats to do a Fox News debate. I wish you would take the partisan blinders off and realize that.

I don't expect Republicans to do a Moveon.org debate, and you shouldn't expect Democrats to do a Fox News debate.

[Mr. Morden]

Huh?  Are you sure you're not confusing him with someone else?  As an occasional watcher of Hardball for several years

No, I'm not confusing him with someone else. He was a huge Bush supporter until early 2005 and also supported his Iraq War policy.

From March 2003:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030304.asp#6

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From an article / interview in Salon (hardly a right-wing rag) on Matthews in February 2003, Joan Walsh writes:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/14/chrismatthews/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From that interview (again, this is February 2003):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Brandon H]

Fox News does not have a Conservative bias.

















Fox News has a Neoconservative bias.

Hannity has always been a hack, but often I agree with him over the person he is yelling at, but not in this case. Paul did put the offer on the table with Guiliani to debate foreign policy.

When Colmes was asking about abortion, I think Paul should have mentioned he is an obgyn.

[12th Doctor]

Second, the Democrats are not gonna get mowed down if they go on Fox.

They'll get the same level of respect that Sean Hannity gave Ron Paul.

Again, it really doesn't make any sense for Democrats to do a Fox News debate. I wish you would take the partisan blinders off and realize that.

I don't expect Republicans to do a Moveon.org debate, and you shouldn't expect Democrats to do a Fox News debate.

There is a 99% chance that the Republicans are going to do a debate on CNN which, even if we can't agree that it has a liberal slant, we can agree its not Fox.  So why are the Democrats canceling thier appreance on Fox?

I'll tell you exactly why.  It's because:

1) They can get away with it, because their base hates Fox.

2) They are worried about looking bad, or screwing up.  Chances are that they probbaly only have something to loose by debating on Fox as, like you said, most Fox veiwers wouldn't vote for them anyway, but any mistakes they might make would still count against them just as badly.  So why take the time and effort to debate when the change of failure is present with little gain.  Esspecially given how agressive the questioning was tonight.  In fact, it was almost hostile at some points.

The reason I don't like this... all joking and ribbing aside... is because it is more of the same.  The Republicans are shattered and impotent.  The Democrats want to talk about how they want to lead and unite and reach out, but then when they have a chance, they retreat back to tried and tested politcs.

Rudy Giuliani has almost nothing to gain by engaging in any Republican Debates, but he is still out there anyway.  I just wish that one Democrat, and maybe another Republican would show that they mean it when they talk about real leadership.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither first Democratic and the Republican debate were on Faux News.
Compare the first 3 questions for each.
It seems that the Republicans still got the easier questions.
Thanks for your "concern", trolls, but the Democrats will do just fine without Faux News.
The "media" sans Faux still leans right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/202557/939

[Eraserhead]

Fox News does not have a Conservative bias.
Fox News has a Neoconservative bias.

This is a true statement and worth noting. There are big differences.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fox News does not have a Conservative bias.
Fox News has a Neoconservative bias.

This is a true statement and worth noting. There are big differences.

They have a 2007 American Conservative bias.
Of course, being "conservative" should mean that you are against starting random wars, and for protecting the environment, but those are definitely not the position of 2007 American Conservatives.

[Sam Spade]

Anyway, my thoughts on the debate (which is what I was originally trying to post) are as such:

About halfway through the debate, my initial thoughts were that Huckabee was the winner.  I thought Giuliani was a good bit better than in the last debate; McCain still exuded tiredness; Romney was less effective (even though he gives better 30-60 second answers than anyone on either side).  On the lesser candidates, I thought Brownback performed better than last time, but still comes across as "hammy" (best word I can think of - his answer to the abortion question exemplified this); Thompson came across as uncharismatic and stern; Tancredo still looks lost (and amusingly comes across as effeminate); Hunter came across as less effective generally, and Ron Paul was well, being Ron Paul.

Then came the exchange between McCain and Romney and between Guiliani and Paul. 

The reaction to this later exchange from this forum shows once again that this forum has become more about people posting their own opinions (usually from the left) and almost nothing about analyzing the consequences of what actually goes on to the public watching the show.  That key little fact also explains why so many people on this forum wrongly thought that Obama did well during the last debate, when a clear, thoughtful critique would say otherwise (and the numbers showed, along with a bit of effective Clinton spin, I admit).

The simple fact is that when I first saw the exchange, my immediate response was, "Is Ron Paul working for the Rudy Giuliani campaign?"  Fact is, the base of the Republican party is represented by people like Mike Naso, same as the base of the Democratic party is represented by people like Scoonie.  When looking at a debate, you have to look through those lenses.

9/11 is Rudy Giuliani's best friend and it is his best friend in connecting to people like Mike Naso.  Thus, when Rudy Giuliani responded as he did, he turned the debate into a win.  You could see it after Paul's next response, when every candidate was trying to respond and score points.  But it was too late.

In the McCain-Romney exchange, I think Romney got the better of the two comments, mainly because Romney could mention the bills without attacking McCain and connect the Republican primary voter to McCain by direct inference.  McCain's connections didn't mention Romney by name and couldn't.  They were henceforth, less clear.

I still Huckabee did a excellent job and was the winner before that exchange.  Quite frankly, I think the only reason why he hasn't caught on is that the Fred Thompson trial balloon is covering his appeal altogether with the groups that would naturally have an affinity for him.

[Sam Spade]

Neither first Democratic and the Republican debate were on Faux News.
Compare the first 3 questions for each.
It seems that the Republicans still got the easier questions.
Thanks for your "concern", trolls, but the Democrats will do just fine without Faux News.
The "media" sans Faux still leans right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/202557/939

Wait, so three questions = 2 hour debate?  I seem to recall a certain infamous tangent that could be made here, but there's no use going there.

Besides, I don't see the questions as easier.  I see the questions as "less intricate".

[Eraserhead]

If the Democratic base is represented by people like Scoonie then why is Clinton leading instead of Edwards or Obama?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither first Democratic and the Republican debate were on Faux News.
Compare the first 3 questions for each.
It seems that the Republicans still got the easier questions.
Thanks for your "concern", trolls, but the Democrats will do just fine without Faux News.
The "media" sans Faux still leans right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/202557/939

Wait, so three questions = 2 hour debate?  I seem to recall a certain infamous tangent that could be made here, but there's no use going there.

Besides, I don't see the questions as easier.  I see the questions as "less intricate".

The point is, it disproves the argument that Media sans Faux is somehow liberal.