Is General Wes Clark still a "paid consultant" for Fox News? If so, he needs to quit now.

Perhaps the good General has already quit his paid consultant job with Fox News and, if so, I applaud him. But if not, then it is high time for him to do so.

When Fox News has done everything in its power to destroy the Democratic Party, ridicule its leaders, mock those that vote for Democrats, then it no longer is acceptable to be "in the hen house" and with the foxes at the same time.

Jesus said, "no man can serve two masters" and that applies to General Clark, too.

Senator John Edwards has twice now opted to say "no" to the phony Fox debates scheduled for Democratic Presidential candidates saying that they do not deserve the legitimacy that such a forum would give them.

Senator Barrack Obama has also pulled out of their phony debate, but has also put his campaign team on notice about the treachery of the right-wing propaganda "news" organization. Obama himself has been smeared multiple times now by Fox even running film footage of "protesters against child molesters" during news "stories" about him. And, of course, there was the full-24 hour assault against Senator Obama falsely accusing him of having been trained by militant muslims as a child.

Governor Bill Richardson recently also said "no" to Fox's earlier "debate" scheduled in Nevada pointing out that Fox is not "fair and balanced".

Of course, Hillary Clinton, a friend of Rupert Murdoch, has artfully managed to dodge being put into the situation of rejecting to debate in a "Fox Format" because the Nevada debate was conveniently canceled after Edwards and Richardson pulled out. Canceled by the Nevada Democratic Party. So Hillary never had to speak out against Fox and the good friend of her and her husband, Rupert. Now, it will be interesting to see what she does or doesn't do this time around.

In the meantime, it is no longer acceptable for a potential Democratic Party candidate for president to be on the payroll of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. It stinks.

General Clark, it's time to show some leadership of your own and stand up to Fox News. Quit your relationship with them. And do it today.

It makes me suspicious that he is not aware enough of what exactly Fox News does to his fellow party members, since he has always struck me as politically naive. He is a brilliant man and a great American and patriot, but he is too nice and trusting. That is the charitable way I can imagine him ending up with a Fox paycheck.

In any event, your concerns go right to the heart of the matter. With Edwards, Obama and Richardson being courageous enough to say "no" to Fox and to call them out on their hypocrisy and bias, it is no longer acceptable for Wes to be there anymore.

The battle is that Faux "News" is just about the only 'news' station one sees in the barber shop, the auto mechanics, the hair salon - anywhere where people have to wait - in the South and mid-West.

He's trying to reach the less brainwashed of these people. Trust me - not everyone who watches that channel is a moonbat for the right. Even their own demographics show that a good number of independents and Democrats watch Faux (why, I don't know, but that's not up for discussion here).

I'm not sure if he's severed his relationship with Faux, but I know why he went into the lion's den to begin with and I applaud him for it. Whether it was effective or not, I'm not sure, but I applaud him for his efforts, anyway.

According to Kerry pollster Mark Mellman



http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/hounding-fox-news-coverage-2007-03-20.html

I really don't care in Clark continues to do Fox or not. But Fox viewers are the battiest of the moonbats.

Or perhaps you prefer those who preach to the choir.

Oh, and Clark was at the recieving end of what ALL mediawhores ccan do to a Democrat. He WAS A POTUS candidate remember?

He had no experience dealing with the Mediawhores and got clobbered.

Now he has experience and handles them like a pro.

NO Democrats, liberals, progressives should accept invitations to appear on Faux News at any time.
(Hear that Ed Schultz?!)

We should encourage Democrat, liberal, progressive paid consultants to quit.

It is time to see Faux for what it really is: a tool of radical Republican propaganda.

If NO Democrats, liberals, progressives are ever again on Faux, it will begin to disappear.

If they were that dumb then, do you really believe they are any smarter now?

Or is there a time schedule that's permissible? Like if it's been longer than two weeks does it work for you?

2 Months?

2 years?

And what about Dems who call into Fox News shows, I mean voters? Should we kick them out of the party for being turn-coats?

Is watching the Simpsons OK, or is it just Fox News?

I want to know what rules you are proposing so I can comment on them.

from Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

All boycotts of large corporations could be parsed the way you did to make them seem overreaching and ridiculous, but all the poster was saying is that a MAJOR Democratic figure perhaps shouldn't do PAID work AT the Death Star.

you want to educate people, you go on Fox and take the fight to the enemy.

I 'm just saying :)

I understand going into the belly of the beast.

It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone who is likely not done with Democratic politics takes money from Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

Go on there as often as they will have him, but these crooks paying a prominent Democratic personality bothers me. That's all.

He gets to see the WH/GOP talking points up front and early. This allows him to deconstruct them and devise well thought out counterpoints.

Rupert Murdock, or do we have double standards here...what applies to some, doesn't apply to others?...at least Clark works for his...out in the open...
wb

demand(s)for Fox to meet in order that we lift the boycott.

All I've heard was that for a lot of reasons, people are mad at Fox for being a Repo mouth piece and propaganda organ. I would agree with that assesment

But i would also ask these questions.

1. Does the boycott have a point other than to let FOX know we are mad as hell and were not going to take it? How would we measure if Fox changed their ways enough to end the boycott?

2. Without goals, it's hard to measure if not letting Fox cover the debates and if not appearing on Fox is a net gain, a push or a net loss for Democrats. It's kind of an experiment that doesn't answer a question.

3. I don't hold it against Edwards or Obama that they have appeared previously on Fox, but now, apparently, have decided not to? Is that's what's actually happened? Or is it only the Democratic debates but soon, in the future they will appear on Fox? What's the deal?

4. I don't hold it against Clark that he has a job doing expert analysis and that Fox is his employer. I'm sure if he ran he'd quit. If there was a real campaign that was soundly crafted to achieve measurable goals by boycotting Fox, then I might join you in calling for our Reps and our candidates to respect the boycott, and join us.

5. I have heard that Fox is all the troops watch, at least in the mess halls. If Dems go on Fox, they can talk directly to the troops if my impression is true. if it's not, then I suppose that the troops can watch Dems on other channels. i think it's important for the troops to have access to Dem candidates and Dem ideas, and policies.

I haven't had cable TV for ages. Last time I had it was in 96 when I discovered that the cable in the house I was in had free cable, so I hooked it up to the tube. Then 4 months or so later, I moved to the house I'm still in and that was that. So boycotting is easy for me. If I had a job with Fox, I'm not sure what I'd do. I wonder how many people Fox employes for their whole TV operation?

Boycotts can be a very effective tactic but on a narrow range of targets. For instance, boycotts don't work against oil companies very well, because everybody buys fuel from each other and everybody already knows they're scum, you can't damage their branding reputation. So boycotts against oil companies have been duds. I wonder if there is an historical president of an organized boycott against a major media entity. The only other one I can think of was the fundy Disney boycott. I'm not sure that worked that well, even though there are a lot of fundies who got the message.

Clark has managed to get Fox Newies to agree that attacking Iraq was a terrible mistake.

Let me know when one of the others manages to do that. So far, I haven't seen it.

BTW, on Fox, Clark's also defended Cindy Sheehan, Dick Durbin, Jack Murtha and Howard Dean (among others). He'd rather be there defending Democrats than sitting at a keyboard bemoaning Fox's influence in politics. I wish there were more Democrats who could do it as effectively as he does.

You know - I have differences with the general about this war - not about integrity.

He is clearly a decent person and he says what he means.

That is the place for him.

An officer with integrity (even if I don't agree) is pretty rare nowadays.

I will remind you - he is the last american to actually win a war!!

Joe

I don't watch FOX but I have seen some of his FOX shows on youtube, and actually he's quite good. Its very funny to watch Clark patronize Sean Hannity like a high school principal scolding a little boy, and I have seen Clark hand them their own bullshit right back to them.

But if he's serious about running for President as a Democrat yes he should certainly cut any ties.

He left CNN when he ran the last time. I'm sure he would place himself under the same restrictions.

don't let CNN's fake "objectivity" fool anyone. I would welcome Clark in the race, I have read a number of his speeches and he is right on about a lot of things. I like Obama and Edwards and Kucinich so far, and Clinton has been getting better, but I'm sure Clark would rally shake things up. I don't think it's too late. I hope he runs. Even if he doesn't win he will help set the agenda.

we always complain that Faux never tells our side. Then we get someone on there and y'all want him to fuckin quit.

If that don't beat all the fuckin craziest shit I ever heard.

This isn't about winning the presidency - it is a lot bigger than that right now.

Joe

Are you suggesting that they "edumacate the fuckers that watch Faux" by participating in their phony debates?

for you).

Tell me - what makes them right??

Kids are dieing - will die every day - so what, they can politically not show up at a debate.

Are you serious????

I give Clark a lot of credit for some things - he sure knows what dead kids look like for sure.


Do you??


Joe

I'm not saying they should boycott the network, but it is STUPID to allow FOX to run an official DNC debate. That's beyond stupid and it was PROVEN pretty well last time with the CBC embarrassment.

Fox mediawhores for what they are.

Clark has done it on Fox.

Why can't Edwards etc?

Reality is, people watch Fox.

Edwards is pandering to the blogosphere.

There is NOTHING in his record that suggests he's oh-so-liberal. Nothing. He not only voted for the IWR (AFTER hearing from Clark, of all people, that Saddam was NOT an immediate threat), he co-sponsored the legislation. He helped write the PATRIOT Act. He wrote legislation helping the banking industry get a leg-up on predatory lending - and, now? He's flipped on every single one of those issues. He even wants to involve the insurance companies from which he made his fortune as a "solution" to our country's health care problems when they're clearly the MAIN problem.

Maybe he *is* boycotting Faux this time out of sense of justice, but, somehow, considering his record, I don't believe it. Sorry. I don't. I simply don't buy it.

What I do believe is that Clark honestly went to Faux with a sense that he could try to reason with the more reasonable viewers of that "news" channel. There ARE reasonable viewers, no matter what you or anyone on DU think. There are people I know, personally, who are not moonbats or even Republicans who watch that station (and, yes, I try to educate them regarding its bias, but they simply don't see it).

It is also the channel of choice for every waiting room I've ever been in. I try to change the channel any time I go some where and it's on, but I'm not always successful (one auto shop I was at only had three channels - two local stations and Faux programmed into the set, so I couldn't even change it to anything else!!).

Or how about the things he said this week about student loans?

I think he's a panderer and that's not necessarily liberal or conservative.

He can help them now and he is.

By the way, is it now safe to assume that you can't find that quote in Pelosi's daughter's book which you were so sure was there?

It's one thing to shine some truth in their shows, and another to allows "fair & balanced" to arbiter our debates - see my other thread on why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=617461&mesg_id=617461

If they don't have the balls to fight back, they shouldn't be POTUS.

Me, I'm a coward...but I'm not qualified to be POTUS for several other reasons as well.

as usual!

Joe

:hi: Joe.

Yeah - she is ok with me anytime.

DOn't matter he or she to me- I don't care -

"she did well" - I hope you understand me stepping in to answer.

There is a line here to me - they cross it - you have no idea the venom I built up over the years to those people.


Joe

You mean the guy waving? You'll find him, along with a bunch of others, if you click on the "smilies lookup table" link above the window for your post.

You type ": hi :" (but without the spaces in between).

can be made that Edwards et al. are chicken shit for not doing that debate and smacking down the Mediawhores AS THEY TRY THEIR CRAP DURING THE DEBATE.

And yes, I am yelling.

Not yet.

Good yelling!!!!


Joe

debating each other. Not debating the whores at Fox. I personally don't have a problem with any Democrat going on Fox to debate their pinheads, but Fox has no business hosting a Democratic debate.

That makes sense.

For years he has told us (his supporters) to call in to right-wing radio shows, write letters, etc. to get the "F" word out there. (Facts.) He said to be ready with our talking points, be ready to be yelled at, hung up on, etc. but if we got the truth and facts out there, someone would hear it and that's the only way those who listen to those shows and watch FOX News would be exposed to the truth.

He does a great job putting the WH tools in their place, and doesn't ever back down or let them get away with their lies. Who else is doing this?

He is wrong about the war - you can understand - doesn't want to lose. It is understandable.

We lost two years ago. I know. I trust the GIs more.

Not that we ever could really win anything.

I don't hold it against him - hell, I think a lot of him for thinking that way.

But it is over -

He is a smart guy - he'll come to the right conclusion.

Joe

Hi.

It's not that Clark thinks we can still win it's that he doesn't think leaving without a plan is any smarter than going in without a plan was.

His views on Iraq have changed and adjusted to circumstances on the ground, and he's not still thinking we can "win."

There's lots of op eds, articles, videos, etc. at Securing America home page. You can see how his views have changed over time.

Gotta run out for a bit or I'd post some articles for you, but they're all there.

http://www.securingamerica.com

just to go the left column to "Press Room."

It is really shattered. Totally. I do not believe there is another that can do it. He is it. This HAS to happen - now. We are outta time.

You know how I knew we were toast- had to do with the "grouping" at the gates in Mosul - we lost them. Bad. Jen - my kid thinks there is hope - to this day - but he isn't the adult in the room either. There is no way - we are fucked.

The army is dead now - and we better have an army real soon - cause other fights are coming.

Dad served with Generals Patton and Patch - he said something to me that I hope rings true to all of us - he said Patton was a butcher - but Patch had hope - he tried to do the right thing.

Jen - he did -he meant it - that - there is a right thing - if we see it - can take it.

We are at a decision point in the society right now - this is it.

We get this wrong - it is over.


I think that is what they meant.

Joe

take more of it. And I appreciate that he's trying really hard to get the facts out to the moronic fox viewers. But if a boycott by candidates is coming, then maybe he should join it on principle.

all agree to boycott, then I'm sure he would join in.

But, first, let's get him to be a candidate!! :)

Step up Mr Gore - you have no idea how many people will jump to you.

I want our army back - no 3rd world war for me -


Ain't just liberals jumping to you - more like a self preservation thing going on!!


You think you just carry the liberals - think again!!


Joe

most people view Fox as a right wing propaganda outlet. the only ones who believe that crap are the ones who also believe Limbaugh and still approve of Bush.

the problem with CNN, MSNBC etc is they pull a lot of the right wing crap also and sometimes in more subtle ways but people don't view them as right wing so they fall for the crap they spew.

I'm glad that at least our candidates are able to "just say no" to Faux.

Julie

And the blogosphere is being played.... can't you smell it?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/03/fox_news_democrats/print.html

I don't know why this board can't figure that out.

population that just loves being played. Go figure. :shrug:

We might actually win a presidential election if the Foxbots hear what Dems have to say. Expecting Dick Morris, et al to bring "our" message to these people doesn't work and ignoring the problem (as many here wish to do) does not fix it.

Actually, if we want Faux to straighten up, even a little bit, then there have to be consequences first. They can't very well claim to be "fair and balanced" if there are no Dems. That is what gives them the cover to make that claim with a straight face, the Dems that go on their channel. If that were to stop they might have to make some changes. As long as they have their Dem guests/consultants they can claim they give voice to both sides.

Julie

Because he's usually explaining some military conflict in a simple and truthful manner. Which basically means someone out there actually got to hear REAL news instead of the normal crap Faux spits out. Not sure why you'd want that to not be on Faux.

You know, for those 84 Democratic candidates he campaigned for non-stop in 2006 on his own dime with no fundraising for himself while he was at it? All those Red states that wouldn't touch John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton with a stick. Maybe he thought the 50-State Strategy actually meant something. Maybe not having $60M or a Senate job meant he would use every avenue to do what the party needed done. And don't think for one minute he wasn't going where the Party wanted him to go. Don't even think he's been on Fox News for two years without Howard Dean's input into the matter. One of the reasons we have a Democratic Congress today is because those cross over voters watched Wes Clark on Fox News and felt comfortable enough with him to vote Dem for their local candidates, once they finally were fed up with Republicans.

Wes Clark is not going to pander to you, David Zephyr, or anyone else. Because Wes Clark leads and does not follow. Questioning his leadership when he led us back into power from right there in the sink, that's what stinks. He will quit his job if he runs. If he doesn't run and he doesn't quit, if that's what he decides, it will be his business, not yours or anyone else's.

Nice when he's got to take bullets from his own side. Really nice.

I wish I had written it. Or that I could recommend it.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Funny how only the guy who goes on Fox is attacked as opposed to the ones who do so to promote themselves (i.e Edwards)

Wonderful post...

But, you know, it's so much easier to just take a self-righteous stand rather than actually doing the hard, courageous and sometimes dirty work that needs to be done if we want to save this country and this world.

One would think that someone who puts our future above his own would be applauded and not criticized...but then one would be wrong in so many cases. Even DU has little use for a selfless patriot, it seems. :(

Perhaps you don't recall -- all of the Network Newies carried Bush's water during the 2003-04 debates. My memory is clearer than yours, I guess.

Clark has been taking the fight to Fox on behalf of the Democrats since 2004. His motto has always been 'You have to talk to your enemies".

Bush's motto has always been "You can't have a discussion with the enemy".

I suppose you (and these 'candidates') believe Bush's way is better. I don't.

And I am grateful for his sense of duty. I only wish he would step up and use what he learned to propel his own candidacy at this point.

Read the story below, watch the video and then ask yourselves whether or not General Clark should be in the employment of Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.

And I don't recall Wes Clark ever condemning Fox for the 24 hour orchestrated lies about Senator Obama. I would hope that he would have spoken out about the news network that he works for spreading inflammatory lies about someone as decent as Senator Obama. Perhaps he did. I hope he did. I just didn't see it.

---------------------------

FOX SMEARS SEN. OBAMA, SAYS HE "COVERED UP" MUSLIM PAST

Fox News Channel's morning program Fox & Friends pointed to a report on Friday that Sen. Barack Obama had attended a Muslim 'madrasa' while living in Indonesia as a 6-year-old child.

Host Steve Doocy went on to highlight Obama's middle name, Hussein, and questioned whether Obama was indoctrinated in extremist Muslim doctrine.

See the video of Fox's smear at this direct link:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_smears_Sen._Obama_0119.html

What does that have to do with Clark's correcting of Faux's wrongs? I'm sure he would have espoused the truth about Obama on Faux had he been asked, as well.

:shrug:

Did Wes Clark speak up at Fox where he works for hire to express outrage at the way Fox smeared a decent American man? Maybe he did. I didn't hear about it.

And if he didn't, then why didn't he?

Fox was "handled" by Obama as well as the Obama campaign and it's 25 million saw fit. I'm sure had Clark been asked about Obama, Clark would have straightened them out.....however, last I heard he's only been showing up on Fox discussing the "need" to lower the "cowboy rethoric" (that all candidates on both side of the aisle racheted up earlier this year until it became out of style) on the agressive shit talking our own government was engaged in against Iran.

If I had to choose between the priority of attempting to slow the Iran War talk or defending Obama, I'm sorry....but I would choose that we slow down a potential war.

It's just a phony enhancement of Pravda. Why any one would take them seriously is beyond me.
I like Gen Clark and mostly agree w/ lots of things he stands for, but giving a wink and a nod on the way to pick up ones paycheck does not rate high in the integrity department.
Giving aid and comfort ( credibility ? )to those whose sole pupose is to detroy this country is not very honorable or patriotic. :evilfrown:

K&R

throughout this thread what Clark is doing on FOX. That you can post at this point that he's "...giving aid and comfort..." shows either you haven't read the thread, don't understand what's been written, or don't care what the truth of the matter is and are just comfortable with your existing opinion.

As General Clark once put it -- he loves going into the lion's den. He is there to point out truth and facts to those who watch FOX and not to promote himself as other Dems have done. As long as there is a FOX News, why is it a bad thing to have at least one person on there calling them out on their bullshit lies?

I wish he would quit as well as all the other Dems who work there. We can't win there on ANY issue because the game is rigged.

and turns around and uses the same "dirty Blood" money to promote Democrats all over the country....in other words, actually "doing" Dean's 50 State Strategy. How do you think we won back congress this last election? You think that those Republicans who were defeated in districts which had previously voted for Republicans were defeated cause those districts were really Blue? If so, you would be wrong....it wasn't "Blue" state Democrats in "Blue" safe districts that put congress back into our hand......it was "Red" state Democrats in "Red" District that did that. What do you think the majority of voters watch in Red States and Red Districts? If you guess CNN or MSNBC, you would be wrong.

So yes, Clark is using the Blood money from the Right to bloody the Right. I find that pretty artful personally. Beats going on Ismus for free so that he can ridicule you after you've left! :eyes:

decides to run for the Pres.

I've seen Clark on FAUX News and the fact is that the General is just too prestigious and too knowledgeable on foreign affairs for the idiots on that network to discredit him on that subject. If he were to discuss domestic affairs it would be a different story.

On the other hand, Clark being on FAUX could give them legitimacy. I'm inclined to say that Clark needs to resign and Democrats need to avoid FAUX like the plague, including having the Democratic President revoke their access to the White House Press Room. If the party in power ceases to recognize them as a major news organization, I think that they will cease to be a major news organization.

to the FCC and to the Cable industry pronto...otherwise, the Fox "Dent" just won't quite do it.

So I hope that is what the plan is; to break up some of the communications monopoly....otherwise, we're just dealing with a bandaid solution on a festering open wound infection, IMO.