KMc,

You bring up several interesting issues here, compounded by the fact that this could be the longest Presidential campaign since Joe Kennedy declared one of his infant sons would be President.

I think it is a good exercise to have all possible debates and candidates stand up and tell us their ideas. At this point, it is a good idea to have all the candidates, even the minor ones, on the inside of the tent pissing out; having a few on the outside pissing in serves no useful purpose.

I do agree with you that the most telling statements come about as a matter of internal discourse, not seeking relativism to a individual that will not be on the ballot. The democrats at this point seem to find unitinimity in the fact that GWB is responsible for everything from bad pet food to generating the Islamnofacist movement.

The democrats are cowards, they could never do the same. Fox News is their biggest enemy, not their stupidity and failure to recognize who the actual enemy is.

And look at how they deal with their 'enemy' Fox News.

They run away and hide!

Faux News isn't a legitimate news organization.

Period.

As for the debates, there will be so many debates on legitimate news forums, I wouldn't worry about the Dems not being seen or heard.

Given the GOP debates on Faux--it's embarrassing. The GOP candidates look like game show contestants because the Faux panels ask idiotic questions. So, you get a lot of pandering and silly responses.

ARRRGGG,...ARRRGGG...Puke...Puke...

It was only a matter of time.

Hee!

I guess that is the Dems lamest excuse yet - they don't have to appear on Fox, because Fox isn't 'real' news! See, just by conveniently changing the definition of what a 'real' news organization is, the Dems can avoid the hassle of, you know, actual tough questions.

Fox isn't real because it is biased and fake. Er, kinda like CBS and Dan Rather if you think about it.

Yet we don't see Republicans running away from CBS like frightened children, do we.

Oh yeah,

Next debate, narrated by Dan Rather.

How to influence and change past history, based on a security clearance.

Sandy Berger will judge responses and appoint a winner based upon their ability to lie and steal.

You have Dan Rather.

Let's look at Faux: Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? John Gibson? The list goes on and on and on.

Who can forget Brit Hume's first thoughts on 9/11?

The fact is NBC, CBS and ABC are held to much higher standards because Faux has none.

Higher standards?

Like . . . hiring a complete fluffy lightweight like Couric at CBS?

Those kinds of 'higher standards?'

Typical liberal confusion going on here: *newsflash* Hannity and O'Reilly are not journalists. They are no more detached observers than is Michael Moore.

Why do liberals continually make that mistake?

I guess what I think about at times.

Where are your personal beliefs, what do you really believe in?

Do you believe that Fox News could distort my philosophy and lead me to personal destruction? Or do I have enough values, education, and personal integrity to decide whether I should listen or dismiss because I don't have mental or psychological stamina to suffer fools and endure ideas that differ from mine.

I watch all news and opinion shows, never to find a differing opinion threatening to my personal beliefs. Just find them mis-guided and highly objectionable to the standards I believe in at times.

Too bad, some people are so weakened in intellect and purpose, by hearing a differing opinion, that relief is found not in forwarding an idea to oppose, but put forth an effort to silence the opposition.

I hope this made sense, I am not as educated as many here, but as my brother once told me, an education only allows you to spell correctly if you ever have to write a letter.