Monday, March 12, 2007
|
|
Dems Bow Out of Debate to Appease Nutroots, Cite Silly Ailes Comment
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
8:38 AM
|
|
Not only is the Democratic Party too beholden to its crazy Internet wing to go through with a debate on TV's most popular cable network, but they're also too cowardly to admit that's the reason they're bowing out. The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversialpresidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by FoxNews, according to a letter released late Friday from state partychairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev)... But Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly comparedDemocratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator fromIllinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted NevadaDemocrats to end the partnership.
Riiight, let's check that comment, shall we? At a Radio & Television News DirectorsAssociation Foundation event in Washington on Thursday, Ailes said,"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it'strue that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharrafand said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?"' according to a transcriptprovided by Fox.
Um, guys? That's an anti-Bush joke. Get it? He's so dumb, he doesn't know the difference between a major Democratic presidential candidate and a sworn terrorist enemy of the United States? Hilarious! Just like all the other lame anti-Bush jokes these people ROFL about, even though they've heard 90,000 variations on them over the last six years.While the Nutroots obligingly squawk about this quote, as if it's actually in any way bigoted or even directed at Obama, Obama does the smart thing, as usual, saying he wasn't offended: "I didn't take great offense at thejoke," Obama said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning inIowa. "I have been called worse..." "You know it's to be expected," Obama said. "Iwas surprised that my parking tickets from 20 years ago got so muchattention. But this is part of the vetting process when you're runningfor the most powerful position on earth, and it's to be expected thatthings get magnified."
He gets a little bit of that victim status and all the credit for being gracious. Smart guy. Too smart. Makes me think the left-wing blogs can't possibly stomach him for long. He's not nearly prone enough to bright, fiery, impotent self-destruction for the cause of Bush-hatin'.
Update: Edwards uses the dark threat of Ailes to raise some cash.
And, Kucinich calls his fellow Dems chicken.
|
|
|
The Dems were smart(oxymoron) to avoid a fair debate, where they would be faced with some tough questions like, "What do you stand FOR, and how do you plan to do it?" Anything I have heard them say they WOULD do involves surrendering the battle of Iraq, and raising taxes they, themselves, have no intention of being eligible to pay. If confronted with these facts on live TV, it would be a disaster worse than Clinton wagging his finger at that reporter when the reporter had the nerve to criticize his presidency even a fraction of what Clinton, himself, much less Hillatola, his wife (are they really married, he doesn't act like it. Can Muslims get divorced?) does to Pres. Bush on nearly a daily basis. |
|
I think you misunderstand the term "neocon." Originally, the "neo" part implied "liberal once." I'm sure many here were lucky enough to be correct from the start, and never had to go through that misspent confused leftist phase.
EXCERPT FROM:
"What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'? -- Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad."
BY MAX BOOT
Wall Street Journal
December 30, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840
"But what the heck is a neocon anyway in 2003? A friend of mine suggests it means the kind of right-winger a liberal wouldn't be embarrassed to have over for cocktails. That's as good a definition as any, since the term has clearly come unmoored from its original meaning. The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality." Well, I haven't been mugged lately. I haven't even been accosted. I like to think I've been in touch with reality from day one, since I've never been a Trotskyite, a Maoist or even a Democrat. There's no "neo" in my conservatism. I don't deserve much credit for this, I might add, since I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool. Many of the original neocons, by contrast, grew up in the days when Republicans were derided as "the stupid party." Some of them remain registered Democrats. But I've always identified with the Grand Old Party. The same might be said of the other Standard-bearers, even those (like Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz) who are the offspring of famous neocons. They, too, have been right from the start. So why do I, and others of my ilk, get tagged as "neocons"? Some of the labelers have obvious ulterior motives. Patrick Buchanan, for one, claims that his views represent the true faith of the American right. He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple (or, more accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his version of conservatism--nativist, protectionist, isolationist--attracts few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in Republican presidential primaries and the scant influence of his inaptly named magazine, the American Conservative. Buchananism isn't American conservatism as we understand it today. It's paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when Father Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative broadcaster in America. When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative"--and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen--it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel--a key tenet of neoconservatism--is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians."
|
|
|
A story dismissing the Left's "crazy Internet wing" written in a blog that caters to the crazy Internet neocon wing - delicious! |
|
As the Democratic Party correctly observed during the 2006 campaign, there are areas in this country where liberal candidates (and liberal views) don't run well. In those areas, the Democratic Party ran candidates that appealed to the more middle-of-the-road voters, which included Independents and Republicans. If the Dems don't appeal to this same block of voters in 2008, the road to the White House will be a difficult one.
Whether the Democratic Party likes it or not, Fox News is the #1 cable news show and it's watched by voters the party will need to attract in 2008. Creating a rift with Fox News could come back to haunt Democratic candidates if the moderate voters feel disenfranchised. The party can give any excuse it wants for skipping the debate sponsored by Fox News, but if moderate voters get the idea Democratic candidates aren't particularly interested in the things they care about, 2008 could be a very bad year. |
|
|
|
The left wing blogs won't stomach him for long. I disagree. He's Bill Clinton all over again: smart, eloquent. A rock star. That's what they like.
I think his early lightening bright light has blinded them for the duration, that he will be able to do no wrong. Any criticism will just bring a strong defense. Ailes handed Obama a perfect moment, the opportunity to appear a gracious victim.
As for the cause of Bush-hatin', they like doing that for themselves...they don't need their candidate to do it. |
|
|
|