Comments on: Around The Sphere March 10, 2007

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:14:10 +0000

“Sarkozy is the closest to a neoconservative, free market libertarian, pro-American, pro-Zionist, unapologetic nationalist, pro-globalization candidate who could make it onto the ballot in France.”

Hmm, I guess he’s as ‘pro-American’ as a member of ‘la Grande Nation’ can possibly be. That is, not much.
France Ã¼ber alles!

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:11:18 +0000

“Personally Iâ€™d like to see the Democrats on Fox and the Republicans on MSNBC.”

Sure you would like that, CS. O’Reilly for the DEms and Scarborough for the repubs. Great.
|-(

By: domajot

domajot — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:35:27 +0000

Furthermore, there comes a point when it’s no longer about answering tough questions but about needing to deal with mudslinging, as the comment by Ailes, on the eve of the debate, illustrates.
No one should be requited to lie down in a mud bath in order to answer questions, tough or otherwise.

By: domajot

domajot — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:29:10 +0000

The final straw in withdrawing from the debate on FOX was what Ailes said. He used the name Obama, instead of Osama, in a sentence about the hunting him down. Maybe it was a joke, maybe not. But it was a definite Ann Coulter moment, and Fox should be ashamed.
Why should they profit from the people they regularly demean?

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:34:53 +0000

Pajamas Media writer on Sarkozy:

Sarkozy is the closest to a neoconservative, free market libertarian, pro-American, pro-Zionist, unapologetic nationalist, pro-globalization candidate who could make it onto the ballot in France.

Huh???

How can someone be both a “neoconservative” and a “free market libertarian”? The two ideologies are mutually exclusive. Neoconservatives are proponents of big government, militarism, and a strong executive branch. Libertarians are proponents of smaller government, noninterventionism, and limiting the power of the excutive branch.

That’s Pajamas Media for you.

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:53:19 +0000

Each candidate can make up their minds about what debates they engage in, and the format for those debates. I donâ€™t know how the format was for the FOX debate, I would hope that it wouldnâ€™t be something along the lines of softball questions to the GOP, hardball to the Dems. If both candidates must answer the same question then CS is right, you can point out how the questioned is biased and then respond. In fact you could make FOX look bad if you are constantly pointing out bias, and the audience [at least those that do not view FOX regularly] will respond if they think FOX is â€œganging upâ€? on the candidate.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:05:40 +0000

But this is about the debate among primary candidates, and the host would have every opportunity to support the views of candidates he â€˜likesâ€™ (i.e. that are weak) and attack those who might be a danger for their GOP counterpart.

And if that were to happen, the candidates would have the opportunity to show how they would respond to such ‘attacks’. That is quite relevant in these polarized times. I would like to see how candidates respond to tough questions: will they politely point out bias and then actually answer the question (which would make the moderator and the host station look foolish) or would they take the low road and start slinging insults?

Personally I’d like to see the Democrats on Fox and the Republicans on MSNBC. I want to know how the candidates choose to comport themselves in an environment which might be hostile toward them. I don’t want to hear someone say (again) that he/she is going to be a uniter instead of a divider; I want him/her to prove it.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:38:40 +0000

“A â€œsmartâ€? president candidates should be able to handle Fox News with ease.”

Sure. If he’s mano-a-mano with Hannity, O’Reilly or one of those other nuts. But this is about the debate among primary candidates, and the host would have every opportunity to support the views of candidates he ‘likes’ (i.e. that are weak) and attack those who might be a danger for their GOP counterpart. Again, unnecessarily fighting under such unfortunate conditions would be as silly as unnecessarily attacking a nation of 30 million muslims, many of them fanatics, without having a compelling reason to jump into this snakepit.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:01:46 +0000

Gray,

A “smart” president candidates should be able to handle Fox News with ease. A weak presdiential candidates would be the ones who want to avoid anything but a friendly environemnt while campaigning.

Again, if they cannot stand up to Fox, how are they going to stand up to Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezula, etc.

I think that ducking out of millions of dollars of free publicity in order to avoid a hostile environment is the ultimate expression of weakness.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:36:51 +0000

That’s not the question. The question is: Why should Dems have an important debate at Fox channel, allowing right wingers the chance to promote the candidate they deem easiest to beat by manipulating the questions in his/her favor? This would really be stupid. And the US can’t afford another stupid president.

Interestingly, only Edwards, and now Richardson, too, showed intelligence and refused to participate in this kabuki theatre…

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:26:02 +0000

What would anyone want to vote for a future president who will need to stand up the militant extremist if they cannot stand to take questions from FOX?

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:14:11 +0000

“Fox News clearly has some biased reports but not all of its reports and reporting are biased”

Examples, pls!