Howard Dean Tells Fox You’re “Shockingly Biased” To Their Face
Tweet
16 Responses to “Howard Dean Tells Fox You’re “Shockingly Biased” To Their Face”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
That was good. I don’t think as highly of Chris as Howard does, but he has the experience, I certainly don’t.
I would like to know if his dad has sent Chris a might fuck you note or not concerning Chris’ comments toward Mike.
Howard Dean’s a cool guy. He shoulda been a contender.
I just wish Dean had been more pointed in his comment. There was no need to soften it with a “present company excepted, of course, Chris” comment. I would have liked to see him actually put it to Chris. “Your news coverage is shockingly biased, Chris. Nobody in their right mind would want to participate in a program or debate hosted by such clearly biased people who repeatedly distort the truth for partisan gain. Can you give me any reason at all, Chris, why they should?” And then actually wait for an answer.
Rather than explaining why Democrats now are appearing on Fox, make the conversation about why Fox isn’t a place they’d want to appear before.
Alas, typical Democrats, not wanting to offend.
I think it would be a better idea if a no-hope contender with a loyal voter base, when goaded by one of these hacks, got up and floored them, at the same time telling them what a waste of space they were. Charges admitted to, no apology given. Obviously, it would be better to see an olser dem cleaning the clock of a younger pundit, because it would make for better TV.
UK politician John Prescott had an egg thrown at him from close range. He punched the guy, them got into a scuffle. The public loved it.
I thought that was brilliant. He said it in a very matter of fact way and I think that (some) Fox viewers will listen.
He said it in a very matter of fact way and I think that (some) Fox viewers will listen.
Nah. Fox viewers aren’t interested in facts.
Fox viewers aren’t interested in facts.
I rather preferred other portions of the interview I saw excerpted — when Wallace ran two ads the DNC is putting out against McCain, and then ran the next few seconds of the video of McCain’s original statements showing that the ads were as pure “out of context” and “lies by omission” as you can get. Dean — kind of like the crowd here when I brought up the full “100 years” statement — just kept parroting the same lie and refused to acknowledge what any sane and honest person would have to admit: the ads are lies and distortions, and only the most shameless hacks and divorced-from-reality psychopaths (I run the risk of repeating myself there) can deny that.
J.
Howard Dean has been a huge plus for the DNC all season, and did exactly the right thing by going on Wallace’s show.
Chris Wallace has been one of the few FOX heads who is getting the fact that there will be a world after November, and FOX viewers better get used to it. Wallace often comes after GOP figures and does not toe the FOX line like Hume, Doocey, or Hannity.
Dean was right to try and soften a bit for Wallace, but he came in hard on FOX News, that’s for sure.
Doubt he’ll be a regular guest, though!
I can’t believe Dr. Dean was badmouthed and ripped by the DNC before and even after he was elected Chairman. He still has a hard time with Rahm Emmanuel and Pelosi, but for my money he is the best thing to happen to Dem Politics since Bill Clinton, who singlehandedly took the Economy and taxes away from Reagan, Bush, and the GOP as an issue when he won.
when Wallace ran two ads the DNC is putting out against McCain, and then ran the next few seconds of the video of McCain’s original statements showing that the ads were as pure “out of context” and “lies by omission”
And? So?
that’s how the game is played. They learned it from watching Republicans.
I still don’t understand how McCain’s full “100 year” statement changed the context of the “Maybe 100 years” part of his answer that the DNC played in their ad. If anything, the full statement made McCain looked worse, since the conditions he laid out for U.S. troops staying in Iraq for that long (that they wouldn’t be wounded or killed) are unrealistic in the extreme.
the ads are lies and distortions, and only the most shameless hacks and divorced-from-reality psychopaths (I run the risk of repeating myself there) can deny that.
Save your anger for your candidate. He said something that will be very unpopular with the American people. There is no distortion of his words. He is completely out of touch. I have to agree with Daniel, McCain’s entire comment on 100 years in Iraq is even more damning than the small clips.
“If anything, the full statement made McCain looked worse …”
I feel the same way and if conservative war supporters weren’t total hacks they’d be asking McCain a lot more questions about it. The qualifier McCain added to his 100 years comment – “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” – renders his current position on staying in Iraq contradictory at best, incoherent at worst.
Right now, McCain says we need to stay in Iraq until we’ve achieved our goals regardless of violence levels or how many Americans are killed or injured. But his qualifier on the 100 years remark suggests there is a limit to the number of years that McCain would be willing to sustain American casualties there. If he doesn’t have such a limit, then the qualifier is meaningless. And if he does have a such a limit: 1) What is it? 2) What does that say about McCain’s stated commitment to staying in Iraq until the job is done?
I haven’t seen any conservatives ask McCain these questions. Indeed, they seem to have ignored the obvious implication of the qualifier entirely. Wonder why that is?
Oh, i got it, now. We stay in Iraq until they just get tired of shooting at us, then we leave. Then we go back and stay for 100 years and it’s all kumbaya.
In my post, I meant “look worse”, not “looked worse”.
Jay has never explained how McCain’s full “100 year” statement makes him look better, not worse.