Fox vs. MSNBC
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No wonder the Democrats ran away from Fox News. It wasn't that Fox is a right wing network. That was just the cover.
Fox, unlike MSNBC actually asked cogent questions, the moderators stayed out of the debate, and they — dare I say it — researched the candidates' records and asked pointed questions to all of them about their prior statements, votes, and positions.
That would so utterly confuse and confound the Democrat candidates, it is no wonder they are avoiding Fox.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain Did Not Win Tonight. Neither Did Rudy Nor Romney. — Comments (71) »
Fox vs. MSNBC 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that the debate is about the candidates and not the moderators. They got that if the debate went well that they would be seen as doing well as a network. MSNBC made their debate about the moderators and their network (walking across the stage, stupid questions, interruption, commentary during the debate) and ended up coming off worse for it.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Did anyone see that Jon Paul was leading the FOX straw poll with 30% of the vote!
This worries me. If even Fox news viewers (the majority are republican/conservative) voted to Ron Paul after that debate does this mean the big candidates have totally miss read the war? and by supporting it so strongly are winning the far right but losing the majority of americans?
Don't worry about that. Don't you realize that a great number of Democrats (possibly without jobs, so they stay up late at night) ALWAYS flood these online/text messaging polls? It is trademark - it always happens. There is little enthusiasm by conservative viewers to log online to vote in an internet poll or to send a text message in.
The people who were text messaging votes in for Paul were far left viewers who agree with him and want to make him look good; it's also a sad statement on them and their party that they would agree with a man who says that we, as a country, invited 9/11 on ourselves.
I disagree with the "no wonder" part, but I agree THIS "debate" or "forum"- rather, was miles above the FIRST Republican debate AND the Democratic one. I especially liked the way the moderator pressed for REAL answers to the questions though he didn't necessarily get them. Bravo to FOX-y.
His comment touched a nerve. It contests the PNAC narrative that we are in a "War on Terror" and " A Fight Against Evil"..that's simplification of a complex political/military struggle with entities protesting our military presence in Saudi Arabia (at the time), our support of Israel, our perceived indifference to the suffering of Palestinian Refugees, and the sanctions and bombing of Iraq under Clinton. Ron Paul's statement of the obvious is taboo. The American people must be fed simple binaries and either/or's such as good/evil, Republican/Democrat, us/them, believer/heathen etc. Terrorism is a "tactic". Ron Paul was keepin' it real and he's gonna be vilified in the next two days with all manner of perjoratives like "deplorable,unpatriotic, dispicable,etc".
and unconnected from history. Yes, our actions in the middle east have to some extent fed Islamic anti-western sentiment. But what is the alternative? Should we have been totally unengaged in the region during the cold war? Should we not seek stability for our oil supply? Should we abandon Israel?
And what of all the people who are not the big bad USA who have been attacked by Islamic extremists? What about the Filipinos and the Hindus, and the Buddhists in Thailand? and the christian and Sufi muslims in Sudan, and the Christians in Nigeria? What did they do to make the fanatics angry?
If you bothered to pick up a book on Islam you will see that this sort of movement is built into the religion and erupts every couple of hundred years. We just have to contain and get through this current wave of hatred and stupidity.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I am not necessarily saying we (U.S.A.) are wrong for engageing in the Middle East in the way that we have, personally if you want my OPINION- I think Muslim Culture is chauvinistic and "retarded" politically- BUT the reasons for the attacks on the World Trade Center in the 90's and 2001 were politically motivated by our presence in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian problem. To reduce it to childish terms and binary simplification is to take our attention away from argueably "solveable" (or at least addressable) causes.
Benjamin and Simon's Age of Sacred Terror completely demolishes this silly notion. They aren't from
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
if it leapt out of the tall grass and attached itself to his fourth point of contact.
The positions you attribute to him are so shallow and superficial as to result in a self beclowning and are "statement[s] of the obvious" in the same sense that saying if the earth is round people will fall off the bottom is a "statement of the obvious" if one ignores gravity.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"Yes, our actions in the middle east have to some extent fed Islamic anti-western sentiment. "
I agree and this is the point that Ron Paul was trying (poorly) to make and certainly one i agree with.
"What did they do to make the fanatics angry?"
I gave an answer to this on another thread. I m not saying that they are justified- no way is terrorism justified; but those muslims in Philippines, thailand, india etc are fighting for an underlying cause e.g. normally their own land i.e. in southern thailand.
It would be nice and so simple to believe that they are all part of a global jihad, but that is lazy and dangerous thinking to dismiss all the other causes.
The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."
Thankfully every thing i see coming out of our military indicates they have taken this on board.
to know your enemy, and read up on the beginnings of the modern Jihad movement, You will see it was begun by people who were living in western countries and absorbing western values then deliberately rejected them.
And if you study more you will see that this sort of violent pan-Islamic movement is not anything new, but recurred periodically in history.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
40 acres and a mule. And a chance to reap the fruits of God's good earth, provide for the missus and take the kids hunting and fishing.
And occasionally torture and behead an infidel, set off a car bomb that kills 60 or 70 innocent people, do funny things with jetliners, and if time's left over, convert the world to Islam through the good works of mass murder and torture.
Then settle back on the porch in a rocking chair, overlooking the spread, listening to the birds sing, with the Good Book for peace and contentment. While the Sun sets and the kids play and Mother's in the kitchen sticking pins in a Christian captive.
Where's Norman Rockwell to capture this bucolic scene.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
But why weren't we able to stop them. Theres always going to be many angry idiots in the world.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Kyle8, Johnt
I agree that there are some jihadis who are in it for global domination- global war against the west . All i am saying is that there are also muslims out there fighting for other reasons. It does us no favor to mix them all into one 'global jihad conspiracy ' grouping.
no easy trick. There may be other reasons, they are secondary if they exist at all. Perforce what unites them is their religion, further what unites them is their belief in jihad, violence, and domination.
On the conspiracy theme, a misused label. If you are working towards the same goals, understood by all, what need is there for drop points by the bench in the park, furtive meetings in back alleys, quick exchanges on street corners, and all the other dramatic paraphernalia of the Cold War.
If it was a conspiracy as commonly understood it would be somewhat easier to combat, centralized control, organized cells, at least a form of chain of command. But in the very lack of a unified organizational structure rests the paradox of their unity, their religion and their interpretation of it. Paradoxical only in the misuse of "conspiracy".
I can't know for certain but it is possible you have been weakened by the virus Timesitis, or worse and more extensive, Mediaculosis. Both of these illnesses are spread by parasites, ugly little microbes, squiggly little things with tails, usually found in unclean newsrooms and infected TV news studios. A symptom is the slow degeneration of the brain accompanied by both paranoia and extensive attacks of egomania. A sure sign of this is the bandying about of phrases like "religion of peace", and mockery of the word "conspiracy", followed by a total dissolution of language & thought.
You may or may not be in the early stages but whatever the case a cure may be found at Redstate and by dedicated and incessant reading of conservative/libertarian literature.
And make sure you gargle with listerine after watching Katie Couric!
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"There may be other reasons, they are secondary if they exist at all".
I agree that there are indeed other reasons; my point is lets not forget that.
"Perforce what unites them is their religion, further what unites them is their belief in jihad, violence, and domination."
Their unity under religion is too broad based to be much use. What unites domestic terrorists and radicals like Mcveigh, Koresh and Eric Rudolph is Christianity? There is not much substance in such assertions, and furthermore, if we as enemies of Islamic radicalism focus on such a broad level of unity as a way of identification, we effectively say: prerequisite for being a terrorist with a bullseye on your forehead: being muslim. Not a helpful message I think.
One aspect of this sick movement and of AQ in particular is that this lack of structure allows rapid filling of the ranks. We might wipe out whole wings of their apparatus, and more jihadist lunatics will fill their place in a matter of days. In such a situation I think it is important to identify the enemy in specific ways which go beyond the mere adherence to Islam. Then we are not seen as warring with Islam itself. Then maybe uneducated and poor young men won't feel the need to defend their religion by listening to educated and rich terrorists and jihadist enablers.
We cannot war with Islam, much as a number of people here and elsewhere would prefer. That's a war we will surely lose; lose or else abandon values and tenets that make us American. It is the same reason why jihadists will NEVER win a war against Christianity.
So why the focus on Islam as a whole???
No matter how much the jihad against western reason permeates Islamic societies, it does us no tangible good to identify the enemy in such sweeping strokes. Does it?
What unites these terrorists, to touch on the second half of this quote, is indeed global jihad, global violence, and global domination. They pervert a religion to give these beliefs a philosophy. We need to crush the beliefs by crushing the networks and the enablers who propogate their brand of jihadist hatred. The best way of going about that, in conjunction with ongoing military engagement, is to STRENGTHEN Islam and Islamic societies. The weakness of this religion has allowed radicalism to dominate it.
We only weaken it further by directing our information war at the religion itself, as opposed to the radicals who are destroying the religion.
On another note, I'm surprised by how many comments on Redstate berate others for not reading books on Islam, only to go about misunderstanding the religion in equally troubling ways. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but from what I've read over the years (and what is pounded into me incessantly by my wife who is a professor of middle eastern studies), the general appears true: a) that there is a disturbing lack of acknowledgment on how deeply rooted are the concepts of jihad and 'Islamizing the world' and b) that despite how pervasive these concepts are in the foundations and everyday practice of the religion, Islam is a multifaceted, everchanging belief system that is capable of evolving into a modern and peaceful religion.
Since roughly the early 1990's, idea A has only gotten stronger, while idea B has weakened considerably. Since 9/11 and the declaration of the WoT, the divide between these ideas has widened by considerable margins, both by the increasing radicalization of terrorist networks, and by our own unsatisfactory techniques in fighting it (namely the total lack of disregard for the information war and the error prone management of our military campaigns). How we go about rectifying these mistakes is a complicated matter. But firstly we should be clear on who exactly the enemy is, what unites them, and how we might separate these murderers and their beliefs from those who wish for reason and peace to prevail.
Unlike MSNBC, the FNC folks actually took their job seriously... and treated the candidates seriously, instead of making it about how charming or glib the host can be.
Rudy was better, he really toned down the emotive wild-man behavior... I'm still crossing my finger for Thompson to get in after he's done promoting the HBO flick - the current field just has not captured my imaginiation. Not one of them really delivers a "what-next" moment.