Did anybody see how much of the convention was covered by Fox? As I recall, Fox did minimalist coverage of the Democratic convention on the grounds that it wasn’t truly newsworthy, did the same thinking hold true for their pet party?
Do you have a cite that Fox covered the Democrats any less than CNN or MSNBC?
Their website shows the typical tepid programming (typical of all networks, I should add). I suspect that Fox News gave it more coverage, but I don’t really watch Fox News too often.
Do you have a cite for your suspicions?
This is what I read in threads here as the Democratic convention unfolded. Personally, I wouldn’t watch Fox even if the other channels were showing slow motion footage of concrete curing.
I thought McCain damned with faint praise. The fact that they got Guiliani to try to sell the ever-so craven “voted for the war before he voted against it” crap just a few minutes after McCain had called for the parties not to treat each other as enemies really made me lose respect for McCain. The Republicans are not seriously trying to attack Kerry’s record so much as they are merely attacking his sequence of events. Avoiding the issues entirely while only going after the contextless deeds. It’s getting awfully painfully obvious that they seriously fear being drawn into an actual policy debate on Iraq or the war on terror. And from everything they say about how stopping fighting terror would be bad “wink wink” you’d think that Dennis Kucinich had won the Democratic primary. News flash: that guy lost.
Then why make the assertion in Great Debates about your recollection of their coverage if it was third-hand hearsay?
What is this, the Supreme Court? I just recalled other posters remarking about Fox making a dismal effort during the DNC and wondered if the RNC effort was any different.
I started a 9/11 drinking game. But I had to quit. I have to work today and I couldn’t take that many shots.
On Rudy and “Thank God Bush is President.” I can believe that he thought it. It was about the second or third thought I had after I realized what happened wasn’t a systems failure. The thing is, it’s not a complete thought. The rest of the thought goes, “Because he’ll fucking bomb these bastards until the rubble bounces.”
I think it was an appropriate sentiment at the time. I certainly didn’t predict Iraq. I don’t think anyone did. Without Iraq, I’d still be swearing at Ashcroft and praising Bush.
The coverage time on Fox and CNN were about equal for both conventions on opening night. I watch a variety of news sources, including those two. The only thing I noticed last night so far as a substantive difference is that CNN dwelled on the purple heart bandaid quite a bit, while Fox dwelled mostly on speech and campaign analysis.
I actually loved them, Rudy’s speech in particular. I was skeptical at the ‘Thank God’ line but other than that it was so well-done I actually stopped playing Civ III and watched him closely. McCain was interesting but I agree he lacked the fire. Kudos to Michael Moore, BTW, for taking the ribbing with such grace. McCain probably sold a few thousand tickets to F911 last night.
I think Rudy (and when ten thousand people chant Rudy it sounds like they’re booing :D) laid out the case very forcefully for Bush’s moral convictions and certainty in his cause, which I haven’t seen anyone mention in this thread. I think these lines were the core of the speech:
You can agree or disagree with that, but that’s where the Bushies are coming from and, while I can’t support him, I’m happy the Taliban are no longer ruling in Kabul (yes, I know about the provinces) and that Saddam is sitting in jail.
The most important lines addressed to Europeans:
Agree or disagree, again this is an excellent summary of Bush’s philosophy. I wish Rudy had shortened the speech–I liked the construction worker anecdote but he didn’t need to add those partisan snipes at Kerry–but overall I enjoyed it a lot and am bookmarking that transcript at the Times.
(BTW, everybody forget about PBS? All major speeches covered. Anybody w/o cable could see all the festivities if they wanted.)
Yeah. But wasn’t Saint Reagan President back then? And when that thing happened in Lebanon?
Sure, but I think what he was trying to say was that Bush took those lessons and built on them. And I remember the Reagan administration getting very frustrated with the Italians and bombing Libya because they were hiding those guys.
I was swithcing back and forth between the 3 cable news stations before the speeches started, and FOX was the only one of the three which was NOT showing the convention.
And for those with cable, I’d recommend C-Span.
I did not like McCain’s speech.
He talked too much about how the war in Iraq was a must, that the war was necessary in keeping our security intact. Multiple times he evoked the phrase “grave threat” when talking about Iraq. Um, we’ve been at war for how long now? Where is the evidence that Iraq was a threat, grave or otherwise, to us? Surely it is not because of WMDs. Surely it is not because Bin Laden and Hussein were bedfellows. Surely it is not because Iraqis were responsible for 9/11. Why persists in making Iraq out to be a powderkeg when there is very little evidence to suggest that it was? I guess he thinks we haven’t been paying attention to the news.
My eyes rolled back into my head when he implied that the “enemies” of 9/11 were the same “enemies” shooting at us in Iraq. In fact, I started yelling at the TV. My respect for him died at that point in his speech, as he proved he would use the same disingenous manuvering that Bush/Cheney have patented. I thought to myself, as the bullshit came a-flowing, “McCain thinks we are idiots. Just like Bush does.” I don’t consider him to be a voice of reason anymore. I wouldn’t even flatter him by calling him a sell-out. That implies that he doesn’t really think we are idiots, but is just pretending. I don’t think he’s just pretending.
It was funny how dead the audience was until attention was drawn to Michael Moore. It looked like Moore just ate it up, too. He was clapping louder than anyone else in the room, with a big Kool Aid grin on his face! I’m surprised he was even admitted, but then again, the Pubs apparently need him to point at and scorn.
You know, if it were pronounced “Du-che” rather than “Doosh”, well…
-Joe, Il Duce
But he has hardly been alone in holding that view.
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” — Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (signed by Bill Clinton)
“What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? … Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.” — Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“Mr. President, when I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, [it is] because I believe a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
Lib, none of those quotations alters the fact that we now know, without qualification, that Iraq was not a threat to the US. To say before the invasion that Iraq was a threat was an exaggeration and a mistake (largely driven by political pressures to go along with the administration and to pander to the public’s post-9/11 bloodthirst). To continue saying now that Iraq was a “grave threat” is simply dishonest.