Cancelled Presidential debates smack of manipulation by ‘run and hide’ candidates...

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Cancelled Presidential debates smack of manipulation by ‘run and hide’ candidates

Submitted by AndyJ on Sun, 2007-03-11 11:33.

AUSTIN (TX) -- The cancellation in the past two days of two planned nationally televised debates because of candidates’ “scheduling conflicts” and unwillingness to participate smacks of “manipulation by some candidates who would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today while campaigning in Texas.

Widely publicized Presidential debates in New Hampshire in April and in Nevada in August were cancelled after some candidates either backed out after agreeing to participate or declined invitations to attend.

“Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection.”

Kucinich said “it’s an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny.”

more...

[TexasTiger 13,029]

David embraces the looney left.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Cancelled Presidential debates smack of manipulation by ‘run and hide’ candidates

Submitted by AndyJ on Sun, 2007-03-11 11:33.

AUSTIN (TX) -- The cancellation in the past two days of two planned nationally televised debates because of candidates’ “scheduling conflicts” and unwillingness to participate smacks of “manipulation by some candidates who would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today while campaigning in Texas.

Widely publicized Presidential debates in New Hampshire in April and in Nevada in August were cancelled after some candidates either backed out after agreeing to participate or declined invitations to attend.

“Whatever their excuses, some candidates are clearly trying to avoid any head-to-head public debate where they will have to answer tough questions -- questions about their votes in favor of the Iraq war, their votes in favor of trade policies that have wiped out millions of American jobs, their votes in favor of abridging Constitutional rights by approving the Patriot Act, and their collaboration with insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations to deny Americans adequate health care protection.”

Kucinich said “it’s an insult to the voters, and the height of cynicism, for candidates to refuse to take the public stage and subject themselves to public scrutiny.”

more...

[DKW 86 7,441]

Seems the Dems will have a whole election where they are too busy to answer many/any questions. Wont debate with Fox present, too busy to go to this debate. Wont go to that debate. Strange days indeed...most peculiar.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Wont debate with Fox present...

You don't even understand the story you're posting about.

BTW, talk about hypocrisy:

What the Fox News CEO said about debates when he was Bush's campaign manager:

Roger Ailes, media consultant to George Bush, calls it ''baloney'' that a series of Bush-Dukakis debates would be good for the country. Voters would watch only one or two of them, he told a recent interviewer, and besides, ''I don't think you learn anything about the issues'' from Presidential debates.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...%2fD%2fDebating

"I don't know that we need to do more than one. There's no reason to think we'd need more than one. That's a negotiating item." He added: "We're not anxious to debate at this point. We intend to debate, but we're not going to let anybody stampede us into a debate."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc..._changes_h.html

[DKW 86 7,441]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid.

[Tiger Al 0]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb." Where does this come from?

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid. Where do you get that Fox can't be allowed to be part of the debate?

Do you just make stuff up as you go?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid.

I haven't heard Edwards say this: "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Got a link, or is that just those pesky voices in your head again?

No one has said they "Wont [sic] debate with Fox present." This was about allowing them to be the sponsor. I'm sure Fox will cover any debate it chooses, but apparently it won't be a sponsor for Dem debates, just as I doubt the Republicans will allow Air America to be the sponsor for one of their's.

[DKW 86 7,441]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb." Where does this come from?

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid. Where do you get that Fox can't be allowed to be part of the debate?

Do you just make stuff up as you go?

http://www.google.com/search?q=edwards+fox...amp;startPage=1

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/03...ws-channel.html

http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=622107&t=8

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...p;enterthread=y

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/9/20352/75748

Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince sent the following email to supporters this evening.

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

And John's not their only target. Tonight Fox News Vice President David Rhodes is telling news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of "radical fringe" groups - meaning grassroots Democrats (that would be you) - who objected to Fox's long history of spreading Republican propaganda at the expense of Democratic leaders.

The whole right-wing is getting in on the attack; the Drudge Report is blaring the headline: "War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate." (BTW The quote is right above this and the Edwards Campaign misquotes the headline that is PICTURED on the same page.... )

No one cares WHO pays for the lights? Edwards was ducking the questions he was going to get asked.

[DKW 86 7,441]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid.

I haven't heard Edwards say this: "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Got a link, or is that just those pesky voices in your head again?

No one has said they "Wont [sic] debate with Fox present." This was about allowing them to be the sponsor. I'm sure Fox will cover any debate it chooses, but apparently it won't be a sponsor for Dem debates, just as I doubt the Republicans will allow Air America to be the sponsor for one of their's.

Edwards never said that. Al quoted an article that basically didnt say it either, although Al said it did.

[Tiger Al 0]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid.

I haven't heard Edwards say this: "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb."

Got a link, or is that just those pesky voices in your head again?

No one has said they "Wont [sic] debate with Fox present." This was about allowing them to be the sponsor. I'm sure Fox will cover any debate it chooses, but apparently it won't be a sponsor for Dem debates, just as I doubt the Republicans will allow Air America to be the sponsor for one of their's.

Edwards never said that. Al quoted an article that basically didnt say it either, although Al said it did.

Where did I say that? You should change your title to "Absolute King of the Strawman Argument."

[Tiger Al 0]

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

Oh yeah, we're Fox...Fair and Balanced.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Dude, you're really wearing out the strawman metaphor.

Try this: Knowledge is power!

Feel free to forward this link along to the DNC. May add a breath of fresh air and creativity to their talking points papers.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

No Tex, Ailes had every right to do anything he wanted. Edwards has every right to do anything he wants.

The real discussion here is that Edwards is trying to manipulate this event into crack cocaine hit for the moonbat left in the party. So far we have gone from: "Fox is biased." To "All Fox viewers are stupid." To "If you have ever walked thru a room when Fox was on, you are dumb." Where does this come from?

Hey, can we lighten up now? Edwards had the right to get out of the Debate. To now have the Moonbats decreeing that Fox cannot be allowed to part of a debate is stoopid. Where do you get that Fox can't be allowed to be part of the debate?

Do you just make stuff up as you go?

http://www.google.com/search?q=edwards+fox...amp;startPage=1

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/03...ws-channel.html

http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=622107&t=8

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...p;enterthread=y

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/9/20352/75748

Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince sent the following email to supporters this evening.

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

And John's not their only target. Tonight Fox News Vice President David Rhodes is telling news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of "radical fringe" groups - meaning grassroots Democrats (that would be you) - who objected to Fox's long history of spreading Republican propaganda at the expense of Democratic leaders.

The whole right-wing is getting in on the attack; the Drudge Report is blaring the headline: "War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate." (BTW The quote is right above this and the Edwards Campaign misquotes the headline that is PICTURED on the same page.... )

No one cares WHO pays for the lights? Edwards was ducking the questions he was going to get asked.

You keep changing your position on this.

[Tiger Al 0]

Dude, you're really wearing out the strawman metaphor.

Try this: Knowledge is power!

Feel free to forward this link along to the DNC. May add a breath of fresh air and creativity to their talking points papers.

It's not a metaphor. It's a fallacious argument. Dude.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."

Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"

Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."

Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."

Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:

Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."

Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"

Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The Straw Man ... is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position

It's a metaphor.

Main Entry: hyperbole

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: exaggeration

Synonyms: PR*, amplification, ballyhoo, big talk*, coloring*, distortion, embellishment, embroidering, enlargement, hype*, magnification, metaphor, overstatement, puff, tall talk*

Last entry

If you're going to rely on wikipedia for your information, at least use it correctly.

List of political metaphors

You're getting to be monotonous as you tend to drop this metaphor every other post.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Straw Man ... is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position

It's a metaphor.

Main Entry: hyperbole

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: exaggeration

Synonyms: PR*, amplification, ballyhoo, big talk*, coloring*, distortion, embellishment, embroidering, enlargement, hype*, magnification, metaphor, overstatement, puff, tall talk*

Last entry

If you're going to rely on wikipedia for your information, at least use it correctly.

List of political metaphors

I didn't use Wikipedia. Nizkor

From your link:

straw man: the practice of refuting an argument that is weaker than one's opponent actually offers, or which he simply has not put forth at all. A type of logical fallacy.

The straw man argument gets it's name from the old practice of using straw men in combat training. But, machs nichts. If you want to call it a metaphor, be my guest as long as we both recognize it for what it is; Intellectual laziness.

[Tigermike 3,055]

The Straw Man ... is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position

It's a metaphor.

Main Entry: hyperbole

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: exaggeration

Synonyms: PR*, amplification, ballyhoo, big talk*, coloring*, distortion, embellishment, embroidering, enlargement, hype*, magnification, metaphor, overstatement, puff, tall talk*

Last entry

If you're going to rely on wikipedia for your information, at least use it correctly.

List of political metaphors

I didn't use Wikipedia. Nizkor

From your link:

straw man: the practice of refuting an argument that is weaker than one's opponent actually offers, or which he simply has not put forth at all. A type of logical fallacy.

The straw man argument gets it's name from the old practice of using straw men in combat training. But, machs nichts. If you want to call it a metaphor, be my guest as long as we both recognize it for what it is; Intellectual laziness.

And you have been using it for years.

[AFTiger 282]

Here are the standard posts for these guys.

TigerAL: Your arguments are strawman. Provide a link

TexasTiger: Your posts are illogical. When you ask a logical question I will answer. You are stupid.

Bottomfeeder: "nonsensical ramblings, delusional ramblins, conspiracy theories, mumbo jumbo".

Watch and learn:

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

If you respond you may be declared out of bounds and your posts deleted by one of the moderators.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here are the standard posts for these guys.

TigerAL: Your arguments are strawman. Provide a link

TexasTiger: Your posts are illogical. When you ask a logical question I will answer. You are stupid.

Bottomfeeder: "nonsensical ramblings, delusional ramblins, conspiracy theories, mumbo jumbo".

Watch and learn:

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

If you respond you may be declared out of bounds and your posts deleted by one of the moderators.

Now that cuts to the quick. I thought we were beginning to become buddies.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If the limp wristed pansy Democrats can't stand up to mean ol FOX NEWS, then how the HELL are they suppose to stand up to N.Korea, Iran or al Qaeda ?

[DKW 86 7,441]

The Straw Man ... is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position

It's a metaphor.

Main Entry: hyperbole

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: exaggeration

Synonyms: PR*, amplification, ballyhoo, big talk*, coloring*, distortion, embellishment, embroidering, enlargement, hype*, magnification, metaphor, overstatement, puff, tall talk*

Last entry

If you're going to rely on wikipedia for your information, at least use it correctly.

List of political metaphors

I didn't use Wikipedia. Nizkor

From your link:

straw man: the practice of refuting an argument that is weaker than one's opponent actually offers, or which he simply has not put forth at all. A type of logical fallacy.

The straw man argument gets it's name from the old practice of using straw men in combat training. But, machs nichts. If you want to call it a metaphor, be my guest as long as we both recognize it for what it is; Intellectual laziness.

And you have been using it for years.

War Damn Touche'

[DKW 86 7,441]

Here are the standard posts for these guys.

TigerAL: Your arguments are strawman. Provide a link

TexasTiger: Your posts are illogical. When you ask a logical question I will answer. You are stupid. (Actually, I think TT would ask, and reask, and reask, etc some inane clarification question that would end up with him pleading ignorance to what you are saying.)

Bottomfeeder: "nonsensical ramblings, delusional ramblins, conspiracy theories, mumbo jumbo".

Watch and learn:

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

If you respond you may be declared out of bounds and your posts deleted by one of the moderators.

Man, I wish I had written that...

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

If the limp wristed pansy Democrats can't stand up to mean ol FOX NEWS, then how the HELL are they suppose to stand up to N.Korea, Iran or al Qaeda ?

Bingo. Not to mention there are lots of independent voters who watch Fox News who don't automatically align themselves with the Republican party (e.g. me, for one.) If your success in politics depends upon getting more people to vote for you than vote for the other candidates, why would you write off a bloc of potential voters?