Obama Needs to Act More and Talk Less

To say that President Obama is "over-exposed" now - in Feb. 2010 - feels like a joke. It's an incredible understatement.

When is Obama going to stop talking to us? To reduce his campaign-style appearances each week? To reduce his seeming, non-stop availabilities to the media? To turn down a request for an interview with a network news show?

Obama's very high visibility has not only gotten ridiculous, but, I think it's hurting his presidency. I like Obama and I'm sick of seeing him! He has diminished the value of his public appearances by making them so frequently.

In fact, when I hear a White House correspondent utter a phrase like "Obama will be out pushing for health care reform....," my reaction now is to groan and wish he'd simply stay in the White House. I find it hard to believe that Obama and his team still think his constant appearances crusading for health care do the slightest good; the evidence is to the contrary. Any potential reform bill -- which will be watered-down and unambitious now - is dangling by a thread, with a huge risk of rejection. The Obama White House should de-emphasize their internal polls and apply common sense.

The American people want results right now. It's a rough time. Talk feels even more "cheap" and meaningless than usual.

There's another, more troubling aspect to this: Obama actually does seem too impressed with himself and his impact on people, in general. I didn't want to believe this, but, now, I've seen enough. Obama's top advisors seem to share this outlook, which I will not yet label "delusional," but, the symptoms need to fade away or I'm going to wonder who's perceiving a sufficient dose of reality in the White House.

There are many examples, but I'll cite one: Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. The White House line afterward was that Brown was tapping into the same voter anger that Obama had tapped into during his 2008 presidential campaign. No, sorry, White House folks, but independents in Massachusetts were angry at YOU and how YOU'RE approaching things. You represent "The Government" now and "the country's direction," in general.

Now, I think Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and company are too intelligent to deny realities on the ground - and, perhaps their spin about Brown is strategic, but, it reflects a year-long tendency to be too slow to respond to public concerns that have deepened, and, evolved into anger and disgust with the Administration's approach. Much of the concern, it seems, is that the government is doing too much, spending too much and taking control of too many things.

How can this Administration have NOT picked up more on the obvious anti-government sentiment bubbling across this country? Yes, a chunk of it is unfairly and irrationally being directed at Obama, when, in fact, Obama HAD to get an economic stimulus passed and HAD to oversee government intervention with the banks and auto industry. But the sentiment is real.

I think the White House's overemphasis on the President's role as The Promoter, The Explainer, The Talker Who Can Provide Answers On Every Topic is a large part of the problem. Obama needs to stay in the Oval Office more. His team needs to expand and add some good experts who can also speak publicly on topics. (people NOT like Tim Geithner or Larry Summers) And, this White House - as I've said for a year - needs to find good "surrogates," or allies, who will serve as excellent spokespeople for the Administration's agenda. It should not always be Barack Obama doing the speaking!!!!!

Back in September, I wrote about Obama's overexposure and I quoted a piece by Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who observed that Obama seemed too impressed by the impact of his mere presence on the stage.

Fineman, in the Feb. 8, 2010 Newsweek, is still writing insightfully on this topic.

"...Most Americans like Obama as a person, and most want him to succeed as a president. But he has to remember that he's supposed to be a character in our story -- not the other way around...Unlike his perfectly placed memoirs, Obama's presidency is not a narrative whose plot he can dictate, or even control..."

I think Fineman is on the money. Obama and his team seem to have an inflated view of the President's capacities. When will it sink in with this team that Obama's appearances do NOT help solve real problems that their White House must tackle? I think people are "on" to the fact that Obama's oratory, while often terrific, may or may not be followed up with action.

In fact, it's in the area of taking ACTION that Obama seems to need the most help. He needs some "field generals" making the rounds on Capitol Hill, talking to members of the US Congress, staying in touch, and trying to maintain support for the White House's legislative priorities.

One would think - after the Administration's disastrous approach toward health care reform - that they'd try radically new approaches -- with new people in key assignments - at the start of 2010. The only step resembling this was the Obama team bringing back David Plouffe, former campaign manager in 2008, to oversee the Democratic National Committee's political handling of the 2010 congressional elections. But, I hope Plouffe ends up assisting in the White House more than focusing on elections.

What concerns me about Obama is that, after only a year, he's showing a few signs of distancing himself from the public - from realities in everyone's day-to-day world. I get a sense he's spending so much time around pollsters, policy wonks, military officials, and politicians when, he might benefit from hanging out at some bars, department stores and grocery stores and listen to what real people are saying. Example: Obama waited for months before he spelled out his Afghanistan policy and decision to send in 30,000 additional troops, but, in his announcement speech, he left out some basic, central facts -- as if to suggest "Well, they'll get the idea - It only matters if me and my team know what's really going on..." So, Obama never explained sufficiently why the US was sending all the troops to a country where Al Quaeda was no longer located. He didn't even try to explain large factors relating to Pakistan.

I hope Obama is not on a slippery slope of becoming more and more out of touch. What's ironic though is that when he goes out on his weekly "campaign" appearances to different parts of the country, he'd benefit more by going into the crowd and just listening rather than lecturing from the stage.

Obama needs to get off the stage - and stay off for a while. Then, when he returned, he could talk about what he'd gotten done in the intervening months. His appearance would have more value again.

Howard Zinn's Death

I haven't had many heroes during my adult life, but Howard Zinn was one of them.

Zinn died from a heart attack last week at the age of 87. The world doesn't feel quite the same without this truly extraordinary man.

A radical with a bold, original, alternative take on American history. An outstanding professor. A longtime, quintessential activist who never stopped fighting for social justice. A naturally captivating speaker - whether at a huge outdoor rally or in a lecture hall. A truth-seeking idealist. A prolific writer of articles and books. A playwright. A man with the courage of his convictions.

Zinn stood out - that's for sure.

In the past 30 years, Zinn attracted much attention for his best-selling book: A People's History of the United States. In fact, he just helped complete a documentary film production based on speeches excerpted from the book that were performed by well-know Hollywood actors. It was called The People Speak and aired on The History Channel in December, 2009.

I became acquainted with Zinn while I was an undergraduate student at Boston University from 1977 - 1979. I didn't know Zinn well on a personal level; I spoke with him one-on-one only a handful of times, including one unusual meeting in his office when I requested his advice. But, he certainly seemed like a decent, thoughtful man. I did grow very familiar with Zinn by observing him - at demonstrations, meetings and his involvement in campus politics.


I enrolled in Zinn's popular, large lecture course called "Law and Justice," and I vividly recall how surprised I was, when, at the start of one of the classes, Zinn suddenly announced that we would all be attending a demonstration, down the street, on the BU campus. I don't recall the subject of the rally, but I recall thinking: "Wow, this Zinn guy IS unusual. That took some chutzpah to just lead our entire, large lecture class to a protest rally without knowing anyone's reaction to his suggestion."

The incident was one of my many glimpses of Zinn's unconventionality. He was determined to give his students a different interpretation of public events and historical episodes. Zinn wanted us to raise questions and think about things from different angles - and he succeeded at it.

Zinn stood out at BU not only for his talents and approach, but, because he was one of only a few willing to publicly criticize the controversial BU President, John Silber. Silber and Zinn were polar opposites. Silber, a brilliant, tough-talking Texan, ran BU like a tyrant. Silber quashed whatever and whoever got in his way. He didn't tolerate dissent - period. Zinn was all about dissent - practicing it and teaching it.
Silber alienated virtually every constituency at BU. Large portions of the BU faculty and staff seemed intimidated by Silber - for good reason. He often fired people he disliked. Zinn, meanwhile, was one of the most popular professors on campus. He had become a "legend" of sorts for his left-wing positions and activism. Zinn had a very good sense of humor and often joked about people or institutions he ripped. (He made teaching his version of history fun and accessible). So, Zinn, on occasion, blasted Silber in spontaneous, candid phrases, but, often, he'd inject a bit of humor as well. To Zinn, Silber was a nearby representation of the kind of injustice he made it his business to oppose elsewhere. Zinn became the advisor to the student radical newspaper called BU Exposure - a newspaper Silber tried to hinder frequently.

Zinn surfaced in a variety of activities and forums to support anti-Silber sentiments that percolated regularly across BU. Zinn, for example, was a loyal, involved member of the BU faculty union and visible, active supporter of other labor unions on campus. For instance, Zinn was a leader in the 1979 faculty strike at BU, but, then, when the clerical workers, represented by District 65 of the SEIU, went out on strike months later, Zinn was one of only a few professors who absolutely refused to cross their picket lines. He held his classes outside or anywhere necessary to avoid crossing pickets. Silber, at times, seemed very annoyed by Zinn.

There were two occasions - once in 1976 and once in 1979 - when there were campus-wide efforts to remove Silber as BU President.
I'll never forget the spring of 1979 at BU. It was a year of tremendous labor unrest at BU (five strikes!), and anti-Silber sentiment had evolved into a "Dump-Silber" movement. Zinn was one of a good-sized "core group" of active participants in the movement. That spring, with "60 Minutes" cameras rolling, a teach-in was held one night in the Morse Auditorium. One speaker after another took the microphone to spill out their group's grievances against Silber. I know Zinn spoke that night and I know he was, in his typically top form, charismatic, persuasive and compelling. I don't recall details of any speeches; it was 31 years ago.....but, it was a moment when Zinn was in his element. He rose to that occasion.

After I left BU, I always kept track of Zinn. I read his articles, year after year, as they appeared in left-leaning periodicals like The Nation, Progressive, Z and others. I could always count on Zinn to express an original, unconventional point of view on current events. Or, I'd catch up on his earlier accomplishments - like his days in the Student Non-violent Coordinatring Committee (SNCC) a civil rights organization Zinn got involved in while a professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, Ga. OR his intensive involvement protesting against the Vietnam War. Zinn usually criticized Presidents - Republican or Democrat - because they implemented the same basic foreign policy principles he opposed. He argued passionately against interventionist wars from US involvement in El Salvador to the invasion of Iraq.

A few years ago, I learned that Zinn was one of the speakers slated to appear at a rally focused on the cause of impeaching George W. Bush for his invasion of Iraq. Cindy Sheehan and others were on the agenda, but, I was motivated to rush a 45-minute drive into Boston to attend only to see Zinn. I recall sprinting across Boston Common, afraid that I had missed Zinn's remarks, but, thankfully, he was just starting as I arrived. Though Zinn was close to his mid-80s, I was amazed at how good he sounded that day and how comfortable he seemed in his familiar role. He ripped into the Bush crowd for the unfounded, insane war they had started. He held nothing back - one harsh, blunt truth after another. It was a joy to hear. I applauded and marveled at how rare a person Zinn was. He spoke no more than 20 minutes, but, I left a few minutes later feeling invigorated and a tiny bit more hopeful that change was possible again.

That recollection reminds me of an earlier moment Zinn impacted me regarding Iraq. It was the winter of 2003 and it seemed the whole country was supporting the Bush Administration's planned invasion of Iraq. I didn't understand why the US was going after Iraq rather than focusing on Al Quaeda. It made no sense, but, I was confused why so many people - including US senators and US representatives - were supporting the war. I had heard so much news about Saddam Hussein's repeated disregarding of UN resolutions and the potential dangers he posed that I recall moments of pausing briefly in uncertainty and questioning my own stand on Iraq. Then, I happened to watch Zinn being interviewed on Bill Moyers' Now on Jan. 10, 2003. It was around the time Zinn had just written a book called Terrorism and War.

When the interview was over, my anti-war impulses felt stronger than ever. In fact, I felt, honestly, that Zinn, in that one interview, had led me to a more full-fledged opposition to war, in general, than I had ever felt in my life. To this day, I'm grateful for hearing Zinn's wisdom on the subject of war.

Consider just a few samples from the Jan, 2003 Moyers' interview.

Moyers asked Zinn if he thought the US planned attack on Iraq was like what the terrorists did by driving airplane bombs into the World Trade Center.

Zinn: Well that's right. "I mean war is a form ot terrorism. I know there are people who don't like to equate - what was done- you know on September 11, 2001, they don't like to equate that with a war that the United States engaged in. Sure, they're different. But they're not different in the - in the fundamental principal that drives the terrorists and that is, they're saying, we're going to kill a lot of people but it will be worth it. We're trying to do something. We're trying to accomplish something. They - the terrorists are not killing people just for the sake of killling people, they have something in mind. To show that the American empire is vulnerable or to make some point about American policy in the Middle East. But they have an end in mind. We are doing the same thing. I mean, as I say, the details are different, but we are willing to kill a lot of people for some political end that we have declared...."

Then, a few minutes later, Moyers asking Zinn for his views on what might deter terrrorists.

Zinn: ".....Are terrorists going to be deterred-- are terrorists going to be scared if we react violently? No. They love it. That's what they dote on. They dote on violence. They dote on having more reasons to commit more terrorism. We solved the problem of the hostages in Iran by negotiations. You know? And there are many situations where we engage in violence and in wars that could be solved by negotiations..."

Zinn, in his book, Terrroism and War, apparently offered more of his thoughts on how to deal with the causes of terrorism.

"If we want to do something about terrorism, Zinn wrote, "we will have to do something about the grievances from which terrorism springs." Zinn made these remarks on C-Span, in an apparent discussion of his book.

In the book, Zinn complained that George W. Bush was ridiculously off-base to suggest that terrorists had attacked the US due to jealousy of Americans' freedom. He pointed out that terrorists had shown more interest in the US external actions - including about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, the tremendous support the US had given Israel or the US sanctions against Iraq, which had hurt the country.

I grew to believe, through the years, that Howard Zinn was the most eloquent, powerful voice against war I've ever heard in my life. When he speaks about the meaninglessness and harm of war, he frames things beautifully and gives you an honest dose of "common sense" and wisdom that I wish everyone could hear. No one in Washington speaks the truth about war like Zinn.

Many of us go through life with goals and dreams of somehow having a real influence on other people's lives before we die. If our dreams relate to improving the human condition, well, that can feel even better to ponder.

Zinn died knowing he had an overwhelming impact on many people, and, even sweeter, his impact was often on the thinking, outlook and views of people - making his imprint even more likely to endure and live on. I'm sure many of Zinn's former students and his readers or audiences have been significantly influenced by his original outlook on history and humanity.

I'm convinced the best way we can honor Howard Zinn is to keep up his fight for social justice, each in our own way.

Zinn, in an interview, apparently, said he wanted to be remembered as "somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before."

Zinn gave me that feeling and I'll always remember how he shared his unique strengths with so, so many people.

Coakley Didn't Go Down Fighting for Her Beliefs

By now, the whole world knows that Scott Brown won a shocking upset over Martha Coakley.
Yet, not enough has been said about how and why Coakley lost a race that appeared so winnable.
Many have acknowledged Brown ran a good, energetic campaign with good television advertising and an approach that allowed him to "catch the wave" of voter anger toward Washington.
Similarly, many have said Coakley ran a "poor" or "weak" campaign...but, I think the more one looks at the details of what unfolded, the more one can connect Coakley's downfall to: a) her own troubling flaws as a candidate, and, b) the malaise in American politics today, in general.

I think the Democratic Party put itself in a vulnerable position by not having a better candidate to face Brown. I heard Kathleen Townsend Kennedy, RFK's daughter, say candidly after last week's election, that she felt if her brother, Joe, had run, he would have won. I agree. I believe a number of different Democrats could have won. Why? Any one of them would have projected more enthusiasm and confidence while campaigning for votes than Coakley did. In addition, he or she would have had strong, heartfelt convictions about at least several of the major issues and argued for those positions with some passion.

Coakley, meanwhile, openly revealed her distaste for campaigning by simply choosing to do less meeting and greeting voters than expected and by her infamous, off-the-cuff comment about preferring to not greet voters outside of Fenway Park. (Voters hate to hear candidates complain, in any way, about campaigning. Why elect somone who' s whining about that process?)

Coakley showed, in a variety of ways, a lack of hunger or fire on the campaign trail. For instance, when former President Clinton or President Obama came to stump for her, how come we didn't hear anything about the speech or remarks that Coakley gave on those occasions? Usually, when a big name appears to endorse someone, the candidate is inspired to show a little more verve in their own rhetoric or message. Coakely kept allowing herself to play a "secondary" diminished role. Instead of rising to the occasion, she acted like she was either "entitled" or the frontrunner who didn't have to fight for much.

Coakley ran with an aura that reminded some of Mike Dukakis running for President in 1988; she lacked passion, seemed to go through the motions and gave "pro forma" responses to questions instead of showing any spontaneity.

These various points all lead to my largest complaint about Coakley: She was
far, far too CAUTIOUS in her entire approach. She seemed unwilling to take risks in so many ways -- whether it was the "risk" of pressing the flesh with ordinary voters in cities and towns across Massachusetts OR the risk of "fighting back" against Brown's message and his criticisms OR the risk of aggressively truth-telling and presenting arguments to rebut Brown's points.

Even in the primary campaign, Coakley showed an incredible aversion to risk. The difference was, in the primary, she got away with it. Her three male opponents - Mike Capuano, Steve Pagliuca and Alan Khazei - showed a steady reluctance to go on the offensive against Coakley. Capuano did it a bit, but, not enough. Further, Coakey actually scored points repeatedly with the media by avoiding mistakes that would make her lose her "frontrunner status" As I wrote on this blog in the fall, that praise was misguided. Coakley ran a bland, cautious primary campaign. She was not interesting or compelling. The one exception was her stance to not vote for a health care reform bill if it contained restrictive language pertaining to a woman's right to choose. Beyond that, Coakley skated along without seeming to have genuine convictions she'd fight for, if elected.

Apparently, she speculated she could win against Brown using the same bland approach. One of her first very disturbing choices was to avoid scheduling any one-on-one debates against Brown without the Independent candidate Joe L. Kennedy. It was obvious she wanted to avoid the risks of going toe-to-toe with Brown and her lame excuses diminished her standing. In fact, I'd argue, her stubborn refusals to debate Brown foreshadowed her defeat - period. Why should Coakley, an experienced state attorney general, be afraid to go head-to-head against Brown, a relative "lightweight" who gave overly simplistic, flawed responses to questions about his positions?

I don't get it. All I know is Coakley kept showing that fear of taking risks. She repeatedly allowed Brown to come off as the bolder candidate with "stronger" convictions and more passion about his values and beliefs. I believe Coakley had stronger feelings about her positions, but, for some reason - probably related to personality or circumstances - she couldn't express them.

I've long believed one thing about American politics and that is that people respond to a candidate who appears authentic their expressing themselfs about what they really believe. That trait - of being oneself and true to one's convictions - in my view, is often more important to some voters than the candidate's actual positions. Ronald Reagan is the classic example who illustrated this. I think many voters pulled the lever for the Gipper because he seemed to believe in his message. I think, to a large extent, Reagan DID believe in his themes of "less government, a "stronger military" etc, etc.

Massachusetts voters didn't get a sense of what Martha Coakley really believed in or who she really was as a person or potential leader. She was so "contained" and cautious that when one contrasted her to Brown driving around in his truck and interacting enthusiastically with voters or sounding so black and white on issues, to many, it made it easier to choose Brown.

I voted for Coakley because I supported her positions - however poorly she articulated them. I could never - ever - support a reactionary like Brown. However, the election left me disillusioned because it displayed all the troubling trends about the state of politics seen at every level.

Think about it. Every day, US House members and US senators behave like Coakley did in this campaign. They're cautious - cautious - cautious. They don't say or do anything to increase the risk of alienating voters and losing elections. This lack of candor and spontaneity has gotten so pervasive that it represents a crisis, in my view. Politics has become a bore. Politicians don't stand up for their beliefs, for principles, for what's right for this country. (Interestingly, during the one televised candidates' debate, when the candidates were asked their general positions on how to combat Al Quaeda, Independent Joe L. Kennedy gave the most original, direct, thoughtful response by describing the negative impact of the US "occcupying" other countries, and, how that stimulated resentment and hatred toward the US. To me, it's not a coincidence that Kennedy, feeling he had nothing to lose, gave a more "risky" but honest response than the others).

Instead, they stick to their "talking points" and try to run campaigns like Coakley did. What worsens all this, is that reactionary Republicans like Scott Brown fill the void left by cautious, cowardly Democrats. Republicans tend to be more willing to use harsh rhetoric that grabs voters - even if it's reckless or inaccurate.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an intelligent, thoughtful, qualified candidate run for a US House seat or a US Senate seat and just speak the truth and give their honest opinion from start to finish -- with the full knowledge that he or she would probably lose the campaign. If we got some candidates like that, we'd be reminded, at least, that it's possible to make politics more interesting, fun, and, yes, meaningful again. We need more candidates who are truly unafraid to lose because that means they'd also want to win only if they could defend their convictions honestly.

I think it's unfortunate that Coakley couldn't find ways to overcome her personal limitations as a candidate and still somehow forcefully project why she should fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Massachusetts DOES desparately need more women to represent us in the US House and Senate. (One last footnote: I sense that if other politicians and organizations and players in the Democratic Party had helped Coakley more, it'd might have helped her edge out Brown. For example, did Boston Mayor Thomas Menino do all he could to unleash his "machine" to get out the vote across Boston for Coakley? I don't think so. I heard MSNBC guest Lawrence O'Donnell, late on Election Night, speculate that Menino's choice to not go all-out for Coakley probably had a real impact. I've seen no stories that have questioned the role that Menino or other incumbent Democrats played in helping Coakley pull out a win).

In the end, though, it was Coakley's responsibility to motivate voters.

I think it would have been much better for Coakley to lose fighting for what she believed than to lose running a timid, passionless campaign. Especially trying to replace Ted Kennedy, who was always a fighter.

.

Does the truth matter any more?

Just when I think the state of American political discourse cannot get any worse, it keeps dropping further. This time, I'm referring to recent dialogue about the US response to terrorism, and, primarily, Republicans' criticisms of President Obama's recent handling of matters.

Politicians keep making reckless, false remarks about terrorism and news organizations keep failing to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, the public doesn't seem to care much OR feels too detached and helpless about changing things.

First, Republicans aggressively attacked Obama's initial response to the Christmas Day incident aboard a commercial plane. They wanted him to say more and do more. I actually didn't find Obama's response that disturbing because I think it's more wise for our country to act as low-key as possible - rather than hysterical - after an attempt by terrorists. After all, the objective of terrorists is to cause the most hysteria, fear and distraction. Putting aside a debate about Obama's day-to-day handling of this from his Hawaii vacation, my point is that Republicans didn't hesitate - for one second - to jump all over what they saw as a "political opportunity" to attack the President. They didn't show regard for the sensitive nature of the matter. Even attempted acts of terrorism won't make certain Republicans refrain from their non-stop criticism of Obama.

Some of their criticism continued into this past week. Then, Obama, a few days ago, announced the findings of his Administration's review of the failed airplane bombing and outlined a list of specific changes that would be implemented to improve the country's response to possible terrorist activity. Obama acknowledged that the system had failed and needed improvement. I don't recall former President George W. Bush ever making the kind of strong, specific, reality-based statement about terrorism.

However, in the weeks before and days after Obama's announcement, we heard several remarks by other prominent Republicans, during television interviews, that reached a new "low."

Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who formerly worked for former VP Dick Cheney, in a Dec. 27, 2009 interview on CNN, remarked that the Obama administration had too frequently complained about what it inherited from the Bush administration. She said the Bush Administration "inherited the most tragic attack on our soil in our nation's history," and implied that the 9/11 attack was the result of mistakes by the Clinton administration.

A few weeks before Matalin's line, Dana Perino, the former Bush press secretary, in a Nov. 24, 2009 appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News television interview show, said "...we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's' term...."

Then, finally, yesterday, on Jan. 8, 2010, came former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's turn. Giuliani first said Obama should be "following the right things that Bush did" and went on to say that while Obama's announcement last week "turned the corner" in his understanding of terrorism, that Obama still had much improving to do. Then:

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush, " Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama."

(Guiliani, later Friday, apologized and acknowledged he had misspoken by omitting the words "since 9/11." His earlier remark had also omitted mention of the failed attempt of shoe bomber Richard Reid, who, in December, 2001, was apprehended on a flight bound from Paris to Miami. In addition, Guiliani didn't mention anthrax attacks that occurred.).

It sounds like Republicans are stooping to an incredible, new low by creating this new line to use against President Obama. We should notice if it gets repeated.

Let's pause to consider the outrageous scope of this new "claim," or, attempt at propaganda by these three Republicans. That's what it is - propaganda. I guess, these three Republicans are telling us that 9/11 didn't really happen when it did. I guess they feel that we Americans are paying so little attention or we're so stupid that they can just manipulate a little change in language and create a new impression - a new "context" for 9/11. Pretty soon, they'll claim that Clinton shared responsbility for the US "having to" invade Iraq. This is all such crap, but, these days, in our current media environment, the truth doesn't seem to matter any more. The Republicans take advantage of that - in the ugliest ways.

Let's face it. This isn't really a new approach. Some Republicans have been in the habit of disseminating falsehoods like this in recent years. Remember all the many lies that comprised the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign before the US invasion of Iraq? Between Sept. 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush Administration officials orchestrated the most extreme propaganda campaign I recall seeing in the US. They made one false statement after another for months and months. The US House and Senate went along. The public bought into it. Now, Iraq, the US and the whole world are worse off as a result of that crazy invasion.

The Bush Administration "politicized" its anti-terror efforts in a variety of ways in the years that followed, using its "war on terror" to justify changing laws and people's rights to privacy and other protections - and on and on. Then, there were occasions when, the Bush administration seemed to change the "terror alert levels" at times that, coincidentally seemed to benefit the President - like during the 2004 presidential campaign. So, Republicans are on the thinnest ice trying to criticize Obama's anti-terrorism efforts.

So, are we going to let a "new" line of propaganda be used again now? Won't any US Senator publicly challenge and demand a response to the kind of comments made by Mary Matalin? Why the hell should she or Dana Perino or Guiliani be allowed to get away with saying anything like they did? Matalin and Perino should publicly retract their remarks. Have they?

I believe the current crowd of Republicans, reactionaries and right-wing nuts will stoop to any new "lows" they choose to attack Obama and score political points --- even when it involves our safety, national security and matters for which they should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling. (Do you recall how Democrats usually went along - in a show of "unity" - with Bush's anti-terrorism efforts? How they, in fact, did refrain from criticizing him at sensitive moments relating to terrorism? It seems Republicans are employing different standards toward Obama)

Today, no one seems to keep track of who - among our highest public officials - and their supporters and critics - tell the truth and who do not. No one seems to be held accountable for what they say anymore. It's a climate that creates fertile ground for propaganda.

On the other hand, people can reject propaganda. The truth does matter. The 9/11 attack happened on George Bush's watch and his Administration was prepared to immediately use the incident as a springboard to go after Iraq and to radically redefine how we deal with terrorism and countries that sponsor it. That's what happened.

In the end, though, it is the people who have to make the truth matter more.