This reminds me of the great outcry a few months ago
when Democrats refused to debate on FOX:
Nevada Dems Nix Fox Debate
By: Ryan Grim
March 12, 2007 11:59 AM EST
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
The letter said Nevada Democrats had entered into the
agreement with Fox, despite strong opposition from
Democratic activist groups such as MoveOn.org, 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."
--- Julie Keller <julieannkeller@...
Except for McCain and Paul.
Continuing Rushs content (in thepost directly below)
that YouTube is a gigantic liberal conspiracy,Jose
Antonio Vargas at WashingtonPost.com learnsthat so
far, only two Republican candidates have signed up for
. . . But so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
andRep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in
the debate,co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in
St. Petersburg. . . .
Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said hes
unlikely toparticipate. . . .
In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.)
Union Leader,Romney said hes not a fan of the
CNN/YouTube format. Referring to thevideo of a snowman
asking the Democratic candidates about globalwarming,
Romney quipped, I think the presidency ought to be
held at ahigher level than having to answer questions
from a snowman. . . .
Were very hopeful that all the campaigns will get on
board,said Steve Grove, head of news and politics at
Added state Republican spokeswoman Erin VanSickle:
Its animportant debate in an important battleground
state that just moved itsprimary to Jan. 29th. In
other words, we have every confidence thatthey will
attend. They cant afford not to.
When in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for onepeople to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them withanother, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
andequal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitlethem, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that theyshould declare
the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are createdequal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienablerights, that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men,deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed. Thatwhenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, itis the
right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to
institute newgovernment, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing itspowers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect theirsafety
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long
established shouldnot be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly allexperience hath
shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
whileevils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the formsto which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariablythe same object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolutedespotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off suchgovernment,
and to provide new guards for their future security.
So,can we ITMFA?