Kuchinich might have a report about the FOX debate

[Bill]

I figure the marketplace argument still stands.

But I read somewhere that Kuchinich was saying dems shouldn't decline the FOX debate because they should have answers ready for the kind of highly critical questions FOX people would ask.

I figure he has a point - they should have answers to the big money parties meanest questions.

It almost makes me think they should do the FOX debates - or at least make sure that highly critical and loaded questions are asked at the other debates.

[stefan segal]

Bill saiid: "because they should have answers ready for the kind of highly critical questions FOX people would ask."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill, dems aren't concerned about "highly critical" questions ...the deal breaker is fox's history of spinning for repugs and against dems.

Fox is outrageous in the depths of thier spinning (lying) for repug's motives and methods being not culpable right up to when the jail cell door slams on them...then their crimes and all those that may or may not be involved equally or moreso, are missing from foxviews.

fox will, if having the option to host a debate, would rig the terms giving repugs real questions while asking dems questions about their aunt Mabel's toe problems...the manner that "debates" are staged for television make them a mud slinging contest...there is time allowed only for soundbite responses and not the time to develop a viewpoint or a position.

The problems we face in this country today do not remedy themselves with 'yes/no' choices covered by the sound-bite venue which is only long enough to show one's denture work while identifying oneself as a 'yes' or a 'no' man/woman.

Winning in a world active with terrorism is not achieved by law or military might, just as growing a noteworthy crop of tomatoes is not done by swinging a sword over ground as it develops...some problems just become worse with sword swinging.

Terrorists need to spend their time thinking about how they can improve thier businesses rather than improving the governing body that makes their laws. If a man has no future he will strike back at whatever he tags as his oppressor. If there is attention and effort expended to fertalize his life for the future, then he will join and help his future mature, rather than blow it up.

There will always be terrorists, just as there will always be those preaching religion...it's their way of interacting with society...fucked up...not nearly normal, but they will exist whatever is done, good or bad... with them or for them. We live with mosquitoes also...our life isn't shaped around mosquitoes...we do what we think is best about them, and get on with life.

Kucinich is worthy of great admiration and respect...his political face is not handled, managed and opinionated through the poles, his play is to get air time for his vision whenever/however, so his opinion is right on target...for him.

But the other canidates aren't in his game and to enter an administrated "debate" slanted against them is a lousey choice if wanting to win in 08.

Stefan

[Bill]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of tricky questions FOX dudes would ask.

It would be interesting to watch, in a bullfight kind of way. Blood in the dirt.

[stefan segal]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of tricky questions FOX dudes would ask.

It would be interesting to watch, in a bullfight kind of way. Blood in the dirt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill give rush limbough a call...lie to get on the air, then ask him something like: how do repugs keep smiling when stealing all the money got on credit to run a war, while making all the rest of the country's grandchildren pay for it?

Then you can watch the blood up close and personal.

Why would dems enter a rigged contest? Why don't you make the above call?
Maybe the reasons are similar.:)

Stefan

[Moby]

There is not even a point in discussing this. In a debate forum there is only about 30 to 60 seconds to reply to any answer and the way the question is asked frames everything. Comparing it to negotiating skills is pointless and silly.

Let's take at the following 3 questions and see if it's possible to change the spin of any of them within 30 seconds.

1. Mr. Bush, you've headed major oil companies, your father was a brilliant President and you were the govener of the great state of Texas. Please tell all the doughtors that haven't read your resume why this vast pool of experience makes you the best choice for president.

2. Mr. Bush, please tell us in your own words why you feel your past experience makes you a good presidential candidate.

3. Mr. Bush, you bankrupted Arbusto Energy, Inc. Your brother cost the tax payers of America an estimated 1 Billion $$$ by making bad and shady business deals and you are a convicted addict. Why should this country ignore your past and put you in charge of our future and our money when you and your family have a history of failure?


All three questions are very accurate and could all be asked in a debate yet only one of them in neutral and has any point in being in a non-biased debate.

[Mr. Blue]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of tricky questions FOX dudes would ask.

It would be interesting to watch, in a bullfight kind of way. Blood in the dirt.

This makes the assumption that the Fox guys can ask tricky questions. I highly doubt they can. I'm kind of worried about a candidate that can't match wits with the fox talking heads.

The thing with Fox news, they do far better when they can control the conversation from start to finish, without having the person there to defend themselves. A few months back John Kerry had an interview with O'Reilly...Kerry came off really good in that interview. It made me wonder if he had used Fox during '04 how he would have been able to extinguish a lot of the one sided criticism.

It's really easy to rip someone that's not there to defend themselves. I think it's really dangerous for Democrats or Republicans to only play to friendly audiences.