America’s Mayor Aborting Own Candidacy?

Too early to be sure, but one can only hope…

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.

Over at the
Corner there’s some doubt as to what precisely Giuliani meant, but to me, it’s immaterial. We know he’s an extremist on abortion, and that he hasn’t a clue what judicial originalism means. I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’d love it if the social Right would just vanish, and chances are this was a case of the real Rudy bubbling to the surface.

Anatomy of a Propaganda Racket

Why does this not surprise me?

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

“I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds,” Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.

Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, “Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them.”

A Jan. 30 news release by the corporation listed Islam vs. Islamists as one of eight films to be presented in the opening series.

Mary Stewart, vice president of external affairs at WETA, said Burke’s documentary was not completed on time to be among 11 documentaries that will be aired beginning Sunday. Stewart said the picture may be broadcast by PBS at a later date.

“The film is a strong film,” Stewart said. “I’m still hoping to see this in the Crossroads initiative.”

Jeff Bieber, WETA’s executive producer for Crossroads, gave a substantially different explanation. He said Burke’s film had “serious structural problems (and) . . . was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn’t fair.”

“They’re crying foul, and there was no foul ball,” Bieber added. “The problem is in their film.”

The controversy involves a collection of documentaries financed with $20 million in federal grants from the corporation, which conceived Crossroads in 2004 to enhance public understanding of terrorism, homeland security and other crucial issues in the post-9/11 era. Independent filmmakers submitted 430 proposals. Full production grants were given to 21 of those, including Islam vs. Islamists, which received $700,000.
Subtitled Voices From the Muslim Center, Burke says his film “attempts to answer the question: ‘Where are the moderate Muslims?’ The answer is, ‘Wherever they are, they are reviled and sometimes attacked’ ” by extremists.
Michael Levy, a spokesman for CPB, said the corporation set up the Crossroads project and provided funding, but turned over management and content control to PBS and WETA 13 months ago.
After that, Burke says in his Feb. 23 complaint letter, he “consistently encountered actions by the PBS series producers that violate the basic tenets of journalism in America.”-PBS officials turned down interview requests.

The dispute adds to a running debate about political bias in the nation’s publicly funded television business. In 2004, filmmakers complained that CPB was pushing a right-wing agenda for the Crossroads series. A year later, CPB President Kenneth Tomlinson sought to eliminate what he saw as a liberal bias at PBS. He was forced to resign after an inspector general’s report found that he violated federal rules and ethics standards in the process.
Burke’s credits include Pirates of Silicon Valley, a movie about the founders of Microsoft, and The Hollywood Ten, a documentary about blacklisted leftists in the motion picture industry during the 1950s.
In the making of Islam vs. Islamists, Burke’s co-producers were Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and Alex Alexiev, the non-profit organization’s vice president. Both men are neo-conservatives who have written on the threat of “Islamofascism” to the free world.
Before filming began last year, Burke says, Bieber asked him, “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?”
Bieber said PBS was concerned that the Center for Security Policy is an advocacy group, so its leaders could not produce an objective picture. Because of that, he suggested that Gaffney be demoted to adviser.-Burke, who did not honor the recommendation, says that funding was delayed and WETA began to interfere with his film until it was “expelled” from Crossroads.
Among Burke’s examples of tampering:
• A WETA manager pressed to eliminate a key perspective of the film: The claim that Muslim radicals are pushing to establish “parallel societies” in America and Europe governed by Shariah law rather than sectarian courts.
• After grants were issued, Crossroads managers commissioned a new film that overlapped with Islam vs. Islamists and competed for the same interview subjects.
• WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University. In an “unparalleled breach of ethics,” Burke says, McCloud took rough-cut segments of the film and showed them to Nation of Islam officials, who are a subject of the documentary. They threatened to sue.
“This utterly undermines any journalistic independence,” Burke wrote in an e-mail to WETA officials.
In an interview, McCloud said she showed a single video frame to a Muslim journalist who was not a Nation of Islam representative.
However, in a January e-mail, McCloud told Crossroads producers that she had spoken with Nation of Islam representatives and “invited them over to view this section.” She also wrote that they were outraged “and will promptly pursue litigation.”
Stewart, the WETA executive, said McCloud was admonished for “inappropriate” conduct.-Otherwise, however, Stewart said Crossroads producers have dealt with Islam vs. Islamists in a fair and professional manner.

Frank Gaffney weighs in on the controversy
here. So here’s how it works: the Left can constantly accuse conservatives of hating Arabs & Muslims and portraying them all as terrorists and brutes. But when conservatives try to give voice to Muslims who genuinely are decent, humane, freedom-loving people, it’s silenced. Now that’s a pretty slick little propaganda racket.

Terror Warrior?

Rudy Giuliani should be forgiven for his social liberalism and elected president because he’ll fight an aggressive War on Terror—or so we’re told. Now, even that is questionable:

[I]n discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq.

Terrorists “are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq,” Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that “there are no sure things,” and that if the United States fails in Iraq, “we have to be ready for that, too.” In California a few days later, speaking of “the danger of focusing on Iraq too much,” he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.

I’ve been trying to figure out the why Rudy’s terror rhetoric is so underwhelming yet so appealing to people, and the other night it hit me: it’s nothing the average talk-radio listener off the street couldn’t repeat back to you. “Terrorists will come here…war whether we want it or not…the president has acknowledged mistakes…” which is true enough as far as it goes, but that’s about as specific as America’s Mayor gets (
listen for his answer as to what mistakes we made in Iraq…hint: it ain’t there).

Man, this house of cards is seriously overdue for a nice, strong gust of wind…

Life in Bush’s Amerika of Fear – or – CAIR Needs to Get a Life

The horror continues:

Two hours before the Islamic Center of Clarksville held its 1 p.m. Friday prayer service, called Jummah, a Quran was found vandalized on the front steps.

The front of the Quran, Islam’s holy book, read “Mohammad pedophile” while an expletive was written inside, smeared under two strips of bacon, according to a Clarksville Police report. The report labeled the incident a hate crime.

The bacon strips are offensive to Muslims because they are forbidden from eating pork.

Apparently, CAIR
wants the FBI to investigate the case. Last time I checked, the feds were kinda busy with that whole “global movement of Islamic fanatics trying to kill people en masse” thing. I’d rather they didn’t make detours for every vandalism case that comes their way.

Hollywood’s At It Again? You Bet Your Sweet Shoe-Phone!

It seems Hollywood’s gonna bring the classic spy sitcom Get Smart to the big screen. As a fan of the original (hey TV Land, how ‘bout putting it back on your lineup?), I really want this movie to be good. But considering that sitcom-to-film translations have a mixed track record (good…and ugh), I’m a bit anxious…

Division on the Right

I’ve got a bone to pick with two of our potential candidates: Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.

Not on policy grounds—both men are (though not perfect) conservative enough to win my support, should they conquer the primaries. I think Thompson has a chance of winning, Newt not so much, but there are a lot of people excited about the mere possibility of their candidacies. Which is why the “maybe” status of their candidacies bothers me.

If you want to be president, go for it. Make your cases and do your best to rally the Right. I wouldn’t jump ship (I’m convinced Mitt Romney is the best the field has to offer), but if you can convince the most voters that you’re the standard-bearer, I’ll be more than happy to fight for you after the primary.

On the flip side, you need to make a decision. If you’re not going to run, you need to say so. A lot of people’s hopes are resting on you two—especially on Thompson—and it’s not right to get their hopes up over nothing.

It’s this state of limbo that bothers me. Until you make a commitment, your presence in the mix only serves to divide the Right’s support, and help Giuliani—and if we’re going to save the Republican Party from becoming the RINO Party, we need to unite behind a real candidate.