Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Choice is Getting Obvious

The top three Democrats running for President ran like scared little girls (no offense to Hillary) from that most beastly of foes, the Fox News Channel. In a time when war is being waged against us by a small but well financed legion of lethal true believers, that faintness of heart should disqualify the lot of them. The Republicans running for President, on the other hand, knew they would be treated shabbily by CNN in the farce last evening called a YouTube debate, but they went on anyway.

And they were treated shabbily. Several of the questioners were lying about their affiliation, called Republicans or undecided, when they are clearly on the record as promoting or working on the team of Democrat hopefuls. Michelle Malkin slices and dices CNN on that front.

But the best analysis on the bias in the selection of the questions I've read so far is by Fred Barnes here. His best paragraphs:

But it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the "surge" in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress.

Instead there were questions--ones moderator Anderson Cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners--on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible. The best response to these questions was Romney's refusal to discuss what the Confederate flag represents. Fred Thompson discussed it.


By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive. And there were two questions by African Americans premised loosely on the notion that blacks get nothing from Republicans and have no reason to vote for them.

I hate the very format of these so called debates, and the fact that people like loopy Ron Paul (who really came off as a crazy old man) are included, but at least the Republicans have the fortitude to face an actual hostile and biased format. The Democrats run from the mere (and probably false) preception of bias.

Of course, Democrats generally don't think we are even at war. Alternative reality indeed.


I had a post of my own on the Democrats inability to face of w/Fox news. Children dont like to answer questions asked by adults, and now the childish behaviour and notions of the left were made apparent.
I wouldn't worry about it. If Rudy suffered any damage as a result of the experience, he can just pass his expenses along to the Loft Board.
Why face off with Ruppert Murdoch's propaganda machine? If anything, eschewing Fox News displays common sense. Glad I skipped your post Lysander. If your comment is any indication of its content I doubt if there was much food for thought as opposed to empty calories.
Pete, it just hit me that you have twice in this blog's coments section groundlessly accused famous conservatives of homosexual pediphilia (sp?). That's slander, brother. If you do it again, I'll block your comments.
Duk, how is it in your separate reality? Propoganda machine? You mean G. Rivera, Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Mort Kondrake, and Greta Van Susteren? Those hateful propagandists? You have proved an example of the Left's the brave choice of non-confrontation. QED
Let me get this strait. CNN is biased to the left, but fox is not biased to the right?

Is that what you are saying Roger?
Actually it would be liable not slander. And I don't think Trent wants to be deposed on that issue.
Mike, I can name, without looking at the website, 6 people on Fox News who lean to the left, can you name one, ONE, on CNN who leans right. If not, I think you just lost the argument.

Pete, that's three. I getting you blocked. If you can't argue nice (and by argue in your context, I mean going to wikipedia and copying away) you can't argue here. Go defame people, on whose ass you would not make a pimple, somewhere else.
Everythingh you say about me may be true but at least I've never said that this country would be better of with a segregationist as president.
"(and by argue in your context, I mean going to wikipedia and copying away"

Roger can't handle it when someone actually makes a statement and cites something to support it.
Roger, have you thought about the fact that if you ban me you're banning about 25% of your readers.
When you admit to liabel, I just can't let you stay, no matter what percentage you are of the blog's readership. Are you leaving on your own or am I going to have to take action?
I can name plenty of right leaning writers at the NYT, does that make them balanced?

Come on Roger, you can do better than that.

And I wasn't arguing, I was asking for clarification. Show some intellectual integrity and take the position: are you saying CNN is biased and Fox is not?

It is a yes or no question.
I believe CNN is biased towards the left and makes only the most superficial efforts to be fair. I think Fox News is on the whole biased towards the right, but makes real efforts to present both sides. Not yes or no but a fair answer, I think, Mike. Cold in Prague? Snow in the mountains?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?