The Surge Is Succeeding
This is an article from washingtonpost.com:
The ‘Surge” Is Succeeding
By Robert Kagan
Sunday, March 11, 2007
A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn’t work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn’t exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect. Read more…
This is a link to an entry in John Edwards blog about the Democrats pulling out of a debate on Foxnews.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/9/20352/75748
I find it fascinating and ironic that the Democrats are afraid to debate on Fox News because it leans conservative. Where have the Republicans had to debate all these years? On all the liberal biased networks. I have never heard them complain about debating on them though.
Up until Fox came along we had to put up with the liberal agenda being touted on the news stations, we were forced to find a different opinion by listening to talk radio. Finally Fox comes around and provides us with another angle, so technically that does balance out the media.
Now that the Democrats are in power there is talk that they will reinstate the fairness in radio doctorine. That is a direct assault on freedom of speech, telling radio stations what their programming has to be. For every hour of consevative talk, a station would have to have an hour of liberal talk. Because liberal talk radio doesn’t make any money stations could be forced to drop the conservative talk which does make money instead of losing money with liberal talk.
Sound fair to me doesn’t it?
If Democrats can’t take the heat of a debate on Fox News, cut and run on the debate in a sense, how can they be trusted when an important issue arises that might mean making a tough choice?
They can’t be.
Democrats Playing Games With Soldier’s Lives
The Democrats are trying to attach domestic spending pork onto the war spending bill. They are hoping this will force the president to sign the bill, which contains a timetable for defeat. This is playing politics in a time of war when our soldiers have their lives on the line, this is unforgivable. I thought the Democrats passed their domestic agenda in their first 100 hours. Oh yeah,I forgot none of that agenda actually went anywhere. Anyway, as I was saying, playing games like this is not helping our troops, it’s not supporting our troops, it’s hurting them. If Democrats want to end the war DEFUND IT, thats the quickest way. Stop playing games with our soldiers.
Here is an article from foxnews.com:
WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it’s in with billions of dollars for farms, flu preparedness, New Orleans levees, home heating and other causes.
Some critics say the Democrats are simply being opportunistic — using a must-pass measure for funding U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry items that can’t advance as easily on their own.
At the same time, Democratic leaders are trying to increase support for setting deadlines for ending U.S. military combat in Iraq, which they’ve made part of the larger legislation.
It’s plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill’s $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.
“The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don’t lose sight of what we have to do here at home,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. Read more…
Democrats Pull Out Of Debate On Fox News
This is incredible. the Dems pull out of a debate because it is on Foxnews! Notice how this article describes the debate controversial because it’s on Foxnews. Fox is far and away the leading cable news outlet, thats why they agreed to debate on Fox. Now they are afraid to show their true colors to the biggest cable news audience, why, because mainstream America doesn’t agree with them. They hide in the shadows by never telling their exact agenda. Again, they celebrate diversity, just not conservative diversity.
From politico.com:
Nevada Dems Nix Fox Debate
The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).
The letter, released by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, said Nevada Democrats had entered into the agreement with Fox, despite strong opposition from Democratic activists and bloggers, as a way of finding “new ways to talk to new people.”
But Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, “went too far,” and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.
“We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments,” the letter said. “In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore cancelling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.”
The debate was to be hosted by Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio, the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.
A statement released Friday night from Fox Vice President David Rhodes said: “News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, MoveOn.org has said they ‘own’ the Democratic party. While most Democrats don’t agree with that, it’s clearly the case in Nevada.”
Fox spokewoman Irena Briganti also argued that Ailes’ remark about Obama, made at the Radio and TV News Directors Foundation Awards, was meant to poke fun at President Bush, not the Illinois senator.
Ailes said: “And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’ ”
Controversy has been brewing for weeks about the debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Wednesday he would not participate, citing Fox’s conservative ties as a factor. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, sent an e-mail to the liberal website DailyKos, which was posted on the site.
“We’re definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don’t see why this needs to be one of them,” it read.
The state party has been under pressure from progressive activists across the country, led by MoveOn, to cut its ties with the debate.
According to MoveOn, more than 265,000 people signed a petition sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party.
In announcing the event, a statement posted by the state Democratic Party has Reid offering high praise of the debate partnership with Fox.
“This is more great news for Nevada,” he said in the statement. “I’m happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate. Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular. With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008.”
Ailes lauded the idea, too: “FOX News is proud to be a leader in coverage of the 2008 campaign season and a co-host of this important presidential debate. We look forward to working with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.”
State Democratic party chairman Collins, in a letter posted on the party web site Wednesday, said Reid now shared activist concern about the event. Collins wrote the Reid “has asked us to take another look.”
A spokeswoman for the state party did not immediately return a call.
Second Amendment Victory In D.C.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (commonly referred to as the “D.C. Circuit”) today (Friday, March 9) issued a very important Second Amendment decision broadly upholding the right of individuals to possess and use firearms, in particular handguns, for self-defense in the home.
The case involved a challenge, brought by six residents of the District of Columbia, to the District’s handgun laws. These laws largely ban the private ownership of handguns in D.C. Even where such ownership is permitted (e.g., by retired D.C. police officers), the laws impose onerous restrictions on the use of such handguns, including a requirement that all firearms be kept unloaded and unassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. (See Decision at 4.) The plaintiffs wanted to possess “functional firearms” in their homes for purposes of self-defense. The D.C. guns laws, obviously, frustrated these perfectly reasonable aims.
The case was heard by a three-judge panel, composed of Laurence Silberman (appointed by President Reagan in 1985), Thomas Griffith (appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005), and Karen LeCraft Henderson (appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990).
Judge Silberman and Judge Griffith concluded (in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, in classic originalist style) that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms” (as opposed to merely a collective right related to the maintenance of state militias); that handguns are among the types of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment; and that the District’s handgun laws violate the Second Amendment insofar as they prohibit an individual from owning and using a handgun for self-defense in the home. Judge Henderson dissented from the decision.
This is only the second time a federal appellate court has decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The Fifth Circuit also has reached this result. In contrast, the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment only protects a collective right. (See Decision at 16.) The Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) still has not addressed the issue. As a resident of New York City, I would love to see the Second Circuit follow the D.C Circuit’s lead and declare the NYC gun laws unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Second Circuit is very liberal, so this is extremely unlikely to happen.
Undoubtedly, the D.C. Government will seek reconsideration of this decision by the full D.C. Circuit (“en banc”) and/or will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless the D.C. Circuit en banc reverses this decision, I think it is very likely that the case eventually will be heard by the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it agrees to hear, the existence of a disagreement among the various federal appellate courts on a major issue of constitutional law (known as a “circuit split”) makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will take action to resolve the disagreement. Although the D.C. Circuit has the smallest geographical jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeal (it covers only the District of Columbia), it generally is considered the most important of the circuit courts (for several reasons). Consequently, its decision in this case will be accorded considerable weight when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear the case on appeal.
As an aside, it is interesting to note who weighed in as amicus curiae in this case in support of the plaintiffs and the D.C. Government.
Supporting the plaintiffs were the attorney general’s offices of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Wyoming. Also supporting the plaintiffs were the Second Amendment Foundation , the Congress of Racial Equality , the American Civil Rights Union , and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund .
Supporting the D.C. Government were the attorney general’s offices of Massachusetts, Idaho, Maryland, and New Jersey; the city attorney’s office of the City of San Francisco (and apparently the City of New York and the City of Chicago); and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The appearance of Idaho on this list is surprising, but perhaps the demographic changes as Californians and Washingtonians move there is re-making Idaho politically from a more conservative “Mountain” state into the more liberal “Pacific” state.
Given the D.C. Circuit’s considerable influence in the legal arena, this decision may be the start of a fundamental judicial re-thinking of the Second Amendment, which may result in much greater scrutiny being given by the courts to federal, state, and local gun laws. Here’s hoping that the Supreme Court picks up where Judge Silberman and Judge Griffith left off, and applies their reasoning to the nation as a whole.
Steven M. Warshawsky smwarshawsky@hotmail.com
Hypocrisy On The Left Part 2
From cnsnews.com:
Of Hate-Speech and Hypocrisy
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Commentary
March 09, 2007(Contains language that may be offensive to some readers.)(CNSNews.com) – The left-wing Daily Kos blog has been driving a campaign to have companies pull ads from Ann Coulter’s website after the conservative author used a slur in a recent speech, but leftist websites — including Daily Kos — have themselves used the offending word in the past.
Daily Kos postings have included the word “faggot” at least three times in recent years, as have other liberal blogs — without apology, and without generating a furor.
During a characteristically caustic speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I … can’t really talk about Edwards.”
The outcry was not long in coming, with the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for homosexual rights, issuing a statement calling her use of the term “vile and disgusting” and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) saying it was “vile and unacceptable.”
It was soon reported that at least three companies had pulled advertising from Coulter’s site, following postings on Daily Kos in which target companies were identified and their contact information provided.
“Ann Coulter’s latest bigoted and hateful diatribe has justifiably evoked rage and disgust throughout the progressive community,” a Daily Kos blogger going by the name of “VolvoDrivingLiberal” wrote two days after the speech.
“One of the best ways to communicate one’s distaste for Coulter’s repeated incidents of hate speech is to respectfully but firmly let her advertisers know you are deeply troubled by their indirect support of bigotry through their advertising on Coulter’s website,” the blogger wrote. “A list of Coulter’s advertisers with contact information is detailed below.”
(Posting again on Daily Kos on Thursday, “VolvoDrivingLiberal” boasted that “the progressive community achieved significant success this week in persuading corporate and organizational advertisers to pull ads on anncoulter.com.” The blogger urged readers to turn their attention to one last major target advertising on Coulter’s site, Amazon.com.)
Taking flak from liberals, and from many fellow conservatives, Coulter argued that she had been aiming at political correctness, not slurring homosexuals. (Last January, Grey’s Anatomy actor Isaiah Washington used the derogatory word at the Golden Globe awards. Amid an ensuing fuss, he released a statement saying he was seeking counseling.)
“It’s a schoolyard taunt,” an unapologetic Coulter told broadcaster Sean Hannity on Tuesday. “It means … wussy.”
However the term may be interpreted, Coulter is not alone in using it.
Daily Kos itself has not shied away from the word. Nor has it removed postings that use it. Examples include:
- a headline reading: “Democrats and the faggot problem.”
- a headline asking: “Who invited the little faggot?”
- a headline reading: “When is a faggot just a bundle of sticks?” (That posting goes on to ask, “What’s up with the little sly gay jokes? Hmm? As I read the comments in discussions on DKos, there are times when I almost have to check and see if I accidentally stumbled into a Wingnut [right-wing] blog.”)
Other left-wing websites have also seen usage of what’s being called the new f-word:
- Pam Spaulding of the blog Pam’s House Blend wrote a headline including the phrase “caving to the faggot juggernaut” — in reference to a comment by Fred Phelps, the controversial leader of a small religious group that uses the epithet frequently in its campaigning.
- Indymedia, a left-wing activist site, carried an Oct. 2006 rant under the headline, “Bush is a closet faggot.”
- A posting on the Firedoglake blog that pokes fun at Christian leaders found to have been involved in homosexual relationships: “I have been spending my time since the election attempting to hone my knowledge of the Radical Gay Agenda in hopes of infiltrating the Christianist chuch [sic] and bringing it down from within. But it looks like the sad, sick, repressed faggots that run the place are saving me the trouble.”
- Blogger Melissa McEwan, on her site Shakespeare’s Sister, used the line — in reference to Leonardo da Vinci — “I’m not so sure it’s such a good idea for students to be studying that faggot anyway.”
- Another contributor to the Shakespeare’s Sister site, “Paul the Spud,” wrote in a Dec. 2006 posting, “We can’t make it work, so why should you be allowed to, faggot? Quit getting so uppity!” (He was putting words into the mouth of an advocate against same-sex marriage.)
Ironically, McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister is one of two bloggers who worked briefly for the Edwards 2008 campaign but resigned last month amid criticism of provocative postings about Christianity on their sites.
The other erstwhile Edwards blogger, Amanda Marcotte, carried a posting ( warning: vile content ) by another blogger — Spaulding, again — on her Pandagon site, using the word “faggoty” in reference to Jesus.
Bloggers aren’t the only liberals to use the slur.
In 2003, Howard Dean’s campaign manager was reported to have written a letter to the presidential campaign of fellow Democrat and rival Dick Gephardt, complaining that a member of the Gephardt team had called a Dean staffer a “faggot.”
Homosexual-rights groups employ a double standard too, it appears.
In its response to Coulter’s remarks last Friday, GLAAD not only slammed the author but accused CPAC itself of promoting “discriminatory policies,” and GLAAD president Neil Giuliano called on media organizations — NBC News in particular — to stop offering Coulter a platform.
Three years ago, however, GLAAD took a rather different approach when rapper 50 Cent told Playboy magazine, “I ain’t into faggots … We refer to gay people as faggots, as homos. It could be disrespectful, but that’s the facts.”
In that instance, GLAAD responded with a polite — almost respectful — press release expressing “concern” about the comments, and inviting 50 Cent to attend GLAAD’s annual media awards.
And no, there was no suggestion that anyone stop giving the platinum-selling New York “gangsta” a platform.
Major Capture In Iraq
We probably won’t hear much about this in the mainstream media so I will post it here.
From breibart.com:
BAGHDAD (AP) — The leader of the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq has been captured in a raid west of Baghdad, an Iraqi military spokesman said Friday.
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was captured Friday in a raid in Abu Ghraib on the western outskirts of Baghdad, said Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman of the Baghdad security operation. U.S. officials had no confirmation of the capture.
“One of the terrorists who was arrested with him confessed that the one in our hands is al-Baghdadi,” al-Moussawi said.
Al-Baghdadi has been identified in statements posted on Islamic extremist Web sites as the head of the Islamic State, which was proclaimed last year after the death of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Al-Baghdadi was said to have headed the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an alliance of al-Qaida and other jihadist organizations, which was set up last year to downplay the role of foreigners in the Iraqi insurgency. The name first surfaced after al-Zarqawi’s death, when the Mujahedeen Shura Council posted a condolence message on a militant Web site.
“As for you the slaves of the cross (U.S.-led coalition forces), the grandsons of Ibn al-Alqami (Shiites), and every infidel of the Sunnis, we can’t wait to sever your necks with our swords,” the message read.
It was signed by Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi, who was identified as the council leader.
In a tape released last November, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq called on Sunni Muslims to pledge their allegiance to a new state that militants have said they created in Iraq, and said al-Baghdadi was its ruler.
“I vow allegiance to you,” Abu Hamza al-Muhajir said in the tape. He addressed al-Baghdadi as the “ruler of believers” and placed al-Qaida in Iraq fighters under his command.
On Friday, the Islamic State of Iraq announced it would soon release a video on the death of a U.S. Air Force pilot whose F-16 jet crashed Nov. 27 north of Baghdad, according to IntelCenter, which monitors insurgent Web sites.
The pilot, Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, was listed officially as “whereabouts unknown” but then reported by the U.S. military as dead following DNA tests from remains at the scene. IntelCenter said it was unclear what the video would show.
The Media’s Role In The Moral Decline
The morals of the American people are slowly but surely being eroded. The welfare state, where the government check takes the place of the father, was probably the start of it. The victimization of criminals, abortion, redefining marriage, rehabilitation instead of punishment. All these are examples of how our morals are being redefined. I don’t care if you believe in God or not, the country was formed on Christian ideals, and Christian ideals do give us a pretty solid moral compass.
Here is an article from the Washington Times:
Americans See Media Aiding Moral Decline
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Most Americans think culture is becoming more immoral, and they view the media — both entertainment and news — as prime culprits, according to a new survey.
If the media continue to “singularly promote” secular values while undermining orthodox faith and values, it will be very difficult to reverse America’s moral decline, said the National Cultural Values Survey, released yesterday by the Culture and Media Institute (CMI) of the Media Research Center.
“Americans who care about the nation’s moral condition should insist that the media strive to more fairly represent all views, including those of the orthodox,” the report stated.
The survey of 2,000 American adults shows that the nation’s culture war is grounded in disagreements over religious issues, such as God’s role in life and whether religious belief is essential for a good and moral life, CMI Director Robert H. Knight said.
About 31 percent of Americans, regardless of political stripe, are “orthodox” — faithful Bible-believers who strive to live by “God’s teachings and principles,” see “a clear set of right and wrong behaviors” in every issue and believe government should be allowed to follow religious principles.
Seventeen percent of Americans, again regardless of political affiliation, are at the “progressive” end of the religious spectrum — many believe in God, but they strongly disagree that religion is “the most important factor” in forming their values or that religion is “the most essential ingredient” of a good, moral life. Progressives don’t want the government to follow religious principles and don’t believe that people “should always live by God’s teachings and principles.”
The largest group of Americans — 46 percent who described themselves as “independents” — do not fully identify with either of the other groups. However, they tend to align with the orthodox regarding belief in God, sexual morality and spiritual issues. They reject, for instance, progressive efforts to replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” — but side with progressives about using personal principles, not “God’s teachings,” to make certain moral decisions.
The culture war, according to the CMI report, occurs because the “morally absolutist” orthodox Americans are fighting to uphold values such as honesty, personal responsibility, sexual restraint and “classical character virtues.”
Progressives, with their secular views and “situational ethics,” collide with the orthodox over some of these issues, and both groups work to attract independents to their side, the report stated. This makes independents the main battlefield in the culture war, it added.
Surprisingly, all three religious groups are likely to see the media as negative influences on America’s moral culture.
Separately, author and Hoover Institution fellow Dinesh D’Souza argues in his new book, “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11,” that the “cultural left” in America is the primary cause of Islamic anger toward America.
The cultural left, which includes members of both major political parties and their allies in the press, academia and the nonprofit sector, has “fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world, that are being overwhelmed with this culture,” Mr. D’Souza writes on his Web site.
“What angers religious Muslims is not the American Constitution but the scandalous sexual mores they see on American movies and television,” he writes. “What disgusts them are not free elections but the sights of hundreds of homosexuals kissing each other and taking marriage vows. The person that horrifies them the most is not [free market philosopher] John Locke but Hillary Clinton.”
One solution, Mr. D’Souza says, is for cultural conservatives to join with Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values and work to halt the spread of such things.
“As conservatives, we should export our America … and stop exporting the cultural left’s America,” he says.
The Limits Of The Nanny State
This is from americanthinker.com:
Tolerance is liberal code for advancing the causes of the Left; they have no use for it when it becomes an inconvenience. Case in point; the Illinois State legislature is considering a bill to make smoking in an automobile with a child under 8 years of age a class C misdemeanor.
Once again, liberals are politicizing science to trample the rights of citizens and parents to act and raise their children as they see fit. Much like the Global Warming scare, liberals hated tobacco long before their pet scientists “discovered” a grave danger in second-hand smoke (here`s why), one that nobody happened to notice for hundreds of years. Based on this dubious politicized science they have gone on the offensive against smokers, making it acceptable to insult and abuse people solely based on a bad habit. They claim the right to overrule parents based on what they see as an overriding health issue.
But many of us have unhealthy habits, with some groups more prone to some of them than others. For instance, some acts of some homosexuals are very unhealthy, on both a physical and emotional level (in fact there are gay men who actively seek to contract HIV), and the State has as much interest (or more) in discouraging certain sex practices (not all of them limited to gays, by the way) as in smoking.
Is the Left consistent here? Of course not; a D.C. area school board is imposing “gay tolerance” as part of a required sex education class. The students are forced to roll play, pretending to be gay lovers and the like. Does this indicate a callous disregard for the welfare of homosexuals? Can it not be equally argued that those parents who smoke while driving their children are trying to teach them the value of tolerance? And what is one to make of a campaign to stamp out smoking among homosexuals?
Perhaps schools should have smoking education courses where students pretend to smoke and can learn a lesson about intolerance and bigotry towards smokers? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Why does one sort of unhealthy act merit condemnation while another elicits sympathy and nurturing?
John Edwards won’t be attending a debate because it is hosted by the Foxnews channel. The Democrat party is supposed to be the party of inclusion. They are the party that says we must celebrate diversity, and embrace multi-culturism. Why then do they shun conservatives? Because they pretend to celebrate diversity and embrace mutli-culturism for the votes. They know they won’t get votes from conservatives, so instead of listening to their point of view they must invalidate it.
From cbsnews.com:
John Edwards To Skip Nevada Debate
Liberal Activists Protest Foxnews’ Role In Presidential Candidates Forum
(CBS/AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards won’t participate in a debate co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party, his campaign said, as party officials tried to settle a dustup over their partnership with the cable network.
Edwards’ campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accused by liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno.
“There were a number of factors and Fox was one of those. We’re already planning to participate in a jam-packed schedule of debates across this country … we can’t attend every single debate and forum,” the campaign said in a statement.
The two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have not indicated whether they will attend the Nevada debate. Fox boss Rupert Murdoch threw a Senate fundraiser for Clinton, and is said to have a good relationship with the former first lady.
Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards’ decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner.
MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a “mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel.”
Fox News Channel vice president of news David Rhodes issued a statement calling it “unfortunate that Sen. Edwards has decided to abandon an opportunity to reach the largest mainstream cable news audience in America.”
On the language of the petition, Rhodes has said: “Everyone has a right to free speech.”
Democratic Party officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially touted the partnership with Fox News as an opportunity to reach out to a different bloc of voters.
But in a letter posted Wednesday on the party’s Web site, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins said Reid now shares activists’ concerns and “has asked us to take another look.”
Collins said the party would invite a “local progressive voice” to participate on the debate panel, which also would include a reporter from a local Fox affiliate, a national Fox News reporter and the moderator.
The party also invited the local Air America affiliate, a liberal radio network, to air the event live. C-SPAN will carry the debate after the Fox News broadcast and PoliticsTV.com to carry the live Fox News webcast feed on its site for one-time viewing, he said.
MoveOn Civic Action spokesman Adam Green dismissed the offer as “a lame proposal that would have multiple Fox personalities joined by one lone Air America panelist. That’s a rigged, unfair and unbalanced debate.”
“The Fox debate should just be canceled and a more legitimate news source should be found,” Green said.
Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer said Edwards is the first candidate to formally respond to the invitation. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said publicly he plans to attend.
Searer said the decision to partner with Fox, which will pay for some production and promotion costs, is part of Nevada Democrats’ overall plan to bring new voters into the presidential process and its new early caucus, scheduled for Jan. 19.
The Democratic parties of Arizona, Colorado, Montana and New Mexico and the Western Majority Project, a political action committee, also are sponsoring the event.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
