By Greg C. Reeson

If you were to ask a stranger on the street to name the top talk radio personalities in the country, you would inevitably receive an answer that included the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. The problem with all of them, according to some Democrats, is that they only represent one side of the political spectrum. And, of course, it’s not the side the Democrats prefer the public to hear.

So, in order to level the playing field, many on the left are calling for the return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine to give opposing viewpoints an equal opportunity to be heard by listening audiences. The problem with the Fairness Doctrine, though, is that it’s not really what it claims to be—fair.

There’s little doubt about the assertion that most talk radio programs lean toward conservatism. But there’s a reason for the ever-growing popularity of the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the airwaves: it’s called the marketplace. Simply put, successful radio programs are the ones that attract advertisers. Period. Limbaugh is the top-rated radio personality in the country because a large segment of the public likes what he has to say. Therefore, they tune in to his show. Advertisers then buy time during his program to pitch their products and services to his audience. If nobody was listening, the advertisers would take their business elsewhere and the Rush Limbaugh show would be but a distant memory. Case in point: Air America.

Leftists like Al Franken tried desperately to make their challenge to conservative talk radio dominance work. But they failed. They failed because their message did not resonate with a large enough segment of the radio listening population to attract the advertisers necessary to fund the programming. Talk radio is just like any other product. You make it attractive to an audience and it sells. If you can’t do that, you’re out of business.

Having failed at radio in the free marketplace, Democrats now want to impose their political ideology and viewpoints on a listening public that has already, for the most part, rejected their opinions. Prominent Democrats like Senator Byron Dorgan and Representative Dennis Kucinich want radio stations to make comparable time available for opposing opinions, regardless of whether or not that programming is profitable to the host stations. Having failed to sell you their message, they now want to force you to listen to it through congressional action.

Now, I’ve had a few people tell me that equal time would ensure that both sides of an issue were presented, thus enabling the listening audience to develop a better informed opinion about a given topic. That’s ridiculous. People who listen to the radio listen to programming that appeals to them. They listen because they like what they hear. What do you suppose a listener will do if he or she disagrees with or dislikes what is on the radio? Odds are that the listener will tune in another program or just stop listening altogether.

The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be nothing more than another government infringement on our ability as citizens to exercise individual choice. By telling us what we will listen to on the radio, Democrats take away our ability to choose what we will listen to on the radio. Democrats who demand equal time under the Fairness Doctrine are keenly aware that they fail at talk radio when it comes to the free exchange of ideas. That is why the leftist agenda must be force-fed to the talk radio listening public, and that is why guys like Dorgan and Kucinich want to use the Fairness Doctrine to take away your ability to tune them out.

By Greg C. Reeson

A professional acquaintance of mine, who is affiliated with the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, recently forwarded me an article about a speech delivered at a conference of Kurdish leaders from Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The author of the article, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who also gave the speech at the conference in early April), provides some insight into one of the most significant problems faced by the United States in its quest to establish a stable and democratic Iraq. The problem: what to do about the Kurds.

The article begins with a telling paragraph: “A muezzin is calling people to pray from a minaret nearby as I am writing this. I am in Hewlar, Iraq—more appropriately Iraqi Kurdistan, or even more appropriately South Kurdistan. That’s what Kurds in Iraq call their portion of Kurdistan. Kurds in Turkey call theirs North Kurdistan. Kurds in Syria call theirs West Kurdistan. And Kurds in Iran call theirs East Kurdistan.”

The paragraph is significant because it captures in just a few sentences the sentiments of the vast majority of Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran: they are an independent people whose homeland is being denied to them by other states. The Kurds want, above all else, an independent state that they can call their own. And not just any state. They want Kurdistan, with clearly defined borders that reach into the territories now claimed by four other nations.

Dr. Wheeler said in his speech: “…the Kurds…remain the largest ethnic group in the world without their own country. This must change.” In Iraq, the situation is indeed changing, and the consequences of that change could put at risk everything President Bush and the U.S. military have been striving to achieve for the past four years.

The Kurds in Iraq have steadily moved toward independence, establishing a stable and secure environment in northern Iraq, one that has been touted as the model for the future of that war-torn country and one that has been self-governed by the Kurds since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The Iraqi Kurds’ repeated moves toward independence (resistance to giving up oil rights, flying the Kurdish flag instead of the Iraqi flag, insisting on regional autonomy, deployment of an armed and trained militia, etc.) have irritated the Iraqi government in Baghdad and have increased tensions with Iraq’s neighbors.

Turkey has vowed repeatedly, as has Iran, that there will be no independent Kurdistan, for the creation of such a country would cause what would probably be violent unrest in the Kurdish regions of those states as the minority Kurds sought to break away from Ankara and Tehran to become part of the new Kurdistan. And the Turks and Iranians, as well as the Syrians, have a very real basis for their fears.

In his speech, Dr. Wheeler urged the Kurds to act: “The peoples of Turkey, Syria, and Iran…must understand they can only have a truly free country when all their people are not oppressed by their governments. It is the Kurds of Syria who can bring freedom to Syria. It is the Kurds of Turkey who can bring freedom to all the peoples of Turkey. And it is the Kurds of Iran who can end the horrible tyranny of the mullahs in Tehran and bring freedom to Iran.”

And Dr. Wheeler does not hide the fact that with Iraq currently in turmoil and Iraq’s Kurds increasingly gaining autonomy, the next set of steps should be taken in Iran: “Today there is the opportunity for Kurds to join with other people, such as the Azeris, the Ahwazi Arabs, the Baluchis, and democratic Persians to rid Iran of Mullah Fascism and bring freedom to Iran.” He goes on, writing in his article, to say unambiguously that “…the target has got to be Iran.”

This Kurdish nationalism presents a difficult problem for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The United States knows that continued independence moves by the Kurds could inflame Iraqi Arabs, and that there exists the distinct possibility of military intervention by Turkey, Iran and Syria.

Turkey is a NATO ally and a crucial bridge between the west and the Islamic Middle East. The strategic interests of the United States dictate that the maintenance of Turkey as a member of NATO and a regional ally takes precedence over the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Similarly, the strategic goal of a stable, democratic Iraq is severely undermined by the creation of a separate Kurdish nation that would provoke Iran into fomenting even more regional instability and violence. Syria, too, must be considered, with the Assad regime’s ability to undermine the Lebanese government and to incite violence against Israel, as well as the already demonstrated capacity to facilitate the funneling of weapons and fighters into Iraq.

For the United States, the choice seems perfectly clear. While the Kurds have demonstrated the ability to establish a peaceful, secure region in a country torn by violence and sectarian hatred, their dreams of an independent Kurdistan must take a back seat to the more important strategic goal of a stable and non-threatening Middle East. The Kurds must be convinced that the United States can be a far greater ally if their nationalist ambitions give way to the greater good of the region.

Restraining Kurdish ambitions for self-determination while working toward a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq is an extremely difficult undertaking, even with 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground. It is a task that will likely prove impossible if our forces are withdrawn before a political accommodation can be reached. And while the Kurdish problem is but one piece of the puzzle in establishing a peaceful and secure Iraq, it is a piece that the United States cannot afford to ignore.

By Greg C. Reeson 

Given the steady flow of anti-war and anti-surge rhetoric spewing from the mouths of the Congressional majority and Presidential candidates seeking the Party’s nomination, I have to wonder if key Democratic players suffer from a genuine lack of understanding regarding the threats we face if we fail in Iraq, or if they are just choosing to ignore those threats and the likely consequences of precipitous withdrawal.

Critics of recent Congressional action on the Iraq war like to argue that Democrats are traditionally weak on national security, and that they simply don’t have a firm understanding of what will happen if we pull our troops out prematurely and surrender Iraq to the jihadists and the Iranians. This position is understandable.

It’s easy to surmise that those on the left misunderstand the threat when you read comments like the ones made by LA Times columnist and fervent Bush / Republican basher Rosa Brooks, who in a column called “9/11 was bad, but…” published on April 27, wrote: “The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation.” Ms. Brooks went on to write, “Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective.” Keep it in perspective? Her words and her comparison of the death toll from 9/11 with our casualty figures from the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam reveal a leftist mentality that is focused on the damage caused by one supposedly isolated act of violence and not on the threat posed by a radical ideology determined to effect our eventual subjugation under the banner of Islam.

While this belief of natural weakness and lack of comprehension may be true for the more radical members of the Party, who are blinded by their hatred for the President, wars in general, and the Iraq war in particular, I don’t believe it to be the case for the Democrats’ core leaders in the Congress or on the Presidential campaign trail. Instead, I believe it more likely that the heavy hitters of the Democratic Party do in fact recognize the threats we face and are purposely ignoring the consequences of defeat for political gain in 2008.

There is some basis for this theory. Earlier this year, the Democratic Leadership Council, chaired by former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, published its Plan B on Iraq, citing the failure of President Bush’s strategy as a call for changing direction in the conduct of the war. Part of the plan reads as follows:

“…the ‘out now’ option would likely compromise U.S. security interests, trigger a full-scale civil war, invite foreign intervention, provide an unprecedented propaganda victory for Sunni Jihadists and Shi’a theocrats whose savage violence has been aimed at creating this outcome, and abandon those millions of Iraqis whose suffering under Saddam Hussein will be compounded by more chaos, war and tyranny.”

The plan goes on to say: “A precipitous withdrawal would also drive the Iraqi government further into the arms of the Iranians…making Shi’a-Sunni reconciliation even harder and increasing Iran’s regional influence. And it could definitely create a dangerous recruitment point and training base for the international Jihadists who remain the key global threat to our, and the world’s security interests. A rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq isn’t really a Plan B: it’s a ‘Plan Zero’ for liquidating the whole Iraq engagement as hopeless.”

So where’s the disconnect? How can the Democratic Leadership Council recognize the dangers associated with premature withdrawal while the Party’s Congressional leaders and Presidential candidates vociferously demand that very course of action? How does the Council reconcile its position with Senator Reid’s public statements concerning a war that is already lost and the need for bringing our troops home in accordance with the mandate allegedly granted by the November 2006 elections?

The truth, I believe, is that most Democrats understand exactly what will happen if we fail in Iraq. They understand that the unchecked genocide of Iraqi Sunnis by the Shi’a majority could spark a regional sectarian war. They understand that Iran’s position in the region would be enhanced and that a traditional buffer against Shi’ite influence in the Middle East would be eliminated. They understand that the violence and chaos in Iraq would likely escalate, endangering our allies in the region and our national security interests worldwide while creating a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. And they understand that terrorists around the world would be emboldened by their victory over the world’s only remaining superpower, just as they were when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Given this understanding of the consequences of premature withdrawal, why are leading Democrats denouncing the President’s “surge” strategy and demanding a reduction in forces or a complete pullout instead? There can be only one answer.

Democrats know that they must maintain the status quo in Iraq until after the 2008 elections. To concede, even a little bit, that the surge might be working, that there may be signs of progress, would be to admit that the President might have been correct in implementing his new security strategy for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province. That is why it was necessary to discount General Petraeus’ reports of initial progress and encouraging signs even before he appeared in the House and Senate. It is also why Speaker Pelosi felt it was more important to work on securing votes for the withdrawal resolution than it was to be at Petraeus’ briefing.

The success of the surge would spell political disaster for Democrats as Americans realized that we could in fact win in Iraq, and that there was an honorable end in sight for a conflict that has torn at the very soul of this nation. For Democrats, the surge must fail in order for Iraq to be used as political ammunition in the 2008 elections.

Democrats also know that they cannot, under any circumstances, cut off funds for the troops, for they alone would bear full responsibility for abandoning our men and women in harm’s way and for the increased violence and chaos that would surely follow in Iraq after U.S. troops were redeployed.

So what we get from the Democratic-led Congress and from the Democratic Presidential field is resolution after resolution criticizing the President while avoiding responsibility for anything that happens in Iraq. The hope, I believe, is to maintain the current pattern through the 2008 elections, allowing Democrats to claim that the President was the problem and that they were powerless to stop him because Republicans in the Congress would not support overriding a Presidential veto.

The end result is the undermining of the Commander-in-Chief, the troops in the field, and their mission in Iraq purely for political gain. The strategy is an astute one, as far as Washington maneuvering goes, but it is also one of surrender and defeat in Iraq in order to secure victory at the ballot box in 2008. For Democrats, political advantage has taken priority over national security. That is why the surge must fail, and that is why Democrats have fittingly been accused of being “The Party of Defeat.”

By Greg C. Reeson 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed a few months ago a plan to form a new African command in response to the increasing strategic importance of the continent in the Global War on Terror. The new command, known as AfriCom, is expected to begin initial operations this fall and should be fully operational in late 2008. The timing couldn’t be more critical.

As the United States and its allies keep pressure on terrorist groups in Europe and the Middle East, the activities of radical elements in Africa serve as a sober reminder that the Global War on Terror is not limited to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to analytical reports by Austin-based Stratfor, a private intelligence and counter-terrorism firm, al-Qaeda’s operations have expanded from the Horn of Africa into the northern part of the continent, and are likely to spread further unless the threat is addressed soon. Islamic militants of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council in Somalia continue to engage in fierce fighting with Ethiopian troops, a U.S.-led task force is conducting counter-terrorism operations in Djibouti, bombing plots have been uncovered in several African countries, and the list goes on.

Stratfor also says that recent suicide bombings indicate that jihadist warfare, primarily under the guise of the al-Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb, is now being waged on a much broader scale than was previously the case. By establishing a new combatant command in Africa, the United States is hoping to combine the strengths of joint-service military forces with other governmental resources, agencies, and departments to stop the spread of terrorist influence in Africa before it establishes a firm foothold.

Some analysts have argued that establishing a larger U.S. military presence in Africa will only serve to embolden the terrorists who are already there. But the alternative to expanding our Global War on Terror operations on the continent is a much less attractive option. Once terrorist organizations are firmly rooted in Africa, it will be much more difficult and much more costly to dislodge or destroy them. Once a new base of operations is established, radical terrorist groups will use Africa as a springboard for their Islamic movement, working to topple nearby secular governments first, gradually spreading their hatred and subjugation until their ultimate goal of world domination can be achieved.

That is why it is so important, now more than ever, for the new AfriCom to become fully functional as soon as possible, and for it to have the resources it needs to fight terrorists in Africa. The United States and allied nations must remain focused on the larger strategic picture that is the Global War on Terror. We cannot become fixated on Iraq and Afghanistan, for to do so would be to ignore the threats that are gaining momentum in the Philippines, Africa, and other places where radical Islamists are attempting to establish bases of operations.

Now is when we must keep the pressure on, not only in the Middle East, but wherever terrorists seek to set up shop. AfriCom is designed to do just that, allowing us to bring to bear the full power and resources of the United States, so that by fighting them over there, we will not be forced to fight them over here.

By Greg C. Reeson 

This past weekend, when I took my family to a nearby amusement park, I noticed several t-shirts worn by park patrons that made me think about a racial double standard that exists in this country, one that was recently highlighted by the firing of radio and television host Don Imus.

Some of the t-shirts read as follows: “Black is Beautiful;” “The Blacker the College, the Sweeter the Knowledge;” “It’s a Black Thang;” and “Blacks do it Better.” I understand and respect pride in one’s race and heritage, and generally have no problem with expressions of that respect and pride. But in light of the Imus incident and the Reverend Sharpton’s reply, I couldn’t help but wonder what the reaction would have been if the t-shirts had read “White is Beautiful;” “The Whiter the College, the Sweeter the Knowledge;” “It’s a White Thing;” or “Whites do it Better.”

While I can’t say with certainty what the response from most people would have been, I can hazard a guess. I suspect that the wearers of the shirts would have been labeled racists, and that they may have even been barred entry to the park. I say that confidently because a double standard does in fact exist in America when the discussion centers on race.

Let’s go back to the Don Imus case for a minute. What he said was irresponsible and probably indicative of racist and bigoted beliefs that have no place in modern society. He was rightly criticized and his employer decided he was not the image the company wanted to project. But what about Al Sharpton? As soon as the controversy over Imus’ remarks began, Sharpton was on television and radio demanding that Imus be fired and denouncing a culture of racism against blacks in America.

But Sharpton himself is guilty of making inflammatory comments that would be categorized as contemptuous of other races. Why is he entitled to criticize Imus and demand that he lose his job while getting a pass for himself after deriding “Jewish diamond merchants” and “white interlopers?” How can he call for racial equality while discriminating against non-blacks?

One other example underscores my point, and it involves the use of the “N-word.” When I was growing up, I asked a couple of African-American friends why it was okay for blacks to use the word, but it was considered racist for whites to do so. I was informed that blacks shared a bond, dating from the days of slavery and represented by the “N-word,” that non-blacks simply couldn’t understand. The use of the word by African-Americans was a recognition of a shared heritage that non-blacks could not be part of. Whatever the reason, the end result was a double standard that allowed some to use the word as a term of endearment or friendship, while others were prohibited from using the word for fear that they would be labeled racist.

Other examples from American life are readily available. “Support Black Businesses” is a theme often echoed by the African-American community. What if someone said “Support White Businesses?” Would they be labeled as racist? What about the United Negro College Fund? Would a United White College Fund escape scrutiny for discrimination or racism? What if the NBA was required to implement an affirmative action plan to help white players? Would there be an uproar from the citizenry?

I understand the argument that such measures are necessary to help level the playing field from generations of white dominance and the oppression of blacks. But when does it stop? When is the playing field considered level and who makes that determination? How can we be sure that the determination will be just? Without an end in sight, how can there be racial equality?

The existence of a racial double standard is detrimental to our society and to race relations in America. We cannot demand racial equality or a colorblind society while holding different races to non-equal standards. The only way to fix the racial divide in this country is to treat everyone equally. It must go both ways. Otherwise the Sharptons, and the David Dukes (who is equally divisive in his defense of white culture), of the world will continue to use race as a means for emphasizing our differences rather than working toward expanding our commonalities.

By Greg C. Reeson

There’s general agreement among Americans that when it comes to the subject of bias in the mainstream media, Republicans and Democrats hold very different views. The former often complain that the major news organizations slant considerably to the left, and the latter often counter that the media is generally neutral and sometimes favors the right. Nowhere is the difference in perception more obvious than in the reaction of Republicans and Democrats to media coverage of the war in Iraq.

According to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center, Republicans tend to trust the news they receive from the Pentagon and military spokesmen in Iraq, and distrust the reporting of the mainstream media. For Democrats, the opposite holds true, with most distrusting the information provided by American military leaders, choosing instead to rely on the media for what they consider accurate Iraq war reporting.

Many prominent GOP politicians have complained that the mainstream media’s depiction of the situation in Iraq is unfairly one-sided, and I have written before that most news organizations tend to follow the “If it bleeds, it leads” reporting strategy. Sensationalism sells and images of blown up military vehicles and downed helicopters capture the attention of an audience much more than video streams or pictures of school openings and hospital renovations.

The practice of looking for the next big bang, whether it comes from a suicide bomber in a market or from an ambush on coalition troops, conditions Americans to believe that there is absolutely nothing positive happening in Iraq. The whole place is going to hell and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, or so the mainstream mantra goes. Daily images of violence and chaos frustrate Republicans who support our efforts in Iraq and reinforce the preconceived notions of Democrats who want to get our troops home at any cost.

Such reporting also prevents stories of progress from getting to the American public. For example, Colonel Paul Funk of the 1^st Brigade, 1^st Cavalry Division recently briefed from Iraq that the recent troop increases in Baghdad provided under the President’s plan had reduced the number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in his sector of the city by forty percent. He also told reporters that Iraqi civilian murders in northern Baghdad, the sectarian violence that often dominates the mainstream media’s reporting and is frequently used to justify our departure from a “civil war” that we can’t mediate, were down from a high of about eight per month to just one or two per month since the initiation of the new security program. And that’s just in his sector, which comprises about 900 square miles and is home to 2 million Iraqi citizens. Where was this story on the national news circuit? What about the stories of reduced violence and improved security in other sectors of Baghdad?

The good news from Iraq is available for those who want to find it. The problem is that Americans should not have to go looking for the truth from independent web journals or outside sources found in the rapidly evolving “new” or “alternative” media. Fair and accurate reporting could do much to change the public’s opinion of the war, merely by providing both sides of the story.

Imagine if the mainstream media devoted as much time to stories about the good things our troops are doing as they allow for the bombs and the blood. Perhaps Americans would be less skeptical about our prospects for success if they were able to tune in to the evening news and see a balanced approach to Iraq, one that provided a truer picture of what was happening on the ground. Perhaps then the calls for precipitous withdrawal would die down just a bit as the public realized that all wars involve both progress and setbacks, and not just the latter.

A change in perception could go a long way toward allowing the President, as the Constitutionally-designated Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to focus on making his plan for Iraq work without attempts from the left to sabotage it before it is even fully implemented. Then maybe our military men and women could finish the task at hand and return home with the dignity and honor they deserve, and not as pawns pulled from the battlefield prematurely as part of a defeatist strategy that will surely come back to haunt us in the future.

By Greg C. Reeson

Much of the hype about whether Barack Obama was “black enough” for the African-American community had died down when reports began to surface that the Reverend Al Sharpton had complained about Obama’s “blackness.” Specifically, the reports alleged, Sharpton was concerned that Obama had never been active in the black community and that his campaign was largely driven by white Americans.

As the first serious black contender for the Presidency, Obama came under fire early for not being “black enough” to fully represent African-Americans. Jolivette Anderson-Douoning, facility and program supervisor for the Black Cultural Center, said the following: “His father didn’t experience Jim Crow. He was a black man not defined by Jim Crow America.” She went on to say that the black community was concerned with Obama’s family’s lack of the “black experience” and his politics towards blacks.

But is this really important? We will never be able to move away from judgments based on skin color as long as people insist on voicing such ridiculous questions. Yes it is an accomplishment that for the first time an African-American is a serious contender for the Presidency. But the color of his skin should not matter beyond that achievement. What should matter is what Obama believes, and what qualifications he possesses that would make us comfortable entrusting to him the leadership of the most powerful nation on Earth.

Vibe.com ran an article on March 23, 2007 that really gets at what is important. In the article, columnist Allison Harvey writes: “The question America should be asking has nothing to do with who is a black enough candidate….The real question for 2008 is this: Does Barack Obama have the chops to stand up as a competent Commander-in-Chief?”

Ms. Harvey is right on the money with her question. We, as Americans, should be asking why Barack Obama is the best man for the job. Unfortunately, so far candidate Obama has done little to let us know the answer to that question.

As soon as he announced his candidacy, Mr. Obama began to get pelted with questions about his lack of experience and demands for details of his plans for America. Those details have been very slow in coming as the Obama campaign focuses instead on calls for bipartisanship and unity in Washington, D.C. The central theme of the Obama run for the Presidency seems to be “Can’t we all just get along?”

With the candidate and his campaign tight-lipped about what a President Obama would stand for, we are forced to look at his limited time in the Senate for some answers. That time has been short, to be sure, but the two years Senator Obama has been serving the people of Illinois do in fact provide us with some clues about what we could expect from an Obama Presidency.

Steven Thomas, writing recently for the McClatchy Washington Bureau, called Barack Obama more liberal than even radical left-wing Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Thomas bases his assessment on a National Journal analysis of votes cast by all the members of Congress currently in the race for President. That analysis ranked candidates based on comprehensive voting records, resulting in a ranking for Obama that made him the most liberal Senator after two full years in that legislative body.

That’s what voters should be focused on. For liberals, Obama’s ranking is probably uplifting. For conservatives and moderates, though, there is cause for worry if Senator Obama succeeds in becoming President Obama.

All of the time wasted focusing on Obama’s “blackness,” or lack thereof, would have been better spent educating Americans about what a President Obama would mean for government spending, taxes, foreign policy and national security, immigration, and social problems faced by this country.

Instead of focusing on candidate Obama’s skin color, or the skin color of those running his campaign, we should be focused on what he has to offer the citizens of this nation. When the debate moves to one of substance over race, then we will have truly progressed.

By Greg C. Reeson

Normally I don’t tune in to 60 Minutes on Sunday evenings, but this past weekend I made an exception so that I could watch the much-publicized Katie Couric interview with Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth. After the interview concluded, I realized that I had never before been so disturbed by the words of a candidate for President of the United States.

The interview was arranged to give Edwards and his wife a chance to talk about their decision to continue with the Presidential campaign after Elizabeth’s recent announcement that her cancer had returned, and that it was treatable but incurable. Instead of feelings of compassion for what they must be experiencing, I was left with the impression of a man who has skewed priorities and whose judgment I must question, especially given the office that he seeks.

In fairness, John and Elizabeth Edwards have every right to make their own choices and decisions regarding the conduct of their lives and what they think is best for themselves and their children. Mr. Edwards said during the interview that Americans “…can evaluate for themselves whether they think I’m, in fact, doing this for the right reason.” While I don’t pretend to know the motivation behind the decision, and have no reason to question it, it is within this context of personal evaluation that I must address the Edwards’ comments during the sit-down with Ms. Couric.

Asked about staying in the campaign, Mr. Edwards said, “Well, first the decision was made by the two of us, no one else…as it should be. And she said to me, ‘this is what we believe in. This is what we’re spending our lives doing. It’s where our heart and soul is. And we can not stop it.’”

As a soldier who has given nearly twenty years of his life in the service of this country, I understand the sense of devotion and loyalty to our nation, and I appreciate those feelings in any American. But as a husband who loves his wife dearly, I have great difficulty understanding Mr. Edwards’ decision.

There are times when national service takes precedence over all other things, but these times have to be considered carefully and deliberately. It is true that we are all here for a finite period of time, and that we never know when a loved one may be taken from us. But for me, at least, the knowledge that such a loss would probably occur sooner than expected would give new urgency to maximizing our time together, focused on making every moment meaningful in the context of family.

Now, I’m not saying that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards did not give the matter due thought and reflection. Nor am I saying that their decision was wrong. This is a matter of personal choice, and it is a choice they are entitled to make. What is important is that their decision tells me that we have very different priorities and values.

Another disturbing portion of the interview came during a series of comments about the Edwards’ children, ages six and eight. The exchange with Ms. Couric went like this:

Elizabeth Edwards: “We have been contemplating all the different ways that we can make certain that they are with us as much as possible. I’ve often said that the most important thing you can give your children (is) wings. Because, you’re not gonna always be able to bring food to the nest. You’re…sometimes…they’re gonna have to be able to fly by themselves.”

Katie Couric: “They’re 6 and 8. They’re still baby birds.”

Elizabeth Edwards: “They are still baby birds. But…”

John Edwards: “But they’ve got to start learning to fly. And they’re not ready to fly on their own yet, but they’ve got to start learning.”

What? These are little children we’re talking about here! These are not grown kids who understand life and death and getting out from the nest. These are kids who may suddenly lose their mother while they are still young. As a father, I just don’t understand the logic here. My children give me life and purpose beyond that which I get from my wife and my service to this country. I’m sure, as parents, the Edwards’ feel the same way. Which is why it is so hard for me to understand their decision.

The exchange about their children left me feeling that Mr. Edwards was a cold and heartless man. I’m sure that’s not the case, but it’s certainly the way it came across to me. It was as if he was being cavalier about the matter, saying in effect that the kids needed to start growing up.

We are all unique individuals, with different priorities and values. It is not for me to say whose are right and whose are wrong. It is also not for me to say the Edwards’ decision was a bad choice. I don’t believe that his desire to continue the quest for the Presidency was calculated to gain politically, and I don’t believe that he is seeking a sympathy vote. What I do believe is that Mr. Edwards and I have very different opinions about what is important in life. That is what disturbs me, and that is what concerns me about his ability to lead this nation.

All, I realized this morning that my new work requirements will prevent me from devoting the time to this blog that I have in the past. I have enjoyed my time with Townhall and will be checking in regularly, but my blogging will drop off significantly. I intend to only post original writings from here on, and that will probably be no more than once or twice per week. To those who have been faithful readers, thank you.

Greg

I think this is great, especially since the majority of AIPAC members are Democrats.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-hears-boos-at-aipac-2007-03-13.html

Conyers is a piece of work, isn't he? It would be nearly impossible to determine who should get reparations and who shouldn't. Certainly it wouldn't be all African-Americans. And what would come next? And why should my tax dollars pay for reparations? I didn't own any slaves, and neither did my ancestors. Should we pay because we're white? Isn't that racist itself? Just as it would be difficult to figure who had slave ancestors, it would be difficult to figure out who has slave-owner ancestors.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/patient-conyers-hopes-to-move-slavery-bill-during-an-obama-administration-2007-03-12.html

Israel is the strongest ally we have in the region. We must stick by the Israelis at all costs. Next, we should strengthen our ties with the Kurds in northern Iraq, to include permanent US military bases that we can use to project American power and counter Iranian influence.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/march/0313_cheney_israel.shtml

From Accuracy in Media.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/17982

Is it too much to ask for there not to be a double standard? Did Janet Reno resign after asking for the resignations of all 93 US attorneys in 1993? The hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4992/1/247/

He's still holding on to that double digit lead.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/12/giuliani.race/