see http://www.billoreilly.com/sho...TVShow&showID=1206#1

So the Edwards campaign hired two extreme Left anti-Christian bloggers, were called on it by the Catholic League, but told them and O'Reilly's team to shove it. O'Reilly aired the comments, then the Edwards campaign fired the bloggers.

This reflects badly on Edwards' judgment. O'Reilly thinks he's finished.

Oh how these Democaratic candidates have to dance for the far Left! 15-20% of the vote; can't ignore them.

It's also another example of how biases against Jews, gays, Balcks, hispanics, etc. are tolderated, but hate speech against Christians is somehow PC.

What these ladies have written in the past.
- Caution - graphic language.

An article from townhall.com:

quote:

The problem comes when, in an attempt to garner the favor of the ever-cantankerous left side of the blogosphere, Democratic candidates hire bloggers with profanity-laced, President-hatin� pasts to helm their online efforts and blogging output.

That�s what happened to John Edwards this week. He hired Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon to be his blogmaster and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare�s Sister to be his online communications person. If personnel is policy, let�s just say those two hires reflect the Edwards campaign�s desire to be �Queen C�of F�k Mountain� and �F�k BushCo.�

It�s not exactly the winning populist message John-Boy was shooting for, I reckon, and bloggers on the right side of the aisle recognized that immediately. Too bad for Edwards, Marcotte, and McEwan, no one on their side did. Or, perhaps more damaging, they did and couldn�t do anything about it.

By Wednesday, the Edwards campaign was fighting push-back on the picks that were supposed to grant him great Netroots power. Marcotte and McEwan were slammed for being anti-Catholic, outside the mainstream, and just plain vulgar. Edwards fired the two bloggers. On Thursday, he un-fired them. Or something. The details are hazy.

- http://townhall.com/columnists...bag_christofascists!

Sheesh! The problems were pointed out, so they were fired . . . then RE-HIRED!!!!

Unbelievable!

Read the article and some of the reference links. It will give you an idea of the hate-filled sentiments and depraved attitudes of the Left. I know there are nutcases on the Right as well, but nothing quite like this, and none hired by conservative Presidential candidates to represent them.

Phil:
I have been following this, too, and it is unbelievable that Edward's didn't handle this more quickly. I am not sure if it was arrogance, like O'Reilly seems to think, or if it was just a case of political paralysis, where he was decising which camp to appease. Usually this type of issue causes most politicians to act fast for damage control purposes. His candidacy was a bit of a long shot anyway, but he is probably done now.

The hypocrisy issue is less surprising, and this is where, in my opinion, O'Reilly does a good job. Last night, he had Jane Fleming, Young Democrats of America, on regarding this issue. He asked her point blank if she would have fired these two bloggers over the anti-Christian statement, and she said No. When he asked her if she would have fired them if the remarks were anti-black, she said Yes! Even O'Reilly couldn't believe she actually said it. She then accused O'Reilly of being a hypocrite because he was only targeting Democrats, and she called Bill Donohue, who also has been speaking out against Edwards and his blogger team, an anti-Semite to boot.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Oh how these Democaratic candidates have to dance for the far Left! 15-20% of the vote; can't ignore them.

Far left? Extreme left?
Is that really an appropriate term if you are, as you say, talking about 15-20% of voters?

Just asking...
It does seem to me that these terms, especially, do get thrown around a bit too much on this Forum.

It might not be 15-20%. Most estimates of the extreme Left are at least 10%.

See http://shalomplace.com/cgi-bin..._topic;f=15;t=000335 for a meticulously discussed qualification of the terminology. Spiral Dynamics lingo is tossed around a bit, but is not essential for the understanding. Once terms are thus defined, their usage can become a handy descriptive shortcut in certain cases.

quote:

Far left? Extreme left?
Is that really an appropriate term if you are, as you say, talking about 15-20% of voters?

Just asking...
It does seem to me that these terms, especially, do get thrown around a bit too much on this Forum.

I think that the labels that are used to describe one's political leanings are a bit broad as well as subjective. Since the terms themselves are constantly being redefined, it seems it all depends how you slice and dice the definitions. I think the link Phil provided gives everyone here a broad look, for nomenclature's sake, at the general labels for US political culture. For example, I think that the term "Left" takes on a different context in France or Germany, than it does here in the US.

With regards to the far Left in the US (at least what I think of as the far Left), I suspect it is in that 5 - 10% range, maybe a little higher. If you lump all of what O'Reilly would call "secular progressives" into this mix, the percentage seems to be higher still.

HP - after reading the links that were posted regarding the bloggers for the Edwards campaign, how would you define their views or stance? Their postings were a bit extreme even by European standards, no?

More evidence of Edwards' leftist leanings. He won't attend a debate because it's hosted by Fox News.

quote:

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."

LOL! Well, if THEY say so (you don't get much more left-wing than MoveOn.org).

quote:

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."

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
More evidence of Edwards' leftist leanings. He won't attend a debate because it's hosted by Fox News.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
Fox News has very little to do with professional journalism.

That such a decision is evidence of "leftist leanings" is preposterous. Sorry, I�m not with you on this one.

HP, I wonder how much experience with Fox you have. Personally, I find them the most balanced of all the news portals, including PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. None of the rest give much time or consideration to conservative positions, except with a brief statement from some "talking head" comment, which they promptly shoot down.

The U.S. is more conservative than liberal; that's why Bush got elected in 2000 and 2004. People watch Fox more than the other networks because Fox gives conservative positions fair time and the other networks do not. Fox also gives liberal positions fair time, and provides numerous programs with both liberal and conservative positions aired and hashed out -- e.g., Hannity-Colmes, Fox News Sunday, O'Reilley, and many others.

Anyway . . . Edwards is just pandering to the Left, here. He would do much better to ignore them and appeal to the more moderate voters in the country, who don't mind watching Fox and other networks to get a variety of perspectives. The Left isn't really interested in dialoguing with conservatives as they know they can't hold their own in a rational discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
The Left isn't really interested in dialoguing with conservatives as they know they can't hold their own in a rational discussion.

Excuse me, Phil, but do you realize what an outrageous generalization you are making here?!

I also find it striking that you consistently use loaded terms for the opposition, while using neutral designations such as "conservative" for political brethren.

I do not think that is balanced. Or rational.


AMH: I must have missed your post. I�m certainly not about to defend the bloggers in question; they may well be off the deep end. That is not the issue.
My point is that I seriously take issue with referring to 15-20% of the US voting population as "far left" -- which Phil did in the very post of this thread.

HP, see this thread for my definition of "the left." I also corrected the 15-20% figure in a post above, so you can quit reacting to that, now.

There's simply no reasoning with the extreme left or right wings of the political spectrum, who are different in many ways from liberals and conservatives, respectively. Moveon.org, to whom Edwards is aquiescing, here, is a left-wing organization; Fox network leans conservative, but they're not right-wing, as Moveon would paint them.

Moveon.org has boasted recently that they "control the Democratic Party." Many Democrats take exception, but their behavior shows the truth of this statement.

Here's Moveon's statement, from their web site:

quote:

The Democratic Party of Nevada is dropping Fox as the host of its presidential debate! More than 265,000 of us signed the petition. Hopefully, this sets a precedent for all Democrats--that Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news.

You'll find it right above their plug to save NPR and PBS (I wonder why? ).


I don't know how familiar you really are with Moveon.org or Fox News, HP. Maybe take a few minutes to check out both sites to see the difference in tone and content and let us know which one has more ideological bias.
- http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html
- http://www.moveon.org/campaigns.html

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
HP, see this thread for my definition of "the left." I also corrected the 15-20% figure in a post above, so you can quit reacting to that, now...

quote:

...Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news.

...Maybe take a few minutes to check out both sites to see the difference in tone and content and let us know which one has more ideological bias.
- http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html
- http://www.moveon.org/campaigns.html [/QB]

First point taken. I reread you post above and apologize for harping the point.

I must confess that I am far more familiar with Fox News than moveon.org.

Do I find the latter to be more objective? Not at all! I understand MoveOn to be an ongoing political action campaign, which by its nature is neither a news source per se, nor a source of neutral information. This is inherent in its aims!

So as a source of day-to-day news (if we really did have a regrettable situation where those were the only choices) I would certainly choose Fox.

Phil, I do, however, fully understand and respect your point that Fox DOES give air time to both conservative and liberal views. Although if you mean being interviewed by the frequently badgering and interrupting O�Reilly, that is hardly to be construed as getting "air time".

But objective news is, again, something else -- something other than what is concocted by the editors and commentators.

The most objective news programs I have seen are on BBC and PBS; and the in-depth stories on 60 Minutes are, in my opinion, excellent.
I also have deep respect for the independent-minded and analytical approach of the Christian Science Monitor (published my first poetry translation there). I am fond of The San Jose Mercury News and The New York Times (both of the latter on the web). Fairly regularly I purchase The International Herald Tribune and Newsweek. I find IHT excellent (and wonderfully compact!), while Newsweek (International Edition) although well written occasionally leaves much to be desired. For instance many of the commentaries/editorials by Fareed Zakaria. Nor am I fond of George Will. Robert Samuelson seems more of a straight shooter, from what I recall reading.

Many years ago, I preferred U.S.News & World Report, which seemed more succinct and news-minded. I used to get it from a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who subscribed

However, back to the sources you specifically mentioned in your last post...

I DO visit foxnews.com several times a week, more often when major international or American news stories unfold. Based on this I most definitely do NOT view Fox as a neutral news source. In my experience it is a far cry from that!

I hope this clarifies my views.

With sincere respect,
HeartPrayer

Fair enough, HP. I hope you can see the irony of Moveon.org calling Fox on an ideological bias. Neither the far left nor far right can tolerate any pov other than its own.

Let's not turn this into a discussion about Fox, however. Maybe that deserves another thread all its own. My primary point has been that Edwards, along with all the other Democratic candidates, feel this obligation to pander to the far left. I don't understand this, as the left will no more vote for a Republican than the right will for a Democrat. The swing votes are the moderates and independents, who mostly don't care about Moveon.org or the equivalents on the right. It's silly for Edwards to dance to the left. If the other Democratic candidates were wise, they would hang him out to dry, there.

I must confess that Edwards did not impress me the first time around. Hillary and Obama do, for differing reasons.

But I can find one positive thing to say about MoveOn.org :

As I understand it, the organization was founded to counteract what it felt to be a hypocritical, ideologically-driven inquisition against Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Is that correct?

A key driving force in the anti-Clinton crusade was Speaker-of-the-House Newt Gingrich. Yes? Well, Gingrich� admission of his own infidelity, which he himself admits actually was CONTEMPORARY with the Lewinsky hearing, certainly does show how deep that hypocricy ran, at least in that individual example.

And Gingrich� recent claim that this shouldn�t be seen as such, because he had an "obligation", is one of the most strikingly contrived rationalizations I have ever heard in American politics.

It never did wash.

Back on topic, to your first point here: As mentioned, there is a world of difference between a political action campaign and a news network -- and it is not legitimate for the latter to be politically slanted to the extreme degree that it is. So I think MoveOn (and others) can call Fox on this -- with varying credibility, as you say.

Enough said from me on that matter in this thread.

You do make other cogent points.
Like you, I am particularly struck by which issues-of-substance presidential candidates ABSTAIN from attacking each other on. Not to beat a dead donkey, but that�s one reason John Kerry lost. That neglect allowed Karl Rove to work his magic.

Clearly Mr Edwards does not have anyone of Mr Rove�s strategic format running HIS campaign.

Clinton wasn't "inquisitioned" because he had an affair, but because he lied about it under oath. Newt wasn't ever asked to testify under oath. There was also a problem, with Clinton, of a superior having an affair with an employee. Any school principal would have been fired for doing what he did, but he got away with it. This was all part of a long-standing history with him -- one that will probably give Hilary problems.

I watched Fox News Sunday today and they felt Edwards was definitely pandering to Moveon.org and left-wing bloggers, who can't stand Fox. He's been on Fox News Sunday four times before and had had no complaints. He'll probably go back again, as he needs to reach moderates who watch both conservative and liberal programs.

Maybe you're not aware, HP, but Moveon.org sponsored a tv ad contest in 04 and chose as its winner a commercial that compared Bush to Hitler. That's a typical leftist position -- that Bush lied (he didn't) and is the devil, a Hitler, etc. We want to distinguish that kind of hate speech from liberalism.
- see http://worldnetdaily.com/news/...asp?ARTICLE_ID=36456
They streamed it from their site for awhile until the Democrats complained. You can view the ads here.

That's the kind of group that Edwards and the Nevada Democratic organization is giving in to. As a life-long Democrat (on the conservative side of the party -- a minority group, to be sure), I'm saddened by this movement of Democrats to the far-left. George Soros' money isn't worth that kind of compromising with integrity.

I once saw the ad you mentioned, but was not aware that it was the result of a MoveOn sponsored contest. Nor did I know it was financed by George Soros, a man who has otherwise done a lot of good with his money.

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents� Dinner was funny and effective in parts. The Bush/Hitler ad was simply offensive � waaay off in left field, I agree.

HP, Soros hates Bush and pretty much bankrolls moveon and other leftist groups devoted to opposing Bush policies.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...v10?language=printer
- http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=15408

quote:

Soros believes that a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent.

Soros could use some therapy to deal with his childhood issues instead of projecting Hitlerism onto others who take strong stands -- and against terrorists, in this case: ideologues who would just as happily kill Soros as Bush.

Ironic, too, that when M.L.King said that if one wasn't part of the solution (to racism), they were part of the problem, it was hailed as uncompromising rhetoric in behalf of justice. When Bush said basically the same kind of thing -- that the nations of the world (speaking to Arab countries, in particular) are either with us or against us in the WOT, it's considered fascist.

Today the Edwards' announced that Elizabeth's cancer has recurred, that there is no cure, but that it can be treated (whatever that means for incurable cancer -- symptom reduction?). Edwards vows to press on.

Bad idea!

Look after your spouse and young children. The country doesn't need you as President all that badly (ahem ). First things first, J.E.

It's fun to keep up with what Edwards is saying, as he's so transparently phoney in so many ways. E.g., his $400 haircuts, while presenting himself as the candidate who most understands the poor, his reversal on Iraq after he once strongly supported the invasion, and other issues. More than any other Democrat canditate, he's pitching to the far Left. Like this:

quote:

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.

- http://www.breitbart.com/artic...5VM80&show_article=1

Bush justifying Abu Graib? I never knew that. He apologized profusely for it, even going on Arab TV to do so. And if Edwards doesn't understand the connection between the invasion of Iraq and the WOT, then he ought to read his earlier speeches, where he laid it all out very clearly.

Then there's this article:

quote:

Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America. But the former North Carolina senator's populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis.

- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...wards&sn=001&sc=1000
$55,000 for a speech on poverty! You gotta love this guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
$55,000 for a speech on poverty! You gotta love this guy.

Compared to speaking fees by other ex-presidents, that�s dirt cheap.

Seriously, Edwards would never have gotten my vote, not in the last round, not this time, had I been a citizen.

Tidying up on this thread, too, which will also be closed soon.

Anyone who's followed the news now knows that Edwards had had an affair with a campaign worker in 2006 (and perhaps ongoing since) and he must have known this would come out with closer media scrutiny (The National Enquirer, of all groups, did the job on this one). Investment genius Warren Buffet is saying now that Edwards supporters should file a class-action suit against his campaign, demanding their money back, as there was no way the man could have ever been elected, and he should have known that. Interesting idea!

One thing's for sure, now, is that Edwards is finished. He'll never run for President again, and will likely lose his Senate seat. People (self-included) like his wife, Elizabeth, and admire her courage in the face of cancer. Edwards may yet lose her as well, especially if it turned out that he lied about the affair being concluded in 2006, and if the woman's baby is Edwards'. One big soap opera -- all the fault of Edwards. Why the man thought he had what it took to be President is mysterious: ambulance chaser . . . one-term Senator. . . Kind of sounds like Obama, but O is much more honest and intelligent than Edwards.

One great lesson for all of us is that it is dangerous to rise socially and culturally above one's level of integrity. Not that Edwards came close to being President (although as Kerry's VP he would have been waiting in the wings), of course, but, as Dick Cheney scorned him during their debate: "Senator, your career has been undistinguished." Ego! You've got to have a strong one to be President, all right, but it had best not be bigger than one's achievements and service. That was a big part of Edwards' problem, imo, and I think it bedevils Obama as well.

Edwards is being indicted on using campaign money to cover up the affair he denied -- the one that led to the break-up of his marriage to Elizabeth, his now-deceased wife.
- http://www.latimes.com/news/po...2540.story?track=rss

Talk about a fall from the mountain! Couldn't have happened to a more-deserving phony!