About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Few Quick Thoughts

Palmetto Impeachment: Today a South Carolina judiciary panel is set to decide on whether Mark Sanford should have to face impeachment for running off to Argentina to rendevous with his "soulmate" for a few days last summer. It seems that since all of the charges that it seems would have deserved impeachment were found to be inadequate to support any official action, this should have been finished awhile ago. But the charges left point to the purely political nature of the impeachment effort, as they involve whether or not Sanford was derelict in his duty by not designating a plan of succession while he was gone. That charge brings tow questions to my fertile mind: What crisis was going to come up in a five day period in the state that would need the immediate and sole attention of the chief executive, and why doesn't the state already have something like this worked out ahead of time? I mean, when President Obama leaves for his next European sojourn, the executive branch is not going to be in crisis because he's not in Washington, D.C.! He is still in charge, even if he's not on the scene, and if something catastrophic happens he will be in touch and on his way back in a flash. And if something happens to him, then we know that "Plugs" Biden will assume the mantle of the presidency; so why can't they figure that out in South Carolina? It's because that isn't what this is about; it's about Sanford stepping on toes in both parties as governor, and now is the opportunity for some get back for his opponents. What Sanford did was immoral, but doe we really want a bunch of elected officials acting as the morals police?
 
Fox Fumbles: I like Fox News, I really do. I open every weekday morning by checking in on "The O'Reilly Factor" at about 5:30, then it's "Fox & Friends" until I flip over to ESPN's "Mike and Mike" at about 7:00. And I usually cringe and then get agitated when I hear people talking down the Fox News brand as "Faux News" and overly biased, simply because of the slant of its commentary shows. That irks me because usually even on the opinion shows Fox tries to give everyone a hearing and an opportunity to make known their positions. But in the past week I have been really disappointed in Fox, namely in the way that they have covered the Tiger Woods story and the murders of the four police offiicers in Washington State by a man whose sentence was commuted by then Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a host of his own FNC show. First to Tiger Woods, as it is really not a major story to begin with...but you wouldn't know that by watching FNC. I understand if the opinion shows want to talk about it, because it is ripe fodder for conversation: the entertainment/media matrix, attitudes of privilege by star athletes, and questions about how much of a public figure's life should be private can make for some excellent discussion segments. But if you want to keep the news and opinion sides separate, I would suggest not having heavy coverage of a matter like this on your news shows; I don't want to see long segments on "The Fox Report", "Fox &  Friends", or "Special Report" about this garbage! I tune into FNC to get straight news, and often news and analysis that I can't get anywhere else, not a rehashing of the latest TMZ headlines! But the more serious concern for me is the "circle the wagons" mentality that took over when it was revealed that it was Huckabee who commuted the sentence of the murderer of the four Washington peace officers. O'Really had him on to diffuse the blame for this matter to the parole board in Arkansas, Hannity did the same, and "Fox News Watch" did a segment acting as though the Legacy Media was simply trying to torpedo any chances for Huckabee running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 by creating a "Willie Horton moment" for good old Huck. The only thing is, Huckabee does bear a great deal of responsibility for this tragedy, as it was his commutation of the man's sentence that allowed him to be up for parole in the first place. And in a state where the governor appoints the parole board, how likely is it that the board is going to ignore the clear signal that the commutation sends about the governor's attitude about the convict? Besides which, it was conservative alternative media for the most part that advanced the story, and it was Michelle Malkin and The American Spectator (spectator.org) that have been long reporting on Huckabee's penchant for freeing violent offenders who then went on to reoffend. What FNC did in trying to muddy the waters and protect Huckabee was shameful and they have to realize how much their actions can further tarnish their brand, epsecially with those who support them.
 
Good News? So the official national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10%, and the government and their media lackeys act as if this is the news that shows that we are well on the road to economic recovery. Now, I am no high powered, well connected economist, but I can tell you this....those numbers are not good news. Why not? Because the numbers, from my perspective are indicative of two things: seasonal hiring and the employer soupbone. The decrease in unemployment can be explained by an blurb I saw on AOL news last week about FED-EX looking to hire thousands of people for the holidays, and other places doing the same. These are not jobs that are likely to last, but are jobs to fulfill a temporary demand for help during the Christmas economic spike; after Christmas watch the jobs that are shed when the temps are sent packing. As for the soupbone, the old ladies here in the South used to use a ham bone with just a little meat on it when making soup in order to add some flavor to the soup; when the soup was finished the bone was as empty as Al Capone's vault because all the meat was cooked off of it. The employer's soup bone basically means that employers have already cut staffing to the bare bones, so when the bone was thrown into last month's economic soup, there simply wasn't much left to cook off the bone...hence the low number of layoffs nationally. It is not really impressive to have low layoff numbers after shedding so many jobs in the previous months; all it indicates is that employers don't have anyone left to layoff and still maintain a stable business.
 
Did Climatgate Happen? If you listen to NPR you would have reason to wonder! I listened to a report this morning on "Morning Edition" that dealt with the dropping numbers in opinion polling for the idea that climate change matters to the American people. While there are some polls that show just over 50% of Americans spend their time ranking "climate change" as a real priority, most others show that "climate change" is way down on the list of concerns for Americans, with the economy ranking at the top. What amazed me is that the reporter and anchor both brushed past the Climategate episode of "stolen emails" that show that global warming is a serious fraud cooked up by ideologically driven climate scientists as a reason for the recent spike in disbelief of the concept of global warming. (Whew! Just writing that sentence wore me out! I think I'll take a break for a minute.........Okay, I'm back!) They are saying that when the issue is presented as "green jobs" and the like, the awareness becomes more intense and the numbers go up. But maybe that's because "green jobs" does not address the concerns of the AGW cultists, and it sounds enough like an economic concern that people pay attention to it. But everyone that wants to know knows about the attempts to bury "inconvenient truths" and to destroy the ability of people holding contrary views of AGW to have their work peer reviewed, and it is actions like that which are waking people up to the hoax that is climate change.
 
On the SCOTUS Docket: Today the SCOTUS begins hearing a case that challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley law governing regulatory oversight in financial accounting, but in fact is really a challenge to the entire system of independent executive level agencies in the federal government. In a nutshell, the lawyer for the plaintiff is arguing that organizations like the SEC and FCC are basically unconstitutional because the POTUS does not have the ability to fire the heads of the agencies, even though he appoints them. Most of them can only be fired for cause, which the plaintiffs say means that the POTUS does not have control of those agencies, as he does with the Cabinet posts, where he can fire a Secretary for any reason he sees fit. The argument has been tried before and failed, but it may have a better chance of success with the current make up of the court. You can go to NPR for the full story.
 
So there you go my friends! Happy Reading, and thanks for stopping by!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Am I Not Surprised?

I was planning on doing a full-on, one issue post this week...I really was. But then the Fort Hood shooting happened, the Democrats passed their health-care bill in the House, Andre Agassi caused some serious upset in the genteel world of tennis, and our dear President Obama decided that his decision on Afghanistan is...to not make a decision. So I figured I would just hit on each of those topics in brief (more or less), and maybe a few more if they come to me.
 
First, what world do liberals live in? For anyone to say that they find the murders at Fort Hood incomprehensible is incomprehensible to me! Here you have a man, Major Nidal Hasan, who has telegraphed his adherence to a jihadist interpretation of Islam go on a shooting rampage on base at Fort Hood, in a readiness center full of unarmed troops either going to war or coming home, and their families...and liberals say they don't understand it. Well, I for one do understand it. It was an act of terrorism by Major Hasan, one in which he probably hoped to be martyred to his bloodthirsty version of Allah, and to say it was anything else is a travishamockery! He is the worst type of coward, as are all terrorists, because he deliberately targeted those he knew could not defend themselves against his attack. May he die a traitor's death for murdering, and attempting to murder, his brothers in arms.
 
But nearly as bad as the actual act of terror was the tepid response of out government to it. We have President Obama using the occasion to take not too subtle shots at the country while praising the troops; we are a nation that is cynical, selfish, etc. And we have Gen. George Casey bemoaning the fact that we have to create and maintain a "diverse" military, so we presumably should not hold it against the murdering Muslim that he fits the same general profile as the vast majority of terrorists that we deal with. And our Legacy Media is bending over backwards to make excuses for Hasan, and to warn America not to allow a conservative backlash against Muslims. Well guess what: we aren't interested in "persecuting" Muslims, but we are interested in destroying the dark forces arrayed against us. If they happen to be Muslim, so what?
 
In the midst of all this, Madame Pelosi (one of my top ten ugliest chicks alive...or dead) managed to get her health-care proposal rammed through the House. While she was all smiles afterwards, does anyone really think this bill has a snowball's chance of ever becoming law? When you have an overwhelming majority on your side, and you still need a Republican to vote with you...so you can win by F-I-V-E votes, that doesn't bode well for future prospects. The Senate doesn't have enough votes to break Joe Lieberman's threatened filibuster, and the House can barely pass any meaningful legislation so....the health-care debacle is likely DOA. For now.
 
After assembling his national security team for yet another jawboning session about Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has decided to...punt. He doesn't like any of the proposals put before him to consider, and refuses to make a decision on Gen. McChrystal's request for added troops to win "the good war". But what is to be expected when all the people advising the Novice-in-Chief are political hacks...including his Secretary of Defense, and the aforementioned Gen. Diversity, um...CASEY. He's even getting advice from that noted political thinker, and political general Colin Powell. Mr. Powell inveighs that the President should "take his time" making this decision, warns him not to be pushed by the left or the right, because this has tremendous implications for the remainder of his term. And this clown used to be a general for crying out loud! No Mr. Powell, and no Mr. Obama, this is not a decision about the rest of your term. It is a decision about the lives of the men we have sent to fight a war in a godforsaken, backwoods, hell-hole, in an effort to deny a safe haven to the very groups that conspired to attack us on September 11, 2001. It is about making sure that the blood and treasure spent in that conflict are not sacrificed on the altar of the Obama Political Altar, so that Obama can win electoral favor with the left. If you lack the will to fight and to see the fight through to victory, then "bug out" as the military parlance goes. But do not pretend to care about corruption in the Afghani government (as if our government is corruption free; see Murtha, Jack and Jefferson, William) or the recalcitrance of Hamid Karzai in allowing you to order him around like he's a member of our lapdog Legacy Media. At least be man enough to admit that you lack the will and inclination to finish the fight that they started, and bring our brave men and women home. That should give them time to rest and recuperate before we have to go right back into that region again, because when we pull out the jihadists will be coming after our soft underbelly, and they will try to finish us off. I just hope that when that day comes, we have someone in charge that understands that in war victory is all that matters, and electoral politics be damned!
 
On a lighter note, I am sure many of you have seen the media coverage of Andre Agassi's revelations in his new book Open. He admits to having used meth as a young man, tells of his virtual hatred of the sport of tennis, a game forced upon him by his Iranian immigrant father, and of tanking matches because he didn't want to play. What has surprised me more than anything is that all the tennis people seem to be focused on is his meth use and his saying he hated tennis. Martina Navratilova went off because he lied when he got caught using meth, not because he used the meth...but because he lied when he got caught! Hello! Who in their right mind is going to tell the organization that he works for that his failed drug test is correct, and that he was using meth? No one, especially if the organization doing the testing will believe a story that someone spiked his Gatorade with meth, and that's why he was positive! Shouldn't Marty Martina be more upset that the ATP bought the excuse equivalent of "The dog ate my homework"? As for people saying that you can't be good at something you hate, that's poppycock...especially in sports. Just last year Elena Delle Donne, a highly sought after female basketball player quit the game because she didn't like it anymore, mainly because of the pressure her parents put on her to play the game. Heck, when I worked in textiles I didn't particularly like my job, but I was the best at it because it paid the bills!
 
Finally, what was Oprah thinking the other day? I don't watch her show, but to have that lady who was mauled by the chimp show what was left of her face on national television was a bit much. But it did surprise me that Oprah didn't do her usual routine with her guests, where everything that has happened to them happened to her. I can just see Oprah saying, "I know how you feel Charla. My face is disfigured too because I was attacked by a squirrel wielding a gigantic ugly stick! He got me right in the face, and he made Michelle Obama look like James Brown! It was just horrible!"
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Sir, Are No Nixon!

With the personal and unrelenting attacks on Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, and now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce emanating from the White House these days, people have been dredging up the memory of Richard M. Nixon and comparing him to the current president. The comparison comes mainly with the development of the Obama "enemies list" that mirrors the now infamous Nixon "enemies list" that he wanted to use to "screw" his political opponents, and certain media types as well. But as the story goes on, many are saying that Obama himself is "Nixonian" in his style...but he's not.
 
First, Nixon was never a media darling and preferred to operate outside of media scrutiny, while Obama has never met a camera he didn't like. Getting Nixon to sit down with reporters was like pulling teeth, but Obama will not shut up: it seems every week that he has some huge speech, or round of interviews, or an appearance with famed harasser talk show host David Letterman. Obama has plenty to say about everything, but has very little to show for all his yapping and mewling, wheras Nixon was a man who was able to get things done.
 
Secondly, Obama is a total lightweight when compared to Richard Nixon, both academically and politically. Besides getting elected by underhanded means in his state and national Senate elections, and riding the anti-Bush "Hope & Change" Express (with a huge assist from a brain dead, feckless McCain campaign) to the White House, what has he ever done? People always talk about how many bills Obama coauthored (google it, I guarantee you'll be amazed) but he was not the driving force behind any major legislation in his career as a senator. And some of the things he did support he will break his freaking neck to get away from it, like his vote to allow born alive aborted babies to be denied medical care. He never was a governor, never finished a U.S. Senate term, never ran a business...none of that. He was just a little old community organizer that worked to make things better for the downtrodden in Chicago...just like Jesus. As for his academic career, we know that he went to Ivy League schools, served as editor for the Haaaavaaahd Law Review, but that's about it. We aren't allowed to see anything he wrote as editor of the Law Review or to see any of his academic records. But we are expected to accept that Obama is one of the best and brightest our country has ever had.
 
Compare that to the academic record of Nixon, and his vast experience before becoming president and it is no contest. Nixon graduated from Duke Law School, the Harvard of the South, second in his law school class. He then served in the U.S. Navy from 1942-46 in the Pacific theater, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander. He won his first election in 1946 when he defeated a 5 time encumbent Democrat and while in the U.S. House he served as chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee that outed Soviet agent Alger Hiss. He served briefly in the United States Senate before being tapped as Vice President for Dwight Eisenhower, where he served as acting president while the president recuperated from a heart attack.
 
Nixon was elected president in 1968 (sworn in 1969) and extricated the U.S.from the Vietnam War, opened up trade with the Communist Chinese, signed the SALT I arms treaty, and it was under his administration that man first reached the moon. Now he had his flubs like creating OSHA, getting a lot of enviromental legislation passed, and instituting a doomed program of wage/price controls...but he at least got them through a Congress that was always hostile to him. He had real accomplishments, whether you agreed with them or not, unlike the Rhetorician in Chief.
 
So don't be misled when the press (some of them at least) calls Obama "Nixonian", because he is not anything close to Nixon. Nixon, even in his most paranoiac moods, was twice the president that Obama will probably ever be. To paraphrase a well known quote, " I knew Richard Nixon, and you sir, are no Nixon!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Media-Hound-in-Chief

David Letterman. David. Letterman. David Freaking Letterman.
 
When I saw that our president was going to appear on David Letterman, I was outraged. And I don't get outraged by a lot of things, but this was one of them. The idea that a sitting POTUS would go on Letterman, after having appeared on Leno earlier in the year, was too much for me to take.
 
Why?
 
Because the office of the president is not some celebrity position, that's why! And I resent like hell any president that dishonors the office in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I resented Richard Nixon for attempting to abuse the claim of executive privilege during watergate; I resented Jimmy Carter for...well...just about everything he did as POTUS; I resented Bill Clinton for his tryst with Monica Lewinsky; and I resent Barack Obama for reducing the office to a laughingstock by appearing on a celebrity driven late night talk show.
 
Does this clown not understand that he is the United States while he serves in office? Does he not know that he is the current living symbol of this nation? Does he not grasp the fact that whatever he does, for good or for ill, reverberates around the world and shapes the image that the world has of the United States? And what image does it send to the rest of the world when the POTUS spends his valuable time yukking it up with Alfred E. Ne....uh, David Letterman in advance of the UN General Assembly meeting? You think Vladimir Putin was trying to get onto TMZ this week? Was Mahmoud Ahmedinijad appearing on Entertainment Tonight? Was Hugo Chavez angling for a spot with Conan on the Tonight Show?
 
Everyone keeps telling us that Obama has the best and brightest around him to guide his presidency, but my question is: Where the hell are they? Whose brilliant idea was it to have the POTUS become just another celebrity "get" for the bookers at Letterman? And where are the savvy political operators who should be telling him that he needs to act like a president, not some B-list movie star promoting his latest flick? Why are these people not acting as good stewards of the highest office in the land?
 
I guess that John McCain was right when he called Obama a celebrity, because he seems more concerned with his public image than with his public policy.
 
2012 cannot get here fast enough!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Quitting Sarah Palin

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the last election held in this country over on November 4, 2008? After that election the next national elections are not slated until 2010, correct? So could someone please, please tell me why there is such a furor over the losing vice presidential candidate from the last election!?! The way many on both sides of the political spectrum act, you would think that Sarah Palin was responsible for Global Warming, bitter beer face, and I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!

Somewhere along the campaign trail, people decided that Sarah Palin was the bane of the McCain campaign, the scourge if the Republican Party, and the least qualified vice presidential candidate ever…as if that mattered when she was on a ticket opposing the most radical, leftist, inexperienced presidential candidate EVER!!! Somehow the inexperience of Palin as veep overshadowed the inexperience of Obama, although one was running to remake the Republic in his image, while the other was trying to help a flawed warhorse ascend to the White House.

What was amazing was to hear the same attacks that the left launched, as was their place as the opposition, coming from people who ostensibly stood on the same side of the issues as Palin. The leadership of the GOP looked down on her with their studied patrician arrogance for many of the same reasons she was savaged from the left; she only went to a state school for college; she was from Alaska, for goodness sakes!; she had a veritable tribe of children; she was not polished enough for the national stage, and by God she could not best Katie Couric in an interview on CBS News! Take her to the guillotine and take off her political head, because she is finished as a political player in national politics for all time!

That was to be expected from the Republican leadership, which has always seen itself as an exclusive country club an only tolerates those not to the manor born out of the necessity of garnering their votes come election time. The country-clubbers have never had any real use for those conservatives not located along the Boston-DC-Manhattan corridor; they hated Nixon, they hated Reagan, and they only liked George Bush because he had the right bloodline to be a member in good standing. But what I never expected was to see the “rank and file” conservatives turn on Governor Palin the way she did, especially after she decided to resign as governor of Alaska.

When Palin stepped down, many in the rank and file exploded in anger. To them the move just seemed to confirm the bad things being said about the governor in the media; she was ‘erratic’, unpredictable, and just plain strange. Why, oh why, would she just quit on the people of Alaska? No reason that the governor cited was good enough to assuage their anger, even if they were not actually her constituents. Neither the frivolous ethics complaints, nor the massive FOIA requests, nor the vicious attacks on her family were reason enough for the governor to step down. No, it was somehow felt that she owed it to the state of Alaska, the people of America, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement to bear those slings and arrows, no matter how much they impeded her ability to govern, or how personally hurtful the attacks on her family were. And when Governor Palin decided that she had a responsibility to do right by her family first and foremost, and that meant stepping down as governor, she became persona non grata to many people who had supported her in the presidential campaign.

Then came the insistence that resigning as governor meant that Sarah Palin was doomed as a political entity for all time; why the anti-Palin commercials calling her a quitter were already being written. Yet for someone that is a political non-entity, there is certainly a great deal of attention paid to her. If she were so politically radioactive, why do there continue to be hit pieces written about her**cough**Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan**cough**? If she’s so over, why does anyone care what she has to say about the current healthcare debate? I mean, she is finished…right?

People constantly come back to one theme with Sarah Palin that I would like to take a little time to address. One of the things people both left and right ask about Governor Palin is, “Why do you like her?” According to many she is just…well…simple. She isn’t polished like most people in politics; she doesn’t come off like she knows everything, and she doesn’t seem like the usual professional office seeker. And those are just the qualities that draw so many people to her. She is a genuine person, not a prepackaged product that is sold to us at election time. She has faults that she doesn’t spend her whole life attempting to cover up; she makes mistakes; she gets knocked around and pulls herself together, and she stands by what she believes in no matter the political costs. People like that about her; heck, I like that about her. In a world where politicians are commodities to be sold to potential voters, Sarah Palin stands out as different type of politician; namely the kind that doesn’t need to be in the political spotlight to be happy. Nowadays that is truly a rarity, and many people appreciate that about her.

None of knows what the future holds for Sarah Palin as a political player, and I’m not going to speculate about it. But I wouldn’t write her political epitaph quite yet; you never know what Sarah from Wasilla has in store for the future!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (18) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do What You Know

I suppose that when a person doesn't know what to do, he naturally goes back to doing what he knows. And in the case of President Obama, all he really knows how to do is campaign; give stump speeches, work a crowd, gaze lovingly into his teleprompter, and talk about things.
 
Because talking about things is easy; doing things, not so much.
 
So we are to be treated to another thrilling Obamawood spectacle that is supposed to refocus us on the urgency of healthcare/ health insurance reform. The president is going to the Congress in a joint session, stand in front of them and the American people via television, and give another one of his faux Stae of the Union addresses, all in the hope that his very words and presence will turn the debate back in his favor. Seeking to reverse the beatings he has taken on this issue over the past two or three months, President Obama is going back to what he knows.
 
He knows how to speak to crowds of adoring supporters, how to get them into an emotional frenzy, shouting "Yes We Can!" at the top of their lungs, and how to mesmerize a willing and pliant media. Because as Chris Mathews famously said, the media is not so much covering this president as it is seeking ways to help him. So Obama will go before his adoring crowd of minions, make some high sounding speech that is short on specifics, and the media will treat it like it as important as Moses bringing the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai. We will have days, maybe even a week, of fawning coverage of the president's masterful speech and how it has shored up his base and his congressional allies to get a healthcare bill on his desk by the end of the year. That is all to be expected, but in the end it won't matter; the proverbial needle on healthcare will not be moved by one speech, no matter how eloquent or grandiose. Because the people want more than pretty words; they want honesty and action. And they won't be getting it from this president any time soon.
 
President Obama, after all, has no experience or inclination to actually lead on this issue. His idea of leadership is best summed up thus: identify a problem, make a speech about it, and declared the problem solved. It worked when he threw Trinity UCC, Jeremiah Wright, and his own granny under his campaign bus; it worked when he dismissed his relationship with Bill Ayers as that of working with some guy who just happens to live in the neighborhood, and it worked when he made his wife off limits during the campaign, even tough she was giving nearly as many stump speeches as he was (as a matter of fact she spoke here at my college, Winston-Salem Sate University during the campaign).
 
What Obama and his handlers don't seem to grasp, is that now he has no cover for when he screws the pooch and campaign style rehetoric doesn't keep the people assuaged anymore. More and more the people are adopting what an attitude best summed up by something my beloved Papa Sang used to tell me, "Boy, you can SHOW me better than you can TELL me!" In a nutshell it means, words are just words but actions tell the truth. And on this issue, Obama doesn't have any actions to show for all his words. Because he has not been involved there are a myriad of competing bills floating around the halls of Congress. Some insist on a public option, while some reject it as a non-starter; some favor end of lfe counseling sessions every five years for seniors of a certain age, while another makes no mention of it. There is no consistency or unity, even among the Democrats, on what a healthcare bill will eventually look like coming out of the various House committees that are busily crafting their own versions of healthcare reform.
 
So when Obama stands before the assmbled Congress, cocks his head to one side and squints as if he is hearing the very voice of God in his ear, and begins to speechify about the need to support "the healthcare bill" it won't work. It may be a spectacle, but it will not win over the facets of the American community that it needs to in order to succeed. Obama will be lauded as Solomonic in his precious wisdom, and hailed as an orator on par with Daniel Webster by his media lapdogs...but the effor will fail.
 
Because by going back to what he knows, he will simply reinforce in the eyes of America just what he doesn't know. By constantly falling back on campaign style events and speeches, Obama shows that he knows well how to campaign for office; but by constsantly reverting to campaign mode, he points out the sad fact that he cannot fulfill the twin burdens of being president.
 
Governing and leadership.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Governor Goes Home

 On July 3rd Sarah Palin stepped in front of a microphone in front of the press at a hastily assembled press conference and made an announcement that shocked the political world. She was tendering her resignation as governor of the state of Alaska, effective July 26th, and handing the reins of the government over to her lieutenant governor, whom she professed to hold in great esteem and favor. She cited a slew of ethical complaints lodged against her that were dominating her time and relentless attacks against her family as reasons for her shocking announcement.

The responses from the press and the political pundits were immediate and very predictable. Her media enemies, from Maureen Dowd to Kathleen Parker, all pronounced her to be “erratic”, a “quitter”, and her actions confirmed to them that she was not ready for the political spotlight. Why, if she cannot stay the course for the last sixteen to eighteen months as governor, how can she run for president? If she cannot take the media heat while safely ensconced in the ultimate flyover state in Alaska, then she will never be able to handle another national campaign. Why, there had to be some other deep, dark secret reason for her to resign; an affair or an FBI investigation being the most likely reasons. But whatever the reasons, Palin was officially dead as a national political figure. There is no way that she could mount a presidential campaign in 2012, and her “bizarre” behavior would likely preclude her from even attempting a run in 2016. The pundits could already see the anti-Palin campaign commercials, “If she could not be trusted to stick with her constituents in Alaska, how can she trusted to stick with the presidency?”

The thing that has struck me about all of the blathering about Palin’s future is how much of it centers on politics and completely discounts the idea that Gov. Palin was being honest about her reasons for stepping down. The reactions by the media and punditry are exactly what one would expect from people who are totally wrapped up in the Washington-Manhattan elite bubble; people who are unable to view any event apart from the usual political considerations. And we the people sit and listen to them, take their ideas to heart, and view things from a purely political prism. The problem is that we have all become political cynics, expecting everyone that holds a political position to be a professional politician.

That is the thing that has flummoxed the Left, and some on the Right, from the start about Sarah Palin, and it is why her explanations for her resignation have been roundly been dismissed by all the political ‘experts’ out there. Sarah Palin is something we all claim to want from our political leaders, yet when we get it we rebel against it; she is a citizen who is involved in politics, not a person who is consumed by political ambition. Look at her reasoning and the facts behind them; Palin has faced over 18 ethical complaints since 2008, the vast majority of them after her selection as John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election. Of the 18 complaints, 1 has been settled with a reimbursement to the state for the travel expenses of the Palin children when the governor traveled, two are still pending, and 15 have been dismissed. (See the full list at http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html) These complaints have cost the state $300,000 dollars and have cost the Palin family $500,000; not to mention the time and expense involved in the time state workers have to put in to answer the charges. And since the end of the 2008 presidential campaign there have been 150 Freedom of Information Act requests; according to a Wall Street Journal article by John Fund (see it at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124700261179807839.html). And do not forget that every one of the FOIA requests, by law, must be answered by a date certain. And who can forget the crass ‘joke’ by David Letterman about her teenaged daughter Willow…which he claimed was meant for her other teenaged daughter Bristol? Or the jokes made at the expense of her youngest son Trig, who was born with Down’s syndrome? Is it so hard to believe that such pressures would not make leaving the governor’s office behind a viable option for someone who is not totally invested in political success?

The reason that we are so unwilling to believe that Palin is lying about her reasons for leaving, or that she is somehow betraying the GOP is that we have become, as I stated earlier, political cynics. We have become accustomed to a political class in this country that eats, sleeps, and breathes only for the chance to gather political power into their hands. We are accustomed to a political class that goes to all the right schools (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Wellesley), takes all the right classes (political science and law), and trains to work the levers of the federal bureaucracy. Not only have we grown accustomed to it, we have embraced it and reject nearly anyone who is different from the accepted norms of political behavior.

We claim to want elected officials that aspire to serve the public good, but we continue to vote for officials that only care about their next election. We claim to want officials who can look honestly at their service and will step away when they are doing more harm than good, but we elect people who can only have their hands taken off the levers of power if you chop their fingers off! We keep sending people to Congress, the state house, or the governor’s mansion that cannot imagine a time when they were not in elected office, and would damned near die if they lost an election. They have become a political oligarchy that we willingly prop up, while tearing down anyone that goes against that grain.

You see, the real story of the Palin resignation is not found in her reasoning, her timing, or her political future. The real story is how we all reacted to a person that decided that political office was not what was best for her and her family and actually made a decision that was in their best interests and not one that was made with an eye towards the next political goal to be reached. She explained why she did what she did, yet we were unable to accept it at face value. The story was never Palin, it was always us and how we have succumbed to the prevailing political cynicism.

Maybe Sarah Palin had it right when she decided to resign, but we have it wrong in reacting to it as purely a political event. Our reaction to her decision says more about us than the original decision says about Mrs. Palin.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (38) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is It Me?

I am a pretty sharp guy by most accounts, have gotten very good grades as a 'non-traditional student', and am a pretty astute observer of the political scene. I also keep a little bit of an eye on the media, what they cover, and how they do it. And I am a damned good spotter of horse apples and cow pucks when I see it, and here lately I have seen a lot of this coming from all over.
 
Last night I watched about 3 minutes of FNC's "The O'Reilly Factor" and was about ready to rip my hair out. Then I listened to Rush's show (there was a guest host) today, same reaction. Then I watched part of "Hannity" tonight, and the reaction got worse! What set me off on this particular tear? All three shows were doing segments on the coverage of Michael Jackson's death and funeral, and the hypocrisy on display was of the most rank variety.
 
All three shows spent their airtime groaning about the coverage that Jackson's sudden death was getting, and two of the three were busily pointing fingers at other networks for their coverage of the events surrounding Jackson...while doing their best to ignore the reality that Fox News Channel has been as complicit in pushing the stories about Jackson as anyone else. I recall watching Fox News on the day Jackson was found dead in his home; I tuned in about 2:45 (est) at the tail end of Shep Smith's show and from that point on FNC never covered anything else. Shep went off the air that afternoon covering Jackson, and was back on later that evening...covering Jackson. And in the meantime, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Bret Baier were all preempted so that FNC could stay with their Jackson coverage. Then the primetime lineup of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Greta all were pretty much preempted...to cover Jackson. And when I went to bed that night, at around 12:30 am (est) FNC was still broadcasting live from LA on the story.
 
Now on Rush's show, the guest host decided to use Jackson's funeral to make some kind of political connection. Guest host Mark Belling went on a tear about what would have happened had Jackson been a conservative celebrity who had faced child molestation charges...as if that had anything to do with Jackson's funeral. As I recall, Jackson was never a political figure, never lent his name and fame to any candidate, and never publicly voiced a political opinion on any issue. In other words, Michael Jackson took Laura Ingraham's suggestion to just "Shut up and sing". So what was the point of using the media coverage of his funeral to try to make some specious political point? If it had been John Voigt's funeral, or Tom Selleck, or Rob Reiner the comments would have been appropriate, but in this instance they just made no sense at all. Maybe it was the fact that Al Sharpton spoke at the service as a friend of the man and his family that set off the commentary, but what does that say about Belling? That the mere sight of Al Sharpton on a podium sends him into some type of rage? Is that how any conservative wants to act?
 
Look, I understand that the coverage of Michael Jackson has been over the top. Heck, I stopped watching it because there's nothing going on with the story now but rumor, gossip, and conjecture, so I get the frustration. But for goodness sakes, the whiners like Hannity and the like need to just be honest about what's going on here. Michael Jackson's death was so sudden and shocking; his life so filled with controversies and weirdness; and his death so fraught with mystery that the story absolutely begs for this type of coverage. He was a major celebrity whose life from about the age of eleven has been played out in the public eye, so to pretend that a man that was so heavily covered by the media in life would suddenly not be covered in death is just plain stupid!
 
And for Hannity and O'Reilly to have the nerve to point fingers at everyone else, while doing some of the most painful looking contortions in the history of mankind in a vain attempt to excuse their network of doing the exact same thing as the MSM networks is disgusting! At the end of the day the news business is just that...a business. And it works on the same principles as any other successful business: find out what your customers (viewers) want and give it to them in a better fashion than your competition. All the angst smells like a heaping pile of hypocrisy to me, especially since neither Hannity nor O'Reilly stood on their alleged principles and chose not to air mutliple segments about Jackson. The coverage of this story has been one huge media circle jerk, and FNC has been right there shoulder to shoulder with ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC in pulling their journalistic puds!
 
So they can miss me with their self righteousness, and their putrid hypocrisy...cause this boy ain't buying it. I'm just doing what I do...Calling a Spade!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »