April 07, 2007

Edwards Turns Tail and Runs... Again

How exceedingly brave:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday pulled out of a second debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel, saying the cable network has a conservative slant.

The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the September 23 debate in Detroit hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, but officials added that Edwards is "looking forward" to a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN in South Carolina in January 2008.

"We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.

Thank you, "Senator Gone," for once again showing us your true colors.

It's quite telling when a man who seeks to hold the most powerful political job on this planet is afraid to show up at a debate because the "political slant" of the television network hosting the event is too intimidating.

Not surprisingly, many nations on this planet are even more intimidating than television networks. A candidate that cannot handle a few hours in a television studio is obviously incapable of guiding us through any crisis more dire than a shortage of hair care products.

I thank Edwards for showing this nation his inabilty to handle even such minor issues so early in his candidacy.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 7, 2007 07:34 PM

Edwards is boycotting Fox. Our side recognizes it as a propaganda wing of the Bush administration.

Look at these Fox headlines for instance. Mark Foley is a Democrat? Scooter Libby found "Not Guilty"? "'Civil War' in Iraq Made up by Media?" It's an embarrassment.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 08:13 PM

Whoops, my link didn't work above.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 08:14 PM

I fail to understand how an outlet's "slant" can change what the candidate says. And if they are avoiding going on fox because people might learn which channel fox is on ... then they must be stupid. Checking the latest ratings, about twice as many know where Fox is than know where CNN is.

Posted by: crosspatch at April 7, 2007 08:42 PM


Posted by: reliapundit at April 7, 2007 09:50 PM

I like Edwards, but I think you're right.

You need to go into the lion's den, not detour around it.

This just smacks of posturing and cowardice.

Man up, Senator, and beard the devil where he lives.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 7, 2007 10:01 PM

Bah. Why lend credence to propagandists?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 10:22 PM

Edwards is boycotting Fox. Our side recognizes it as a propaganda wing of the Bush administration.

Curious that you cozy up to all the propaganda organs of various terrorist operations though isn't it?

I presume there's some sort of rationalization for this.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 7, 2007 11:14 PM

"Our side recognizes it as a propaganda wing of the Bush administration."

Fox has an anti-jihadist slant. Your side is certianly against that. CNN is a propaganda outlet for terrorists. Maybe not as much as Al-jazeera, but it does have a pro-jihad slant.

Our side? That's pretty clear.

Posted by: brando at April 7, 2007 11:24 PM

Lex, you have got to be kidding me that the rest of the MSM e.g. Washington Post is not a propagandist machine for the Left. As someone who is a registered DEm and has read the Post for 25 years it became painfully real to me post Iraq Invasion. They continually post from the AP, and rarely send their own reporters into the country. The difference from say Fox News, is that you agree with the message. Pull out of Iraq, despite the consequences and without a long term strategy. Do you actually believe AQ is not there? Who else is manufacturing chlorine gas and releasing it into their own neighborhoods, the Baathists? Hmmmm, methinks you drink the other coolaid waaayyyyy too much and do not actually investigate both sides of the argument for the truth that lies between the Left and Right.

Posted by: Therapist1 at April 8, 2007 03:03 PM

brando: CNN is a propaganda outlet for terrorists. Maybe not as much as Al-jazeera, but it does have a pro-jihad slant.

To be blunt, that's stupid. What possible motive does CNN Time Warner have to support jihad? Is Time Warner a shell company for communists and jihadists? Or is it just another big company looking to make a buck? You are a reactionary.

Therapist1: The Post and the Times absolutely pushed for this mistaken war. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) said it well:

"Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didnít listen enough to people like the Washington Post. Itís that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost 2/3 of the people in this chamber to vote for that misguided, ill-advised war. So I make no apology. If the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post are offended because they donít like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that weíre going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service."

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 8, 2007 05:39 PM

"What possible motive does CNN Time Warner have to support jihad?"

Ah yes, the mantra of the villain. I didn't say there was a rational reason for it. There's no rational reason for child molesters. Or a rational reason for a jihadist to murder 15 people in a hospital in Mahmudiyah today. Some people are just flat out bad. That's not "our side". It shouldn't be CNN's or Al-Jazeera's or BBC's side either. But it is.

"What matters in the end is not what the specific language is."

The specifics do matter. CNN is often a cheerleader for terrorists. I listen to exactly what they say, with the understanding that they are competent adults. I don't know why they do it, but they do it a lot. They are also a bunch of smart people, therefore it's intentional. I wouldnít think that a pro-terrorist slant would break down along party lines, but it often does.

Posted by: brando at April 8, 2007 08:09 PM


I'm interested in this. You say that some American media interests are pro-terrorist? These are the same media interests selling ad time to GM, Exxon and Boeing? Why would they do that? Do you really believe that every person working for CNN in Atlanta wants America to be attacked again? Really? That makes no sense.

I'm willing to listen, however, but I need help. CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post and NY Times and LA Times post transcripts. Google is great at finding things. If you can find any transcript from any of them that you can even remotely interpret as pro-terrorist, I'll buy you a drink, give money to the GOP, and will never watch read or listen to whatever organization it is who has done this ever again.

That's a promise.

This country runs on money, brando, and the media listens to the people with money and in this country, the people with money aren't pro-terrorist. If you honestly believe Rick Kaplan has a liberal bent, then you need to pay closer attention to what's happening here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 8, 2007 09:43 PM

brando: I agree that some people are bad, but huge conglomerates are much less colorful than people.

It's naive to say that Fox is anti-jihad and CNN is pro-jihad. Fox will say whatever the RNC wants it to say. CNN has some collection of masters as well, none of whom have the least in common with jihadists.

People like you fancy yourselves as rugged individualists. You have a shotgun, a rifle and a pickup truck, and so on. This is ironic because you are easily manipulated. The politicians and talking heads wave gay marriage or a terrorist or Terry Schiavo in your face and you believe whatever they want. Osama's not important? Okay! Saddam was the greatest threat to world peace? Right! We should lower taxes to increase tax revenue? No doubt! Kerry and Max Cleland served ignobly in Vietnam? Absolutely!

Meanwhile the people pulling your strings actually think you are a fool. Here's reality for you. Kissy kissy!

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 8, 2007 10:12 PM

"The politicians and talking heads wave gay marriage or a terrorist or Terry Schiavo in your face and you believe whatever they want."

That's objectively false.

Lex Steele is an integrity violator.

Posted by: brando at April 8, 2007 11:29 PM


I'm not completely sure about what you mean by 'integrity violator', but I suppose you said more than you meant to.

Most liberals are motivated by ordinary things, perhaps that it's wrong for children not to receive adequate health care in the richest country in the world, or it's wrong that middle-class wages have stagnated for 30 years while the super-wealthy have made bank at a stupefying rate.

I've never met a soul who wanted to abolish Christmas, nor one who wishes anything but the best to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor one who supports the jihadists in the least.

Now consider the last six years. Congress and the administration were so very united. You couldn't ask for a more establishment group of Republicans. The president is the son of a Republican president who was VP under Reagan. Every old hand available has served: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter, Eliot Abrahms, etc. Newt Gingrich and even Kissinger jumped in once or twice. This was the Republican dream team.

The Republicans should have been careful about what they wished for. Your leaders dislike government, and thus they don't govern well.

People like me want to scream when we hear you all complain that the MSM has an anti-American bias. The MSM is almost entirely owned by huge rapacious corporations which have less ideology than a squash.

Our constitution is all about the fight against tyranny. As Lincoln said, "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."

So, who is the patriot? The one cowed by terrorists? The one determined to project US military might? Or the one who carps about injustice at home?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 9, 2007 01:14 AM

What possible motive does CNN Time Warner have to support jihad?

Bushitler is against jihad, so they feel compelled to go soft on it like the democrats.

Its like this:

POSITION LeftPosition(POSITION BushPosition)
return !BushPosition;

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 9, 2007 05:33 AM

Purple, that's not even worthy of contempt, it's just pitiful. You are a Pez dispenser of anemic snipe.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 9, 2007 11:17 AM

Elizabeth Edwards: Scared of "Rabid, Rabid Republican" Neighbor

Associated Press Writer

Posted: Apr. 8 4:36 p.m.
Updated: Today at 12:03 a.m.

RALEIGH, N.C. ó Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home - and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way off his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.

"I wouldn't be nice to him anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

Posted by: Locomotive Breath at April 9, 2007 01:21 PM

The servey was wrong, anyways.

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."

Remember that sarin gas? The nerve gas? How about that cholorine bomb just the other day?

Unless they keep redefining WMD until it means nukes only....

Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 03:09 PM

Brando-- is that like being a troll?

Posted by: Foxfier at April 10, 2007 03:11 PM

Itís more sinister than that.

Posted by: brando at April 11, 2007 11:05 AM