Netroots Under Attack
Filed under: 2008 elections, Conservatism, Democratic party, Fox, United States, liberalism — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 11, 2007 @ 8:33 am CET
The Las Vegas Review-Journal published an editorial blasting the left-wing of the Democratic party over the way many ‘liberals’ reacted to the news that the Democratic party had organized a debate to be broadcasted by… Fox.
But liberals’ aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state’s January presidential caucus, the country’s second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and “values” voters who might consider changing allegiances?
But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.
‘Captain’ Ed Morrissey agrees with the editorial, as does Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind. Patrick Ruffini adds:
I know I’m not supposed to admit this, but “fair and balanced” aside I do think Fox News leans right, as CNN leans left. Let’s just be honest about it and adopt the brutally honest British model of press partisanship.
My next point to the Dems is this: So what? The New Hampshire Republican Party accepted CNN as the co-sponsor of their April debate — despite the network’s controversial airing of terrorist propaganda videos. As far as I know, no conservative has demanded Republican candidates withdraw from the CNN debate.
If conservatives don’t mind a largely liberal viewership for their debate, why should the opposite be true? Who knows, we might actually convert some of them. Liberals apparently have no similar interest in even talking to conservative red state voters. (And a larger group of them to boot, thanks to Fox News’ dominance in the ratings.)
And that’s a fair point. One might wonder, though, whether the Dems will able to ‘convert’ any of those who watch Fox News.
On the other hand, we saw in 2000 that every vote matters. Realizing that, and after reading the posts I link to I think that I have to change my earlier opinion: although I don’t think it was necessary for the Dems to do this, it might have been useful.
