Friday, March 16, 2007
|
|
HamNation: Finding Media Fair Enough for Democrats
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
11:48 AM
|
|
Well, as we've all heard by now, Democrats will not be participating in a fall debate that was supposed to be hosted by Fox News, because the most-watched cable news network is insufficiently friendly toward them.
Now, Rahm Emanuel is warning freshman Democrats to stay away from Stephen Colbert because, apparently, facing left-leaning, fake newscasters is too risky as well.
So, here at HamNation, Katie Favazza and I have done our best to assemble a crack news team that might meet the Dems' standards. They're fairer than Katie Couric. Fairer than Jon Stewart. Fairer even than Dan Rather:
|
|
And your legs are better than KKKkkatie's ANYDAY.
More vlogging!
You did great (for real) on FOX the other day, too! |
|
|
with Kermit there it makes your news cast green freindly also. |
|
|
But the key questions are left unresolved. One, will the news team stick to pre-approved areas for discussion? And, Two, will they submit their questions in advance so that they might be cherry-picked to show Democrat candidates in the best light? |
|
|
That local news intro that you, um, "borrowed" really made my day. Holy retro 80's goodness! Yet another reason to love HamNation. Stay classy, Washington. |
|
I think that is sad, but don't be too smug, the Republicans will not go on either.
I love all your little sycophants, Great Job, Your legs are great, You did great on FOX.....oh please............get a life. |
|
|
|
|
You'd really benefit from taking a public speaking class at your local community college, or join Toastmasters, before you put yourself out there looking like this. Good luck! |
|
...fluff, flakes and fawning .
Interviewer: Dangerous, probing, controversial questions such as "what do you have on your ipod".
Interviewee: Quiver, quake, tremble. |
|
So, If Kermit stepped infront of a green screen . .
Just thinkin'
- The Cat |
|
|
I don't know what to say, except that you have taken video blogging to a new plateau. |
|
|
she's so gorgeous that she'd probably have her own show on MSLSD. Maybe take some airtime away from Keith Overbite... |
|
Your regular creativity and energy are greatly appreciated. Pay no mind to the winers and haters who snark from the sidelines, yet put forth no effective alternative of their own.
Call me a fan, because your vlog content *is* quality, and it is only going to get better. ;-) |
|
Someone please explain the psychology of those who troll websites. Need some trolls for the trolls. It might just provide a different perspective for them. That is, if they put anything of value out there in the first place. It's one thing to provide an alternative point-of-view. Spewing hate-filled diatribes does absolutely nothing to help win folks to your way of thinking. Seems counter-productive, but I doubt those who do it put much thought into what they are actually doing.
FWIW, I really enjoy muppet satire. There needs to be a lot more of it. Nostalgia + humor = a winning combination. I want to see more Beaker and Swedish Chef. Oh, and the 2 guys who sit in the balcony. Huh-larious... |
|
|
Great legs?? I thought it might be your message, but I guess "great legs" seems to be the appeal to others. |
|
|
|
I am not aware of any major television channel that devotes several hours of prime time every evening to bashing the Republicans, but FOX News offers Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson to tell us, in detail, all that is wrong with the Democrats. At other times we are treated to Cal Thomas, Bret Hume, and others. Even straight news reporting sometimes finds FOX's luscious-lipped girl reporters rolling their eyes or pausing for dramatic effect when speaking of Democrats. Anyone who thinks FOX is not right-biased is dumb enough to have voted for George W Bush.
And Ailes' so-called joke comparing Barack Obama with Sadam Hussein was a major breach of taste. I applaud the Democrats for refusing to debate on FOX. Maybe I missed it, but did any Republicans offer to debate on Air America? |
|
The reason Fox is #1 by far is because of how liberal CNN and MSLSD are.
Obama and Saddam?? Are you really that stupid? It was a shot at Bush for being stupid enough to confuse Obama with Osama. What does that say about you? |
|
I know you rightwingers would love nothing better than for Democrats to be set up as ducks for the shooting guns of FoxNews, but, really, what's the benefit to Democrats?
Strategically, it just makes sense for them not to submit themselves to being set up. You'd be wise to advocate a similar strategy for your side.
The Dems aren't going to lose their core voters by not showing up to debate on a FoxNews run show.
Make hay out of this all you want, Ham. It only makes a good show for those who would never vote Democrat anyway. And it makes you look petty in a playground kind of taunting way. |
|
|
You're right in that they are not going to lose the loony leftists. But don't be an idiot and abandon all reason trying to defend them. The demographics says that more liberals and independents watch Fox than conservatives. Fox is also #1 in total viewers by far. If the Dems want to win moderates over, this move is just stupid. It only pleases that far left base. |
|
|
It's not about keeping the radical left happy at all. It's about keeping the red meat away from conservative wolves. Assuming all you say about moderate liberals and their love affair with Fox is true (something I find incredibly hard to believe), not even these folks want to see their own set up for what could very likely (and probably) turn out to be a bloodletting. I consider myself a very moderate liberal, even conservative on some issues; but I wouldn't want to see my candidates set up as target practice for the Republicans. Everyone knows that the only thing that can come out of this kind of a set-up debate is some ammunition that conservatives will be able to use in the general election. I'd give up an opportunity to reach a few moderate liberals who only watch Fox if it meant keeping the bloodthirsty conservative wolves at bay. Strategically, it's sound advice to avoid such a set-up. The costs are potentially much higher and likely then any imaginable benefits. And that's precisely why conservatives like it so much. The fact that folks like Ham want to try to shame liberals into walking into the lion's den makes it even more clear that staying away from the forum is the right way to go. It always tickles me that conservatives think liberals really give a damn about being called scardy-cat, muppetized, sissies. That only works on people with "tough-guy" self-esteem problems, i.e. conservatives. You all project much to much of your own insecurities onto liberals? Conservative motto: no pain ... no gain. Liberal motto: no pain ... no pain. |
|
how do these liberals plan on protecting a country? And how does a fox-televised-debate of democrats become a "bloodletting"? What do you expect? moderator Brit Hume to pull brass knuckles?
Maybe you libs are just so insecure in your ideas you're worried 'facts' might get in the way. If one is certain he is right, he should be able to defend his positions even on such 'hostile' networks as Fox. Amazing how free debate and discussion has become some 'neocon' plot. |
|
|
The OTHER reason WHY the dems are to avoid Fox News is that TOO many people watch the shows, present company included. |
|
Does that charge also apply as an explanation of why Bush is unwilling to have Rove and others testify under oath to a bipartisan panel of Congresspeople regarding something so harmless to US national security as the firing of US attorneys?
Come now, you're playing the "macho" card yourself, and it's not very becoming. Having big balls usually means nothing more than a painful and debilitating swelling. Please, leave it at the playground with the third-graders lest you embarrass yourself some more.
Really, how much can you really care that the Democrats are missing out on such a golden opportunity to convince moderates and independents? You should be pleased that they are skipping on the chance. The fact that you and others lament and criticize this decision has absolutely nothing to do with any altruistic concern for improving the Democrats' prospects with swing voters. If anything, it indicates the opposite: you are rankled that conservatives have been denied the opportunity to belittle, harass, and mock Democrats through this set-up.
I repeat, it's simply a good, strategic, and prudent decision for the Democrats. It's actually a decision that John Hawkins might argue conservatives should learn by. Your side would be prudent to do likewise in a similar situation. The costs are potentially much higher than the benefits. |
|
You liberals are really that bad that you can have intelligent discourse without going nuts on Bush and/or insulting your opponent.
You have the ability to read through my 30 words I've posted here to come to such conclusions as: I'm "playing a "macho" card", that I "lament" their decision, that I am "rankled that conservatives have been denied the opportunity to belittle, harass, and mock Democrats through this set-up".
If its "macho" to make fun of your comparison of Fox as a "lion's den" and a "bloodletting", then maybe you do need to acquire some "big balls".
Instead of being a close minded liberal, try this:
-look up the demographics of Fox. Notice that like I told you, many liberals and independents watch.(don't be stupid, its impossible for most the viewers to be 'neocons' with ratings that high)
-Fox has hosted previous democrat debates. They were fair, and there were no complaints. Look it up yourself.(In case you are a complete moron, a debate consists of democratic politicians talking 97% of the time with moderator Brit Hume asking each occasional questions) |
|
|
It's prudent and strategically sound. Tell me again why you care what the Democrats do or don't do in this regard? |
|
|
...it for myself to better understand what the dems stand for, I don't care if they make stupid decisions and never have. It is simply very telling(perhaps more so than the debate itself would have been) that the party of "cut-and-run" has cut-and-run from a Fox sponsored debate. And then leftists like you support the move citing hostile conditions on par with a "lion's den" etc. I also believe that is is valid for me to point out that if the dems can't handle a fox debate, how are they going to run this nation and fight the evil in the world? |
|
|
Let's at least be honest. I think, in your own mind, you understand perfectly well what you think the Dems stand for. And I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you don't need a debate on FoxNews to help you make up your mind. And, frankly, neither do I. The absolute best you can come up with against the Democrats is to try to interpret this move as confirmation of everything bad you already thought of the Democrats to begin with. You prove my point: what could the Democrats have possibly gained by you in participating in such a debate? Absolutely nothing. They've lost nothing by refusing other than your faux-respect. And they never had that to start with. It's smart politics. |
|
If you want to argue whether it was "smart politics" I think I have already proven that wrong. I told you how a debate works and the demographics of the Fox audience. Scroll up.
Your psychic powers are amazing. You can read my mind to the point you are willing to "bet dollars to doughnuts". And then from there you apparently imply that "Absolutely nothing" could be "possibly gained" because they couldn't change my or your mind.
I guess logic just doesn't work with you. You do know that there are more people than just you and I in the world, right?
Unless these psychic powers apply to all people, you can't simply conclude that the debate would have achieved "Absolutely nothing" because you have read my mind. |
|
|
|