I didnt have a problem with that considering Senator Clinton and Obama were on NBC and MSNBC as well as McCain and Clinton and Obama were on ABC.  We could do worse than Giuliani a pro choice, pro gay rights Republican.

Webb by the way was awesome, he is one of the best faces the Democrats have had in a very long time. He is so credible and blunt and right to the point.

Doris your right about Webb, wrong about FAUX. The point is FAUX is not balanced. Doesnt matter that Rudy is a liberal Republican.

Senator Webb delivered an excellent, respectable, 9 minute response.   I’m really glad he didn’t respond in kind to President Bush’s “Democrat Majority” Remark.

I’m happy that Jim Webb didn’t say:

OK!  I’ve had enough of this "Democrat"  Party Business!  

SO: - As a United States Senator I Do Hereby Establish and Coin the New Pay-Back-Name for the GOP.    They Say Democrat, And I Say :

Republican’t  -  [ Ree-Pub-Lick-Kant ]

Can’t, as in Can-Not!  President Bush invoked the term  “Democrat”  in his State of the Union Speech.  Then it was uttered on CNN  by the “Republican’t”  Spokesperson after the speech was over.

Boy, I sure am glad Webb didn’t say that!  Webb did far and away, a better job than the last presidential responder.   The last one was so unremarkable that I don’t even remember who did it.

Fox Lies chimes in with a ( 2 vs. 1 ) match-up.  Each News Outlet had a chance to show their true colors and Fox Lies came out for the Republican’ts.

Two Republicans (54 minutes), one Democrat (5 minutes). 

FOX News - fair and balanced.

fair and balanced and balanced, uh oh we're listing right.

Um yeah?

And this is a big deal why? It's not like all the networks & other cable stations covered Rudy's remarks. It was ONLY Fox. Had others covered it--then you'd have a legitimate gripe.

And as Doris pointed out Clinton, Obama, McCain & I'm sure others were interviewed on other stations.

Senator Grahm was on MSNBC and NBC the same time Senator Clinton was. FAUX is not balanced so this should not even be a suprise. 

Hey JLyons,

Nice to see you posting again.

Of course Fox is NOT fair & balanced...no argument there. But every network/cable outlet interviewed political pundits & politicians afterward. I find it hard to believe that Rudy was Fox's ONLY interview after the SOTU. I had it on MSNBC last night, so I've no clue what Fox was up to.

I nodded off about 10 minutes into Bush's speech BUT woke up in time to see Webb [he did an excellent job!] Then I tried to stay awake...I do remember seeing Barack Obama, but was too sleepy to recall much of what he had to say.

No big deal. FOX News claims to be fair and balanced but anyone who believes that is drowning in koolaid.  To continue to highlight their rightward tilt may be good ammunition here, but unless it's specific misinformation it's just more of the same.

like your posts

Millions of Americans still think Fox is fair and balanced.  Those people swing elections which effect policy.

When people stop watching Fox, we'll stop highlighting them.

I agree with you that millions of believers still tune into Fox. But, I bet you could stand on your head spitting fire and they would never know. They aren't visiting this site.

so this site is so unimportant, that's why guys like oreilly pitch a fit about it?

O'Reilly needs MMFA so he can perpetuate the image of himself as a brave, rebellious truth-seeker who is constantly beset by criticism from all sides.  I think Bill-O sees himself as Jesus, and MMFA is the Romans.  And if not for the actions of the Romans, who would remember Jesus?

"And as Doris pointed out Clinton, Obama, McCain & I'm sure others were interviewed on other stations."

-----

Were they billed as "rebuttals" to the SOTU? Giuliani, hardly a "liberal Republican," was brought on specifically to "rebut" the Democratic response to the speech. 

Interesting.

-----

I used the "underline" function in the response window to underline the word "specifically" in my previous post.

It didn't do it. Why put the switch there if it doesn't work? It showed up in the preview window, but I don't see it in my browser.

No, it was introduced as "reaction", not "rebuttal".

Good catch Tommy!

"REBUTTAL" appears to be MMFA's wording not Hume's.

Let's see IF Easy can "refute" that ;-)

more tommy word games.

Word games? Please don't make me laugh...Come on mefirst SOME here on the Left parse words into the ground. This isn't parsing. Nobody is playing "word games"...There's a difference between a Rebuttal/Response & a Reaction.

Did Rudy spend his 5 min speaking directly into the camera the way Webb did? Webb gave a rebuttal/response to Bush's speech. Rudy was interviewed for his reaction to the speech.

Numerous pundits & politicians were interviewed for their REACTION to Bush's speech on the 3 Networks as well as Cable.

Webb was the ONLY one to give the opposition party's rebuttal/response to the President's speech [as is custom] which was carried on the ALL the Networks/Cable News outlets.

If Clinton & Obama can be interviewed on MSNBC for their reaction to Bush's speech, then WHY can't Giuliani be interviewed on Fox?

It doesn't matter whether the word "Rebuttal" or "Reaction" is used here...  Brit Hume himself said "We've now heard a Democratic reaction to the president's comments. Let's get a Republican reaction."  He was obviously equating the two, in an attempt to appear "Fair and Balanced", even though though it was already fair and balanced (in theory) by having a Democratic reaction/rebuttal to the presidents SOTU address.  If Hume had simply said, "and now we have Rudy Guiliani to reflect on the State of the Union address" that would be fine, but the implications behind his actual statement are what makes this conservative misinformation.

ok jeter, i won't make you laugh. tommy doesn't play word games. now that makes me laugh.

Hmmm a Republican who is pro choice and Pro Gay Rights not a liberal? What exactly is a Liberal Republican then? And why do Cons hate Rudy?

"What exactly is a Liberal Republican then?"

Abraham Lincoln.

Theodore Roosevelt.

There've been precious few examples since then, I'm afraid. 

Giuliani is hardly a liberal Republican?  That's why he was elected to consecutive terms in New York City, the most conservative region of America as we all know.  I don't expect a reply from ETFW because whenever he is refuted, he disappears, thus demonstrating his intellectual feebleness (or stupidity, for those who prefer concision) and lack of moral character. 

Sorry, I meant: "ETRW" not "ETFW"--yes I know how to spell, but not always how to type! 

rudy supports bush in iraq. he supported bush's tax and deficit policies.

I don't disappear, you're just not interesting enough to ewaste time on.

I only tuned in to the SOTU speech for 10 minutes and all I heard Bush say was 'Oil, oil, oil...terrorists...more oil, oil, oil...to reduce our dependence on oil, we must USE MORE OIL!...and, use consevation methods like the ones we used on SMALL TRUCKS!....'  I was getting angry by that point and turned it off...

This does feel more nit-picky than others, but my issue is this:

1. Bush gives a 49-minute, constitutionally mandated speech, our annual scheduled political theater speech.

2. Webb gives a 9-minute, traditional and organized response as a representative of the other major party. Hume frames it as "a Democratic reaction to the president's comments," thus minimizing it. In fact, Webb's speech was not a "reaction." He wrote the speech beforehand and delivered it as an alternative view on the "state of the union." 

3.By then bringing Giuliani for a "Republican reaction," he equates Webb's and Giuliani's positions, and implies that somehow Fox cn take credit for "hearing" a Democratic reaction. This serves to make Webb's speech (which was excellent)  seem less like actual assertions and proposals, and more like,well, a reaction to, a commentary on Bush's "comments" (does Britt know that a 49-minute SOTU is more than just "comments?").

It's a bit niggling, but it does represent FOX simply trying to minimize the Dem's position and power. 

and the liberal guiliani thought  bush's speech was a "pretty good one".  mr liberal constantly sucks up to bush.

Right,  because liberals MUST disagree with the President on EVERYTHING.  If you agree with the President on just one political issue, or even refuse to denigrate him every time his name is mentioned, it means you CANNOT be a liberal.   

Nice straw man. Now please point out where anyone has ever argued the point you have just uninterestingly "debunked."

Sorry Rudy... but, I don't believe the President should "get us kind of beyond Iraq, meaning there are a lot of other things we have to concentrate on".

Are we supposed to forget about this disaster now? Nothing to see here folks... lets blather about domestic affairs the President won't do anything about. Yeah. I feel much better now. Rudy's a putz.

One way to "get us kind of beyond Iran" would be to get us kind of out of there.

I'm just sayin'... 

Get us beyond Iraq?How about getting us the hell out of Iraq.

Iran is beyond Iraq.

Fox News has every right to produce their shows however they want, but I can kind of see MMFA's gripe with this.  They're whole thing about being "balanced" when it comes to the State of the Union address: the "balance" is built right into the speech itself.  If a liberal responds to the president's speech, the conservative viewpoint is already there.  It's called the "State of the Union Address!!!"  Actually, I'm very interested in seeing what happens in 2008 or 2012, whenever a Dem becomes President.  Will Fox News have the mayor of San Francisco on to rebut something Newt Gingrich says about the SOTU?

Huh?  I'm not sure what MMFA's problem is with this?  Am I missing something here? 

Always.

Notice how when Easy to Refute Wingnuts is refuted, he seems to go away.  Very telling about his character (i.e. he has none).

Here I am, And so are you. The difference is, my handle is correct. Yours is not.

You are projecting as hard as you can and you still can't land a punch.

Stop trying to push your weaknesses onto others. It isn't a valid debating tactic, and you do it too transparently.

You also need glasses, your observations not only aren't interesting, they're not factual.

I also have other things to do with my time than spend 24/7 reading MMFA. You may call that "disappearing," I call it "having a life." You should try it sometime.

By his definition, Uninteresting Observer has disappeared. Dishing it out but not taking it seems to be standard for those of his ilk.

Very telling about his character.

No I have not disappeared.  I just found something more worthwhile to do than responding to you (I was preparing meat sauce, if you must know).