Candidates are shying away from Fox
If ever a revealing contrast existed between courage and wimpishness it is the behavior of the competing political parties in connection with the pre-primary debates now going on.
Most revealing was the way the Democrat presidential hopefuls arranged to conduct their debates and the way the 2008 Republican candidates chose where to have their debates.
As revealed in their willingness to see the United States defeated in Iraq, the Democrats also showed the white flag of surrender when faced with a terrifying debate sponsored by the evil Fox News. They ran for cover.
The Democrats refused to participate if Fox is to be in charge of the debate and the coverage of the session, with Fox reporters questioning the candidates and moderating the session. After all, the last thing the Democrats want is a fair and balanced presentation, which is what Fox offers. They demand a rigged game.
According to MSNBC, "The first debate, which Fox and the Nevada Democratic party were to co-sponsor this August ended up canceled. Fox then teamed with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute for a Sept. 23 debate that is still on, even though John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all said they won't attend.
That more or less leaves Dennis Kucinich and a couple of other hopeless hopefuls to face the lions in the Fox's den next September.
As my pal Ann Coulter put it, "The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even face Brit Hume.
"In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are 'biased.' But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!"
And the Hot Air blog noted that that this is a win-win for everyone, [except for both remaining Centrist Democrats]: "the Dems get to show how tough they are against an enemy who's more their speed and Fox gets to tout itself as the network that frightens the left."
The idea of facing Fox on live TV scares them silly and the Democrats, as is their usual practice, ran for cover. If they can't dictate the rules of the game they won't play. And Fox made it clear that they would make the rules, which is their right.
On the other hand, you have the Republicans who debated at my father's library in a contest run by MSNBC and moderated by none other than Chris Matthews.
Think about it the Democrats run away from a fair and balanced Fox-sponsored debate while the Republicans have no problem agreeing to a debate moderated by the Bush-hating, anti-GOP Matthews, whose idea of balance is to tilt everything towards the Democrat side, and run by NBC, the most liberal network. The GOP attitude: "Bring 'em on," contrasted with the Democrats' cut-and-run strategy.
In this case, as in the case of the war in Iraq, the Republicans are standing up while the Democrats continue to display that large yellow streak that runs down their spines, even retreating in the face of what they regard as a deadly threat: an unbiased Fox network.
They always insist on having the umpires in their back pockets. If they are fair and unbiased the Democrats won't play in their ballpark. As Dracula reportedly cringes before a crucifix, the Democrats tremble in the face of facts.
The Republicans, however, are not only willing to fight an unpopular war in Iraq against the insurgents, but also are willing to face the hostility of the home-grown insurgency that has captured the Democrat party, the mainstream media, and liberal Chris Matthews and NBC.
(Mike Reagan's e-mail is Reagan@caglecartoons.com)