Debate Sponsored by Fox News too Intimidating for 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are scrambling to intentionally schedule alternative debates and public appearances in Nevada in order to avoid the upcoming August primary debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Yesterday I wrote about the thin skin of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but even his skin appears to be much thicker than that of Democrats who apparently cannot tolerate the existence of a major media outlet that presents news without liberal spin and are afraid of being mocked by conservative pundits.

The Daily Kos is actively contacting the campaign staffs of major Democratic presidential candidates to encourage them not to participate in the Fox sponsored debate. Kos happily reported yesterday that “the first to definitely say ‘no’ is John Edwards.” Kos then quotes from an email he received from Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince and declares it to be “great news”:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

Kos goes on to laud the Edwards campaign, remarking that they were “showing real leadership on this issue. Hopefully others will soon follow.” Kos further set forth the reasoning behind the push for his party to shun a Fox sponsored debate:

It's not a position they want to be in, and I'm sure they're cursing whoever it was that negotiated the deal with Fox News. (That Democratic Party decision maker, by the way, is still secret. Everyone claims they don't know who signed the deal.)

The campaigns could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate, but that they'll be happy to debate in Nevada with another media partner.

The issue here isn't to screw over Nevada or its Dems (it's a state where we should be far more competitive, and will be in the next few cycles), and to deprive them of a close look at the field.

The issue is to deprive the right wing's premier propaganda outlet an easy opportunity to take cheap shots at our guys.

If Republicans ran in fear from appearances on news networks that mock and misrepresent them, there would have been no televised presidential debates or White House press conferences held in the past 50 years. Forgotten by Fox News critics is the important distinction that the network’s claim is not to be completely objective or impartial, but rather it is to be “fair and balanced,” which it accomplishes simply through its existence as a balancing alternative to the blatantly liberal traditional networks and newspapers. If there is a traditional major network news channel that has not mocked, belittled, or impugned the integrity of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Spy The News! invites Kos to bring it to our attention. Republicans have been good sports in the past about attending debates orchestrated by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, with full knowledge that the Republican message would be twisted and distorted by the news anchors within seconds of the event’s conclusion. Yet they participated anyway. Democrats should do likewise, even if makes them squirm a bit.

Small people avoid big challenges, and Edwards has demonstrated by his choice to duck the Fox debate in Nevada that there really are two Americas as he frequently argues, only it is not a rich versus poor divide but rather a clear distinction between courageous America and cowardly America. Considering that it took him longer to decide to pull out of the Fox debate than it did for him to advocate pulling out of Iraq should give voters little confidence in his courage to make tough decisions. In both cases he has chosen the easy path.

Democrats should consider that Fox News is the most watched cable news channel in America, with an audience nearly triple CNN’s and quadruple MSNBC’s. It has more viewers than both of its chief competitors combined. Fox News hosts also sweep the top 3 spots for their individual programs, with the O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes consistently holding the top two spots. Democrats should also keep in mind that many Fox News viewers also watch CNN and other networks in order to witness examples of media bias. In essence, although conservatives tend to agree with Fox News’ presentation of the news, they are keenly aware of how those same stories are being described in the liberal media. Fox News is clearly not the Democrats’ preferred news network, but for Democrats to advocate avoiding political debate simply because Fox has paid to co-sponsor the event suggests that what is actually feared may be the exposure to scrutiny their political views would receive.

Edwards insists there are 2 Americas, one rich and one poor, but the media outlets he deigns worthy to interview him never ask him pointed questions like “Isn’t the involuntary taxation of the rich to give to the poor also called socialism?” Another question he likely would not want asked is “How many doctors did you drive out of practice or out of state in North Carolina with your frivolous malpractice lawsuits? And Senator, if I may, did your persecution of doctors in North Carolina result in lower or higher healthcare costs for both rich and poor citizens of your state?” I wonder if Fox News has recorded chirping cricket sounds or perhaps the Final Jeopardy theme to play while Edwards crafts a reply.

All joking aside, Edwards should have no fear of a debate on an opposing network, since, as he claimed in many of his malpractice trials, he possesses clairvoyant abilities to channel spirits that reveal important facts of his cases to him. As reported by the New York Times, while “channeling” the spirit of a baby girl who allegedly died of doctor error resulting in delivery-induced cerebral palsy, Edwards told the jury:

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third.

He should have no difficulty calling on sympathetic liberal spirits to warn him in advance what questions he will be asked and how he should answer. The only tough question he should face from them is how much he will charge by the hour for his channeling services.

Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and others advocating a boycott of the Fox News sponsored Nevada primary debate should heed the surprisingly astute advice of the Nevada Democratic Party as quoted in the Las Vegas Sun: “The debate in August is not an endorsement of Fox News. Instead, it is an effort to reach out to Fox News viewers. We will not win elections if we don't win over new people."

If speaking or debating only in front of comfortable network accomplices is so desperately sought by the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, one can only assume that as president they would not be comfortable debating serious issues with a foreign head of state sitting across the table from them. If they cannot face potential mockery from Fox News, how will they be trusted to stand up to Ahmadinejad? If “fair and balanced” strikes fear in their hearts, how will they react to being called “the Great Satan” that should be annihilated?

It is not surprising that John Edwards was the first to personify Monty Python’s cowardly character Sir Robin, whose adventures were captured so well in song: “When danger reared its ugly head, he [Edwards] bravely turned his tail and fled.” We will surely soon hear Edwards’ response, echoing Sir Robin’s denials: “I did not. . . I never did.”

"Cut and run" as a policy may be the Democrats’ wish for Iraq, but in the case of debate avoidance it demonstrates a decidedly thin-skinned and cowardly approach to political discourse. The days of political immunity in the media for liberals are over, and hopefully a new “fair and balanced” ratio of liberal and conservative media will one day result in televised political debates hosted by a variety of networks of all political stripes. Democrats should show confidence in their political views and willingly debate each other regardless of the sponsoring network. The only message Democrats will send by boycotting a Fox News sponsored debate is that the liberal version of "freedom of the press" is extended only to traditional liberal sycophant networks.