July 27, 2007

Obama: Will meet with brutal dictators, afraid to appear on Fox News

What does that say about the state of the Left here in the US? Barack Obama recently stated that he'd be willing to meet with some of the most heinous dictators of the world, yet he's a member of the party that refuses to even debate on a particular news channel due to a perception of political bias.

"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so - just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," [Obama foreign policy adviser Anthony] Lake said.

But "a great nation and its president" should fear debating in a forum where slightly tougher questions may be asked of them!

Fox News: More dangerous than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is it any wonder why the GOP still has a shot at the presidency in 2008 despite ridiculously low poll numbers?

Posted by Felix at July 27, 2007 01:11 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

By and large, there is shame to be put on most all of the MSM, however, I have a few questions:

First of all, is OBAMA actually refusing to go on, or is it just a trend in his party?

Second of all, which show are we talking about here? I'm sure Fox & Friends is a little bit better forum for debate than, say, The O'Reilly Factor (Jeremy Glick, anyone?), and would therefore be a little more enticing to would-be guests.

Third of all, can you honestly blame him? Say what you will, FNC has a horrible reputation of having a sharp bias to the right. Yes, there are many liberal reporters on MSNBC/friendds (I can't put in the acronym form of the Cable News Network for some reason) who also show a love for the left and a disgust for the right -- Keith Olbermann and Larry King, for example -- but there are not nearly as many of them, nor are their biases as strong, as the likes of Sean Hannity, Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly. Also, there are at least conservative presences on MSNBC like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough.

Fourth of all, for Christ's sake, why don't we just watch C-SPAN once in a while? Regardless of the degree of bias in any network, C-SPAN is unfiltered news, meaning that it is bias-free. AND they don't flood the headlines with Paris Hilton-esque reports. AND they give us a better idea of the true beliefs of any politician than
FNC et al can.

Posted by: Mat Marshall at July 27, 2007 02:30 PM

Mat, it isn't about going on any shows per se, but just agreeing to have a pres. debate on FNC.

Third of all, can you honestly blame him? Say what you will, FNC has a horrible reputation of having a sharp bias to the right.

And there you make Felix's point perfectly, I'm afraid! He'll meet with dictators, but "we shouldn't blame him" for refusing to appear on a right-leaning network! How does that make sense?

Posted by: Hube at July 27, 2007 02:38 PM

BTW, here's proof that Obama refuses to debate on FNC. Here's a whole gaggle.

These are partly to answer Mat's query above but also Perry's now-deleted comment in which he continues to abuse the hosts of this blog with epithets he continually excoriates others for [supposedly] using. That, and his continued insistence for explanations of things that have been explained ad nauseum.

Posted by: Hube at July 27, 2007 03:20 PM

You have to realize the Dem perspective here -- international dictators who want to destroy America are not the enemies of America; FoxNews is the enemy of America.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 27, 2007 05:10 PM

RWR, don't be absurd. Only a wingnut would state such a thing, let alone believe it.

Re Obama and FoxNews, I stand corrected. It should be stated that FoxNews, with their "fair and balanced" self-ascribed mantra, have done their best to demonize the man. Nevertheless, Obama and the Dems should step up, even in hostile territory, so I am disappointed in their position.

Let us see if the GOP candidates step up to the YouTube debate on September 17. So far, only Paul and McCain have agreed to appear.

I also stand by my comments about you two bloggers that you have censored, therefore it is not possible for me to repeat them. Why is it that you choose to censor rather than discuss and debate? I must have hit a nerve. Shame!

Posted by: Perry Hood at July 27, 2007 10:06 PM

Perry: You're like the goddamn Energizer Bunny. You just keep going and going with the same stuff, never remembering what has been said before, and ignoring others' points all the while injecting your irrelevancies. (For instance, "you stand corrected" regarding Obama's refusal to debate on FNC, yet at the same time make the unsubstantiated allegation that the channel has "demonized" the man. Prove it.)

Your "censored" comments were completely irrelevant AND THE TOPIC HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE. If you cannot remember it because you forgot your Geritol, don't blame us.

Look, don't go away mad, just ... go away.

Posted by: Hube at July 28, 2007 11:06 AM

Consider the rhetoric deployed by Democrats against FoxNews, and compare it to the rhetoric deployed against the dictators.

Which is spoken of more harshly? FoxNews.

Which are they unwilling to speak to? FoxNews.

Which do they obviously view as the grater threat to America? FoxNews.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 28, 2007 12:59 PM

Oh, and Perry -- under your line of reasoning, the GOP candidates should only appear on FoxNews, given that the rest of the major media may as well be wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democrats.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 28, 2007 01:00 PM


Good points, although regarding the whole dictators vs. FNC thing, Fox News doesn't really have a relationship to be repaired with the United States, because it's PART of the United States, whereas Cuba, North Korea, etc. are diplomatic issues which somebody needs to address. Should he go on Fox News for a debate? Hell, he should go anywhere for a debate, but there is a huge difference between Hugo Chavez and Neil Cavuto.

Posted by: Mat Marshall at July 28, 2007 03:17 PM

Mat: You're right -- there IS a huge difference between Hugo Chavez and Neil Cavuto. The former is a proto-authoritarian dictator who's slowly transforming his country into another Cuba, and the latter is merely a business-oriented news show host.

At least you concede that Obama should go to FNC to debate! The question remains, why won't he, yet is willing to meet right away with the world's nuttiest leaders without conditions.

Posted by: Hube at July 28, 2007 03:47 PM

He should go debate there, yes, assuming this will be an actual, moderated debate and not some kind of Sean Hannity-type debate where you just yell over whoever you brought on to the show.

The point I'm illustrating with Chavez vs. Cavuto is that Cavuto is frankly harmless when it comes to national security/foreign policy, so it makes plenty of sense to me that Obama would make it a priority to speak to Hugo, Kim, Mahmoud and Fidel. As to why he won't go on Fox, the answer is simply that he and the rest of the liberals (myself included) don't trust it. Does that make it right? No. I think that if he really knows his issues and we're talking about an actual, facilitated, civil debate here, he could really do well. However, I fully understand why he is at all hesitant to go on a channel which not only has a history of biting off the heads of everybody who goes on the air, but has also been skewering Obama personally for being a Muslim (not that it matters, but he's not). I wish that he would step up, Hube, understand that. If he were to do well despite his surroundings, he could really do well to wrap up the primary and possibly the general election. But he's not, and while that's a shame, I don't really think that you can very well compare Fox News and foreign leaders on either side of the argument.

Posted by: Mat Marshall at July 30, 2007 06:49 AM