Democratic Surrender and Polarization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 10:43:01 AM)

Can someone give me a perspective on this decision that makes sense as a act of a party that wants to win a majority in the next presidential election:
quote:

The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html 


I can appreciate that many people only want to be around and socialize with people who 'head-bob' agreement with their positions. Many don't want to read or see anything in conflict for what they "know" as true. It shows a lack of confidence but living your life that way doesn't harm anyone. 

As a viable political party it would appear obvious that you can't or at least shouldn't exhibit those traits. Even if you know going in you won't get any 'converts' you should at least give the appearance of inclusion. There is an applied weakness to refusing to appear. Are questions asked by Fox so potentially harmful or disclosing that the possibility is better avoided? Does anyone come out weaker from confrontation that confirms what you stand for in opposition to the audience? Remember, a debate is answers provided to questions. Questions like; "When did you stop beating your wife" should be welcomed by the participants because the answer will serve to point to Fox's alleged conservative slant of the news. A candidate would be better served if he is seeking my vote to seek such confrontation. Do the Democrats think there are enough 'head-bobers' prepared to accept whatever candidate comes through the process?

It's interesting that no other news network has offered to replace Fox. Correctly so, I believe they don't want their identity associated with such an exclusionary position.

Let the accusations of partiality fly. I remain a devout pragmatist in my political position. I'm looking for a non-rationalized reason for the fear of the Democrats, John Edwards in particular, of Fox news.  



pahunkboy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:01:48 AM)

I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.

ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.

real questions. real replies.

not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:09:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.
ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.
real questions. real replies.
not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.


Agreed - and will stipulate that the last "real" debate was Lincoln/Douglas.

It doesn't take away from the attention that should be brought to bear on the Democrats in this instance. Remember, they are not saying they won't debate, they are saying they wont debate on Fox.



pahunkboy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:17:35 AM)

i read the piece. forgive me; im all grubby not too functioning today.

i missed the part where it said corporate charters would have to be reviewed; and in some cases revoked.

two things come to mind.  peace on earth, live and let live, cant we all just get along.

vs-

the age old fight over where the property line is. weather your lot is 50 x 120, or you have 100 acres. thru out time people have fought over where the line is.

s0 historically speaking you have these 2 themes, variations of, egging on the masses. throw in the media to blur the true issue, delete the man/lady in the street from any meaningful diaglog- and this is what we have.

divide and conquor.  this tactic will continue years after you and I are dead.

thus the question begs to ask, where do i, in the here and now fit into the puzzle ???



pahunkboy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:23:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.
ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.
real questions. real replies.
not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.


Agreed - and will stipulate that the last "real" debate was Lincoln/Douglas.

It doesn't take away from the attention that should be brought to bear on the Democrats in this instance. Remember, they are not saying they won't debate, they are saying they wont debate on Fox.


Fox has resorted to a mild form of hypnosis on their "news".   The graphics and special tone, awakens the attention span for an important news breif.  Started out as "bombs just dropped...."

to todays "jennifer annison is divorcing husband..."
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

so ya- fox, IMO uses a form of hypnosis. which- admittingly as do many media outlets. 

Latley I listen mostly to music. it soothes the soul.



Vendaval -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:24:23 AM)

It will be interesting to watch what develops from this decision.
I would agree that having the debate, even though they are
scripted and prepared, is a better situation. 
 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/10/debate.canceled/index.html
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
It's interesting that no other news network has offered to replace Fox. Correctly so, I believe they don't want their identity associated with such an exclusionary position.

Let the accusations of partiality fly. I remain a devout pragmatist in my political position. I'm looking for a non-rationalized reason for the fear of the Democrats, John Edwards in particular, of Fox news.  



domiguy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:36:15 AM)

Why would anyone attend a debate where the host's views are so transparent?...How did FOX manage to pull this coup off?...Would conservatives be so eager to participate in debates that are hosted by NPR....The whole thing just strikes me as being very odd...I don't have any of the details...It is just very odd...Who chooses the panel asking the questions?  As well as the moderators?...Aren't Moderators a pain...(Well most of them except.. Mod11...Truly the most striking and intelligent of them all...lol)



cyberdude611 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 11:56:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.
ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.
real questions. real replies.
not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.


Agreed - and will stipulate that the last "real" debate was Lincoln/Douglas.

It doesn't take away from the attention that should be brought to bear on the Democrats in this instance. Remember, they are not saying they won't debate, they are saying they wont debate on Fox.


Fox has resorted to a mild form of hypnosis on their "news".   The graphics and special tone, awakens the attention span for an important news breif.  Started out as "bombs just dropped...."

to todays "jennifer annison is divorcing husband..."
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

so ya- fox, IMO uses a form of hypnosis. which- admittingly as do many media outlets. 

Latley I listen mostly to music. it soothes the soul.


I think it is more to do with how people get information these days. Not just 24 hour news channels but also tools like the internet has lead to a information overload. People have too much information to make a sound decision. And in the end they end up uninformed about most issues simply because they lack the ability to filter out what is relevent and what is not.



DomKen -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:07:00 PM)

What possible good could come from a Democratic candidate debate on Fox? Seems like a set up for the GOP dirty tricks team to me.

Would it be a good idea for the GOP candidates to attend a debate sponsored by moveon.org?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:19:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What possible good could come from a Democratic candidate debate on Fox?
How about generating respect in seeing them react to the questions, tough as you assume they would be.
quote:

Seems like a set up for the GOP dirty tricks team to me.
And an opportunity to point that out, devaluing FOX versus their present position which hold the candidates' up to ridicule.

quote:

Would it be a good idea for the GOP candidates to attend a debate sponsored by moveon.org?
Yes. It would be a great idea to address an audience of opposition 'head-bobers'. Given the opportunity their response could and should be evaluated similarly. 



Sternhand4 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:24:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What possible good could come from a Democratic candidate debate on Fox? Seems like a set up for the GOP dirty tricks team to me.
Little paranoid arent we?
Would it be a good idea for the GOP candidates to attend a debate sponsored by moveon.org?

So you advocate " preaching to the choir" then.
As CNN and CBS are ideologically opposed republicans should they not be allowed to carry debates?

I would say no, your ideas should be able withstand the questions of the opposing party's.  no matter who carry's the debate.
The real issue is that moveon hate fox and pressured the nevada dems to back out.
As a bigger issue, do you want a candidate that is this obviously tied to a PAC to be your nominee?



toservez -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:33:29 PM)

I agree with you Mercbeth but unfortunately the argument to be made is the questions asked to be answered properly to get the candidates view/opinion would require multiple multi syllabic sentences and it seems no one outside of the deeply loyal people of the candidates could care less.

It is not what might be asked or said in a debate like this but how the words get turned around for the sound bites, zealot political pundits and future attack ads which too many of the population take their news and views from. It is the fear of the ancillary market. It is the attempt to avoid having to say you’re against flag burning because you are for free speech or the war and then be pounded on how you are anti-patriotic and do not support the troops.

It is a shame but candidate now campaign not about enticing but about not making mistakes and tearing the other down. Risk management and to them this type of debate is too high of a risk, right or wrong.



popeye1250 -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:39:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

I did not read th article- but i really have had it with the chorioraphed "debates".  A real debate doesnt look anything we have seen in recent years. it has turned into infotainment.

ild like to see the person on the street ask the questions, no editing no pre cue as to what questions can be asked.

real questions. real replies.

not the horse nad pony show we passively accept.
[/quote

I agree, anything that gets "The People" more involved is a good thing!
After all it's not what "The Politicians" want to do it's what "The People" want done!
That's Democracy.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 12:55:59 PM)

quote:

It is not what might be asked or said in a debate like this but how the words get turned around for the sound bites, zealot political pundits and future attack ads which too many of the population take their news and views from.


toservez,
The debate wasn't a FOX exclusive, and neither would the sound bites generated. Advocates and adversaries could cut them down and present them as sound bites.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about how anything said will be used to exploit the candidates, but how is it different because the debate sponsor is FOX versus CNN, MSN, or any news bureau? Wouldn't you think that FOX's conservative editorializing talking heads able to accomplish the same goal even if  Dan Rather was the host?

At this point of the election process eliminating who to support is as important a process as deciding who to support. Only because he was at the root of this issue, John Edwards eliminated himself as a viable candidate. Illustrating his avoidance response to the possibility of confrontation shows a weakness I don't want in the oval office. Avoiding confrontation may have been better route for some of the decisions made over the past 6 years, but not at the level of it just being a "possibility".

"Too high a risk". I don't know how much 'play' this will get. And frankly, I think a 2+ year primary season is excessive, but this decision could come back to haunt the party. Remember, the Democrats have no mandate, and no clear plurality. The election that resulted in gaining control of Congress and the Senate was reaction to a out of touch President. Case in point, as a group Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush. The far left split within the party regarding the support of overburdened funding program for the war in Iraq shows the difficulty in being perceived as the party "in charge".

There are risks on both sides, but a person who wants to be viewed as a leader can not and should not risk the slightest chance of being viewed as afraid. Not in consideration of the people who will provide a 'head-bob' vote, but in consideration for those who may not agree in all he/she stands for but seeks to support a confident candidate.



toservez -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 1:27:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

There are risks on both sides, but a person who wants to be viewed as a leader can not and should not risk the slightest chance of being viewed as afraid. Not in consideration of the people who will provide a 'head-bob' vote, but in consideration for those who may not agree in all he/she stands for but seeks to support a confident candidate.


I strongly agree with this as well but the days of leaders Reagon and Clinton for example appear to be over and we get people like George W and Kerry. I think the general public will always vote for a leader, (why Obama is a star right now, perhaps the only reason), but leaders not afraid to speak their mind are not making it through the primaries. (See McCain-2000 and Dean-2004, Ok he self destructed as well. Let’s see where Rudi ends up.)

The reason why it matters which broadcast is because they will control who is asking the questions and therefore how the questions are asked. For example instead of asking “Why did you not support an amendment against flag burning?” it might get phrased like “Our troops are dying for our country and a poll of them have them wanting an amendment against flag burning, why are you against them?”

Small and very petty differences, absolutely but this is how the game is played.




meatcleaver -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 1:59:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Can someone give me a perspective on this decision that makes sense as a act of a party that wants to win a majority in the next presidential election:


Seems a good tactic to me. The Republicans appear to be doing a good job of defeating themselves so why have a debate on a hostile channel?

Blair has played this tactic of saying nothing and letting the otherside put both feet in their mouth.

Or as Napoleon once said 'Never interupt an enemy in the middle of a mistake.'



caitlyn -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 2:49:19 PM)

No offense Merc, but it looks selective quoting to me.

I like this quote from the same article, much better ... [;)][;)]

quote:


But Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments," the letter said. "In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore cancelling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action."


Now, you may say that Democrats should just nut it up and debate anyway. I don't agree. I wouldn't dignify the comments of Mr Ailes with even the comments above.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 3:31:40 PM)

quote:

Seems a good tactic to me. The Republicans appear to be doing a good job of defeating themselves so why have a debate on a hostile channel?


MC,
If you were aware of this my apologies for assuming you didn't. This was a debate exclusively for the Democratic candidates. The FOX network involvement was solicited by the organizers to offset expenses. It was only after the fact that factions within the Democratic party protested FOX news involvement.
quote:

For example instead of asking “Why did you not support an amendment against flag burning?” it might get phrased like “Our troops are dying for our country and a poll of them have them wanting an amendment against flag burning, why are you against them?”

toservez,
I'll use your multi version of the same question as support of my point.
“Why did you not support an amendment against flag burning?”
The Constitution provides that my opinion can be expressed by flag burning. Factual but bland - who would remember it.

“Our troops are dying for our country and a poll of them have them wanting an amendment against flag burning, why are you against them?” Our troops are dying needlessly fighting or a people who have neither the desire or goal to live under the very document, the Constitution, that provides for the rights of our citizens to burn a flag in protest. As a person who professes the desire for personal freedom why do you feel the need to dictate what those freedoms are? Our solders are fighting, and representing all the freedoms provided by the Constitution, not just those in agreement of your views or mine.
 
I trust that the candidates would be more elegant and profound than me, but if I could give that response off the top of my head, it again begs the question why would they be afraid? A bigger statement and impact is made in using an adversary's words against them. I'd jump at the opportunity for such a forum, especially being John Edwards - a distant third behind Senators Obama and Clinton.

quote:

 Now, you may say that Democrats should just nut it up and debate anyway. I don't agree. I wouldn't dignify the comments of Mr Ailes with even the comments above.

caitlyn,
I didn't want to get into the debate of one network's conservative commentary versus another's liberal commentary. The FOX xenophobic approach gets no special consideration from me, anymore than a similar reaction to a CNN sponsorship for a Republican debate.

Maybe I'm alone in the belief that debate and discussion with an adversary is a better platform for winning converts, as well as a fantastic forum to set an confident identity.



Sinergy -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 4:11:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I trust that the candidates would be more elegant and profound than me, but if I could give that response off the top of my head, it again begs the question why would they be afraid?



I am a bit puzzled why you attribute their desire to not debate on the Fox network as fear.

Perhaps they just really dont give a good god damn.  Or, more importantly, perhaps they would rather give the advertising money for the debates to a network that is not so blatantly hostile and partisan.

And I would like to point out that for the past 3-5 years, most (or all) of the speeches that the Simian In Chief has given have been to closed audiences, no or little press notification, who are friends from Daddy's rolodex.

I find it amusing as hell that Republicans are jumping on this to prove the Democrats are inferior; they have been doing the same exact thing to the Democrats for 6 years.

It is like when the Republican minority leader indicated to Nancy Pelosi that he hoped they could bury the hatchet and find common ground.  The Republicans have actively attempted to bury the hatchet in the skulls of Democratic congressmen, refusing to invite them to meetings, not allowing them to vote, etc., for years.  Now that they are playing second fiddle, they are demanding the Democrats treat them fairly.

What goes around, comes around.

Of course, I would treat them fairly.  It is much for fun watching somebody get voted into oblivion to their face than it is to play 3rd grade popularity contest style games with them.

Sinergy



Mercnbeth -> RE: Democratic Surrender and Polarization (3/12/2007 4:40:35 PM)

quote:

I am a bit puzzled why you attribute their desire to not debate on the Fox network as fear.
Your correct, it may not be fear but simply a matter of party identity. The situation does provide an example of Kerry-ess flip flopping. First approach Fox as a sponsor and then cite them as biased. It's an identity they seem to want to extend.

quote:

And I would like to point out that for the past 3-5 years, most (or all) of the speeches that the Simian In Chief has given have been to closed audiences, no or little press notification, who are friends from Daddy's rolodex.
Pointing out they offer no difference and offer no alternative.
quote:

I find it amusing as hell that Republicans are jumping on this to prove the Democrats are inferior; they have been doing the same exact thing to the Democrats for 6 years.
Ditto to above but the people they have to present an alternative view may not be so influenced or satisfied by juvenile name calling as some do.
quote:

Of course, I would treat them fairly.  It is much for fun watching somebody get voted into oblivion to their face than it is to play 3rd grade popularity contest style games with them.
The best thing that occurred for the Republicans who want to recapture the white house as well as the Senate and Congress was for the Democrats to win as they did. Now as the majority they claim was all they needed to effect change; they still point to the Republicans as the cause for their ineffectiveness and whine at not being "invited" to parties and meetings? Well it will be very hard for them to run on a platform of failed effectiveness as the majority. Of course they'll get the 'head bobers' but at a satisfaction level less than an incumbent tired and unpopular presidency I doubt Ms. Pelosi will need to be concerned of the size of her jet in 2 years. The 100 hours has long passed with no measurable results. The factions within the party serve to illustrate the point as to why.

The biggest accomplishment of this Congress was the passing of non-binding referendum! WOW - Why not back it up with a spending bill that would cut off funding and see how it flies. Allegedly they claimed that was the mandate they were given by the people in November. Now they attempt to bury a mandatory pull out within an all encompassing appropriations bill. Again do they fear clearness or is it a case that they fear factions within the Democratic party who don't support that effort?  Even if vetoed by President Bush it would be an example of integrity. I am anxious to support any party and/or candidate that illustrates that practically extinct trait among politicians. 

Fear describes the Democrats for me because they have opportunity, as a group, they don't use. Singularly the situation regarding FOX speaks to the leaders suffering the same cowardly trait.    

If the debate was used by the Republicans why is it any different than the use of any sound bite by either side. The issue in this instance however was created by the Democrats. If not fear what was it? It was their forum, their debate, their audience, 100% democratic candidates. What opportunity would they have provided the Republicans? Is it less an opportunity than can be exploited now? Even the most jaded Republican or Democratic 'head-bober' knows that any debate with pre-approved questions is in reality an extended political commercial.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125