I for one would love to see Jane debate Dana Loesch on air. That would be awesome.

It’s ok with me if Breitbart is on the show as long as Sherrod is across the table from him.

I vote for as broad an exposure as possible. I don’t exactly understand how we win more people to our side if we only preach to the choir.

I’d like to see Max Blumenthal take on Breitbart in that forum. And Shirley Sherrod.

It would not help, the other side would not listen.

These so called balanced “debates” are hardly that. On the other hand the progressives need more face time on the teevee. It seems as if Katrina vanden Heuvel is the most visible presence and she goes at anyone who they put there with and does a damn good job.

But hell yes use the opportunity to frame this jerk a a lying snivel.

Have you taken a seriously good hard look at the Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun fringe lunatic far right lately? Anyone who supports Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will never be interested in anything a sane rational person has to say……..

It’s about time that someone showed some force of intellect on this. Sharing a stage with a useless piece of human dogsh*t (which is what Breitbart truly is) is not the way to go.

Others think that no progressive should de facto legitimize a Breitbart or a Fox News. This was the argument behind the ultimately successful boycott by Democratic candidates of a 2008 Fox News Presidential primary debate

.

Breitbart should not be debated just brought down, whats next do we exchange dating tips with O’Keefe?
Do we debate GOPers sure but not on Fox News.

I agree but we can’t win when Fox edits the Cameras and has no problem lying to make a point.

So was anyone from the Lake even asked:) Just who is the liberal ABC will stick in front of Breitbart to give him legitimacy? Juan Williams?

“As Markos says, “nice try, trying to drag us into this, Andrew, but why would we want to share a stage with a pathological liar?”

Neil Young said after critics panned his “Living With War” for being musically and lyrically lazy, “Why should I waste my best chord changes on George Bush?”

That about sums it up. Why would anybody waste their time trying to argue these election results with an amoral coward and intellectual charlatan? You just know Andrew’s gonna be all, “Nyah, nyah, nyah.” Anyone with a half a brain doesn’t want to watch, or participate, in that.

While it would be nice to see some left/right blogger debates, I don’t see how Breitbart could possibly have anything to add to any conversation, other than slander, hyperbole, and conspiracy theories. Actually having a hard time thinking of a good alternative, seems like all the people who had some sanity on the right have bailed, or been cast out.

Unless these nuts are boycotted they will continue to be invited on shows. We have to make it clear that Progressives will not appear with them and the networks will get the message – no guests, no debate.

Markos is right. Breitbart has been caught lying repeatedly. Why bother? Just tell ABC that they lose viewers when they put somebody like that ion the air.

Every guest that shows up should immediately tell ABC that Breitbart is a lying piece of shit, and they wont go on air with them.

Progressives debating rational conservatives (I know, an oxymoron) on an actual news network is one thing; debating crazy people on the Repug propaganda arm is another.

No on debating crazy Andy on ABC!
No on appearing on the Faux/Repug propaganda network!

Here’s how the Rude One puts it: “The election tomorrow is a clear example of the triumph of lies. Teabaggers get an amount of coverage that’s disproportionate to their actual, factual numbers. Sarah Palin is presented as an expert on things that she simply doesn’t know about. Corporations control what we see. Glenn Beck simply creates an alternate reality. We all have our prisms that create our viewpoints. But there are things that are simply true, Stewart says. And we have to be able to agree on those in order to move forward.”

When people like Brietbart “commentate” on national TV, he merely perpetuates the “triumph of lies.”

Only the lefties that have proven over and over they can stand toe to toe with Fox News scream-over mode, make the other side look bad, look good and make progressive ideas look good while doing it should go into enemy territory.

There aren’t many on the left that can.

This is part of a larger question in the progressive community over whether to share stages with the likes of Breitbart, or whether to appear on Fox News, or what have you.

it’s not really a “larger” question, DD. i adore you, but i’m pretty sure you know what i mean. only a tiny handful of people on this planet stuffed with billions (of Little People with no real money or power) will ever seriously worry if they will be on american TV “news” programs, and if what they say there will seriously affect their careers.

most people, which is to say 90+% of the global population, worries much, much more about food, health care, education of their children, shelter, retirement, and sports teams. and rightly so. Village games mean little to those not allowed to play, yo. which of course, is the vast majority of us.

As Markos says, “nice try, trying to drag us into this, Andrew, but why would we want to share a stage with a pathological liar?”

Absolutely. The only reason that ABC would want Kos (or any liberal blogger on) was to have a shouting match with Breitbart, and only for ratings. Screw getting any actual information. And all Breitbart would do was yell and pout.

Besides, ABC’s legal department should have told the bosses that Breitbart is a slanderer. Slander is a serious offense. ABC would be responsible if Breitbart said something slanderous on their airtime. This is a really stupid move by ABC to be “balanced”.

This is kind of like people on the right pretending gays don’t exist by ignoring them.

They don’t go away. And Fox isn’t going away.

There really isn’t any solution except communication. Long history has shown that pretending some person or group doesn’t exist or ostracizing them doesn’t work.

Bush and Iran is a classic example.

It OK by me if bartbut participates. So long as O.J. and Madoff are there too.

Goood thread, David. Get ‘em. :o)

No.

Breitbart?

No.

Are you kidding me?

“Debate” this person?

(Btw where the fuck is Shirley Sherrod’s lawsuit?)

Let the “liberal” media ABC network twist in the wind on its own petard, having entangled itself with this despicable shitstain.

Any blogger who would go NEAR this perfect storm of rot they’ve created for themselves with this one, and engage with it?

All I gotta say is, no. Jesus!

This is a “Sir, have you no decency?” moment. Breitbart has none, and those who have would not appear with him.

He is not just another screaming right-wing nut-job. He is an abomination.

Does it matter? Who even watches ABC anymore? I have not watched them since “The Path to 9-11.” That was it for me. Then there was that Presidential debate with George and Charlie. I made an exception to see the debate. That nailed it once and for all.

Breitbart should be a pariah at this point. The fact that he was actually hired by a formerly-respectable organization doesn’t change that fact. No one who has any self respect at all should even consider the possibility of being in the same room with him. Breitbart’s going to be part of the panel? Great — let him be solo.

I am a conservative who enjoys “Firedoglake” point of view. When I don’t agree with my liberal friends they sometimes think I am too stupid to understand or the message has not been adequately conveyed. Consider that maybe we have a different point of view. Debate the issues and let people make up their own minds. Most people are just as intelligent as you the reader and can make up their own minds.

The problem with debating a liar is that you can’t know what he’s likely to say. If you’re going to debate someone who tries to limit his discourse to what he knows is true, then there’s a comparatively limited set of possibilities for what he’ll say on an issue. Liars can say whatever they want, and often do. Debating them is of limited value.

While I normally applaud the urge to engage the opposition, this time I think discretion is a better choice.

Who decides what is a lie. This isn’t a court of law. It is a public forum. You underestimate the ability of a reasonable person to sort the facts from the fiction. We all do it 100 times a day.

Just to be clear – are you hinting that Andrew Breitbart is not a liar?

I am asking in earnest.

I don’t believe everything he writes or says is a lie. I would be more afraid of people who consider other people (in this case Andrew Breitbart) as a zero sum liar or truth teller.

Now I know what you and your ‘liberal friends’ talk about.
Thank you.

Lets pick someone conservative despise. Is Nancy Pelosi a liar? The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. So do I disregard everything she says because I believe she has lied on occasion. Absolutely not. What about all the valid points and honest efforts she has made my behalf? Is that to be ignored? That seems to be an untenable position for truth seeker.

Balderdash.
Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

You know the distinction you are making, and it does not wash.

For my clarification, do you believe everything she says is a lie and disingenuous? Or, do you believe everything she says is the truth and without guile.

We see the tight little space you are trying to wriggle through.
Not buying. A liar is a liar.

So your logic must then follow that “a truth teller is truth teller”. Religious people call them prophets. Do you see it is the same logic? I really am not trying to be combative. I just don’t believe that any one person holds all truth or all deception. So why not debate, listen and decide for oneself?

Did Nancy Pelosi doctor a tape two times (ACORN and Sherrod) in order to fool the public? No, she did not. Breitbart has been caught numerous times LYING, not Nancy Pelosi.

You are missing my point. This isn’t about Breitbart personally. By the nature of his shear following (Andrew Breitbart and Fox News for that matter) he represent a large segment of our society. Some might say half our society. He represents the voice of these peoples political beliefs. Do they all agree with everything he writes and says? Of course not. Does this invalidate everything he writes and says? No. Read all the comments in this thread. Instead of arguing the merits of participating or not, most comments subscribe to “group think name calling”. If Andrew is an all around fool and liar, expose him for what he is. I am simply arguing the case for debate. I am through blathering. Thanks for the discussion.

I have blocked ABC, as i had Faux, a well as Disney, from my TV. I am now taking names and refusing to purchase anything from those who are rightwingers or allow advertising from them or their ilk. Thi is why the Repug corps do not want us to know where their money is going. Because they KNOW we can hurt them and their share holders will be pissed. So we need to find out and we need to stop buying the products of those who are wingers. We need to inform their shareholders. Especially were union pensions or state pensions are involves as shareholders. We can do this. Let start with Hollywood. If they give money to the Wingers… we stop watching their shows,, stop going to their movies, not buy their music, etc

“Debating” Breitbart is the equivalent of “declaring war” on al Qaeda: the very concept flatters and promotes, respectively, a liar and a band of criminals to obscenely undeserved status.

I think you are all correct. Don’t appear with anyone who disagrees with you. That way you can continue to think everyone agrees with you. Heaven forbid you actually discuss your differences in views. Thanks for sparing the rest of us.

Here are my thoughts on the situation.