How exact;u do Dems "legitimize" FOX news by spreading their substantive message on the network. How can that possibly hurt them!?

I think you are wrong about this - the Dems missed an opportunity. Hope they don't make that a habit.

It’s the smarter move strategically.

The last line sums up the conventional wisdom - I disagree. In the end I think Dems are more hurt than helped by legitimizing FOX News.

I read it.

Well, surprise, surprise. Another Republican in the form of Liz Mair opines that Democrats should allow Fox News to host a presidential debate because there are some voters who only get their news from Fox News Entertainment state run media. Boo effing hoo. I think Liz Mair has inadvertently conceded that there are only a few shows that contain legitimate news on the Fox... so maybe 2 whole hours at best out of an entire day of wall-to-wall pure unadulterated hateful bullshit where everyone else lies for a living.

Will all the Liz's please divest yourselves of the ridiculous and nonsensical notion that an adult truly interested in watching a presidential debate of the candidates running for the nomination of the Democratic Party cannot change the channel on their television sets?

President Obama was routinely demonized and dehumanized on Fox News to the point where he stopped appearing on that network. Since that time, this demonization and dehumanization of Democrats has done nothing but increase.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/10/01/demon-rats-dimms-and-why-fox-news-dehumanization-matters/221524

To me they're not even people. ~ Eric Trump speaking about Democrats

To each his/her own if they choose to appear on one of the so-called "good" Fox News Entertainment shows that are surrounded by wall-to-wall conspiracy theory bullshit and MAGAts that consult regularly with the con artist in the White House and spew lies and hatred on his behalf, but I think doing so is the equivalent of lending credence to their demonization/dehumanization and conspiracy theory bullshit in receipt of nothing… no photo op or amount of publicity is worth it.

There is an interesting report in the NYTimes today about the shortsightedness of the DNC's decision to exclude FOX news from hosting a Democratic primary debate.

If either of you have the time to have a look at it, I'd really appreciate your take and whether it changes your mind at all as to the advisability of Democrats participating in a FOX news debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/fox-news-democrats-debate.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Appearances by anyone on Fox News serves to legitimize the network... ditto for Alex Jones, RT News, and any other network.

Exactly. I don't think any Dems should appear on FOX at all. However I'm not in charge and not all Dems agree with me. But the more they move in that direction, the better. As I noted in my first post on the topic, Tom Perez was considering scheduling a debate with FOX. Activists pushed back - then the Jane Mayer story came out and the next day Perez made his announcement.

He may still go on FOX himself - I hope he doesn't.

Like I already said, the Democrats haven't had a primary debate hosted by Fox News in about twelve (12), a decade and a quarter, one dozen years... so all the ridiculous and righteous indignation and poutrage (pouting plus outrage) at this decision by Mr. Perez to continue the practice of still not having Democratic primary debates hosted by the Fox seems rather overdone. :)

Actually, the argument has moved to whether it is hypocritical to appear on FOX news a week ago AND boycott a primary debate on the network ...

If there is a presidential debate on FOX (has there ever been one?), would you be consistent and oppose the participation of the Democratic nominee?

If you need to ask if there's been a presidential debate on Fox News, then you've already proven an alarming ignorance regarding the subject matter. Yes, there have been multiple presidential debates on Fox News but none since Fox News has become the equivalent of Pravda.

Your argument against having anything to do with FOX is weak, from the get-go.

Your weak attempt at moving the goalposts is duly noted, but the argument is against having a Democratic primary debate on the Republican equivalent of Pravda. Try harder. :)

Tom Perez has appeared on FOX news and probably will again. More Democrats should do the same.

Sounds like a great idea. Maybe they could work Fox News into their schedules in between appearances on Alex Jones Info Wars and RT News.

I wonder if Paula and Kick think this is hypocritical behavior … or do appearances by Democrats on FOX news not serve to legitimize the network?

Appearances by anyone on Fox News serves to legitimize the network... ditto for Alex Jones, RT News, and any other network.

Any more questions?

If there is a presidential debate on FOX (has there ever been one?), would you be consistent and oppose the participation of the Democratic nominee?

Your argument against having anything to do with FOX is weak, from the get-go.

So, am I correct to assume that the Democratic presidential nominee will boycott s FOX news presidential debate?

Is there a scheduled Fox News presidential debate?
No, there isn't.

So I would say you're assuming a lot.

Because that could be described as childish behavior, at best...

So could whining about a candidate to be determined later not attending a debate that isn't even scheduled to occur at the present time. :)

I wonder if Paula and Kick think this is hypocritical behavior … or do appearances by Democrats on FOX news not serve to legitimize the network?

Because that could be described as childish behavior, at best, and quite dangerous, electorally speaking, at worst.

Fear of Fox, Trump and Republicans is the Democrat's message. And that fear is supposed to drive citizens to vote for Democrats because they are the only other choice.

Wrong again, DH. It's about not giving a platform to idiots. You above all people should recognize it. :)

Good points.

BDS...it's all meaningless to me. To my mind, it's like arguing over the colour of Unicorn piss.

Unicorns don't piss; they shit neapolitan ice cream. ;)

I have never recognised the state of Israel, I don't believe in it as a political entity, I don't subscribe to the Jewish claim over the land, and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if it vanished off the face of the earth.

You are henceforth legislatively censored, sir. I hereby smote thee...

I also don't recognise the Vatican as a sovereign state

going to Hell...

or Saudi Arabia as 'The Land of The Two Holy Masjids'.

and no virgins of any number for you, sir. ;)

I sure do hope that Democrats - presidential candidates or no - aren't as weak-minded as you make them out to be … or it's going to be four more horrible years.

You have now officially worn out the phrase "it's going to be four more horrible years" to insult candidates or posters who happen to disagree with your point of view. It's tired, Elizabeth. Try another one. :)

I'm just going to ignore that.

That's rather like saying "no comment," which is indeed a comment. :)

Paula is correct on this one. In fact, Fox News hasn't hosted a Democratic primary debate for about a dozen years already... so why start again now? Fast forward to today, and Fox News has become something akin to state run media -- think Pravda -- and, not widely known, the network and certain "talent" employed by said foreign owned company are indeed at the current time under investigation by the FBI and others. Remember who Michael Cohen listed as his "Client 3" to the Court at SDNY for which he's going to prison? Right.

Check out the Fox twitter feed. It's nonfunctioning and has been that way for several months now. There's a reason for that.

Oh, I could write several long and boring paragraphs about this, but let me cut to the chase. One of the most asinine things that Donald Trump has done is to give a platform to the lying, propagandizing, murdering regime of Kim Jong-un. Other administrations have visited the nuclear Korea issue, done the groundwork the current administration hasn't "felt the need" to undertake, and determined that the DPRK wasn't serious about halting their march toward a nuclear arsenal and therefore chose not to legitimize them by giving them a world platform in the form of a meeting with the President of the United States. On the other hand, Donald Trump hastily agreed to meet Kim in order to change a bad news cycle with a photo op... in receipt of nothing, and now here we are.

There is nothing whatsoever for Democrats to gain by giving state run Fox News media a platform and legitimizing their spew... not a single thing... and indeed at this point in time would be like allowing Alex Jones to host a presidential debate and thereby legitimize his bullshit. :)

Always the insult, Paula … sigh ...

Got two MORE enemies for you to add to your Fox last!

In spite of the fact that he hasn't yet released it (as of this minute, at least), there are two versions of the Mueller Report already for sale on the internet.

The land of Weigantia soon gonna be ankle-deep in wrist blood. Gawd, how we'll miss you girls!

That's wrong. It's the recognition that FOX is an enemy. That's the understanding Dems have needed to grasp - and that you appear unable to grasp.

You deal with enemies differently than friends or allies.

Your constant harping on "messaging" illustrates your superficial understanding of what's actually happening here. Your passive-aggressive "I want to benefit Democrats through my wisdom by constantly telling them how bad they are" is also telling.

BDS...it's all meaningless to me. To my mind, it's like arguing over the colour of Unicorn piss. I have never recognised the state of Israel, I don't believe in it as a political entity, I don't subscribe to the Jewish claim over the land, and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if it vanished off the face of the earth...And I don't have any anti-Semitic feelings whatsoever. I also don't recognise the Vatican as a sovereign state, or Saudi Arabia as 'The Land of The Two Holy Masjids'. I simply don't believe in any 'biblical/koranical' claim over anything more than weak minds and wasted time.

Of all Robbins' books, I identified with Jitterbug Perfume most (surprise, surprise). I have often thought, if immortality would only step up to the plate, religion could get of humanity's back, and do an honest day's work...for a change.

LL&P

The best thing that's been happening since the midterms are the outbreaks of Dems flexing their muscles and learning not to appease, not to enable, not to crouch in fear, not to pretend that you can be friends with villains without enabling villainy.

I sure do hope that Democrats - presidential candidates or no - aren't as weak-minded as you make them out to be … or it's going to be four more horrible years.

'm aware of what FOX news is. Democrats participating in a presidential debate there does not legitimize FOX news but rather exposes their viewers to a new message. Democrats don't need a better reason than that to participate.

Nope - you are wrong. Hugely and utterly wrong. FOX is poison and you never win when the people you are dealing with operate dishonestly. As for trying to reach FOX viewers - to hell with that. THAT is not sufficient reason to legitimize FOX.

Dems refusing to voluntarily be abused is progress.

I'm aware of what FOX news is. Democrats participating in a presidential debate there does not legitimize FOX news but rather exposes their viewers to a new message. Democrats don't need a better reason than that to participate.

What Dems have been afraid of for too long is calling out rightwing abuse and Dems learning to do that is a big step forward.

You've been listening to the wrong Democrats!! And, it seems to me that an appearance on FOX news would be the ideal place to call out all that needs calling out.

A good Democratic debate - that is to say when Biden is given more than his share of debating time … seriously - is hardly what I would call pandering.

I think this was a bad decision which showed a pathetic kind of weakness on the part of the Democratic party.

Will the Democratic presidential nominee refuse to debate Trump on FOX news? Not if he is Senator Biden. :)

I'm aware of what FOX news is. Democrats participating in a presidential debate there does not legitimize FOX news but rather exposes their viewers to a new message. Democrats don't need a better reason than that to participate.

What Dems have been afraid of for too long is calling out rightwing abuse and Dems learning to do that is a big step forward.

You've been listening to the wrong Democrats!! And, it seems to me that an appearance on FOX news would be the ideal place to call out all that needs calling out.

A good Democratic debate - that is to say when Biden is given more than his share of debating time … seriously - is hardly what I would call pandering.

I think this was a bad decision which showed a pathetic kind of weakness on the part of the Democratic party.

Will the Democratic presidential nominee refuse to debate Trump on FOX news? Not if he is Senator Biden. :)

As for dividing the country - it isn't going to come together by pandering to people who are brainwashed malicious fools. They have to be deprogrammed before they will be anything other than impediments to any kind of positive progress.

This was an excellent decision.

Fox is in the business of spreading *disinformation,* not conservative reportage...much of it is plainly about deceiving millions into believing that core functionings of our government -- whether law enforcement or congressional oversight -- no longer have any legitimacy.

AND

To the degree that Democrats are standing for the proposition that Fox has become an irredeemably malevolent and destructive force in our discourse and politics, they are getting a big and very important thing right.

The WaPo piece: https://t.co/3SNxTgIAF1

FOX News is a bullshit cesspool of lies and white supremacist propaganda. No Dem should legitimize it by appearing on it, period. The viewers have been documented to be specifically and notably ignorant and misinformed. Blotus follows the lead of FOX morons and look at the stupid/horrible/irresponsible stuff he does (apart from his own personal criminality).

What Dems have been afraid of for too long is calling out rightwing abuse and Dems learning to do that is a big step forward.

As for dividing the country - it isn't going to come together by pandering to people who are brainwashed malicious fools. They have to be deprogrammed before they will be anything other than impediments to any kind of positive progress.

This was an excellent decision.

The Democrats have lot an opportunity here by not participating in the FOX debate.

Decisions like this serve only to further divide your country with no apparent upside.

What are the Democrats afraid of, anyway?

I like to think he also heeded activists but regardless, I'll take it.

This was something many of us worked on. I had a very pleasant back & forth with a Tom Perez subordinate on the matter. Perez' initial position was that allowing FOX in was a way to reach out to it's viewers - to "not abandon them".

But many of us felt that "positive" was grossly outweighed by the negative of DNC legitimizing FOX. I tweeted to Tom Perez examples of Ingraham & other guests spewing their infanticide allegations and said to go on FOX legitimized that nonsense, as well as all the crackpots and liars that regularly appear there.

Lots of folks also communicated their feelings and it looks like we got through.

And the consensus is absolutely unclear! The general ideas are that Dems want someone strong, able to go toe-to-toe against Blotus, which they see as a matter of communication ability. They want someone who has "wide appeal" - which they define differently.

What they are not focused on is a list of issues - but lots of "gut feeling" re: electability.

Headline and sub: Democratic Voters Want “Electability,” But That Doesn’t Mean They Want A Centrist For President

Dozens of voters said they see “electability” as a combination of personality, energy, and ability to connect with an audience that has little to do with ideology.

I think debates are going to be critical - candidates will be compared to each other and people will be trying to decide who has that magic combo of qualities.

These people are nucking futs and the GOP is full of them. Pence and those like him really believe crazy stuff.

Congresswoman Omar gives a very long and very detailed answer beginning at the 28:30 mark in the video that is, perhaps, one of the best assessments and critiques I’ve ever seen an elected or appointed American official make of US foreign policy, including the national security portions of it. She is clearly informed, she’s clearly given this a lot of thought, and what she’s saying is both accurate and something that needs to be heard. And you’ll notice that she references consulting with Secretary Albright! It is at the 45:30 mark that she lays down her first marker by stating that “you may want to see me as a Somali-American, but I am a member of Congress”. This establishes the foundation for her later remarks about allegiance. Omar’s remarks that have caused so much sturm and drang begin at 59:26 and follow Congresswoman Tlaib’s remarks for thanking Jewish allies for standing up and being supportive of both the broad call for human rights and the specific one regarding doing something to improve the current existence of the Palestinians. I recommend that everyone who has not actually watched the video to take a moment and watch at least Congresswoman Omar’s remarks that begin at 59:26 if not both of her extended remarks. She didn’t say anything anti-Semitic. In fact she goes out of her way to contextualize her remarks so that they aren’t. You’ll also notice that her colleagues Congresswoman Jayapal and Congressman Pocan aren’t reacting negatively in real time to her remarks. Congresswoman Omar also made it clear in her remarks that she was anticipating the response that she has received.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/03/05/the-2020-elections-will-be-open-information-warfare/

Ha! After reading Paula, and starting to scroll down I thought to myself that sounds a lot like Tom Robbins' Skinny Legs and All." Buddy Winkler as the prototype of "Their unholy (literally) alliance with the GOP has brought out the worst in them all." Needs to be pointed out more often. (And the book should be read more often for fun.)

For a reality based blog you sure ignore an awful lot of reality.

Said the guy who ignores the undeniable reality that he's being ignored. :)

I just read where somebody has re-christened it as "The "Alka Seltzer Report", (as in "Plop Plop Fizz-le Fizz-le, Oh What an Anti-climax It Is-le").

Only a truly rotten-to-the-core illegitimate bastard would revel in schadenfreude, not to mention smug satisfaction over this kind of stuff, but hey, paternity has come into question before!

But politicians should never be allowed to legislate away the rights of anyone to hold whatever political beliefs they choose. This is a foundational part of our entire political system.

Democracy is currently under attack by the very people with the responsibility to uphold it, who've sworn under oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If every American believed in the same ideals and agreed on issues, there'd be no need whatsoever for democracy or the checks and balances that are the sworn duty of our representatives, but we watch daily as our representatives cede and sacrifice their power... our power. This sacrificing of our democracy is the hallmark of kings, dictators, and their enablers who make decisions for their own benefit versus the benefit of "We the People," but Trump too shall pass. :)

With friends like conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party, Israel doesn't need any enemies.

I feel obliged to elaborate.

I mean to say that the conservative evangelicals and GOP aren't doing Israel any favours (and they know it!) by advocating unconditional support for the Likud party's policies toward the Palestinian people. Policies which are not good for the future of Israel as a Jewish state AND a democracy.

-CW

I don't believe it names her, but the point is pretty clear.

As for your comments on evangelicals, this was first pointed out (to me, at least) in the book "Skinny Legs And All" by Tom Robbins (1990). Back then, he was really referring to Dan Quayle's influence... (you know, that OTHER veep from IN).

C. R. Stucki [2] -

I'm amazed that the inside-the-Beltway chatter went -- in one week's time! -- from "Mueller report imminent" to "Mueller's report will be a dud." I've heard it here, I've heard it there... but nobody knows what will really be in the report.

It's all speculation, at this point, or to quote "Yellow Submarine" (the movie, not the song): "It's all in the mind, y'know."

We'll see, once it's out. One way or the other. That's the only thing for certain at this point...

-CW

Fair warning, the article headline reads "TOO GREAT EXPECTATIONS".

It IS indefensible and is another area where church is encroaching all over state and it has to be stopped. Separation of church and state really has to start being emphasized.

My understanding is that the censuring or whatever being mooted doesn't name Ilhan Omar specifically - if true, good, coz it's crap. (Really BAD if it does name her.)