Stop and think about all the ways that President Obama has missed Ted Kennedy.
Imagine the large, consistent impact Kennedy might have had on Obama’s often-too-solitary presidency. Often, this sort of speculation seems like guesswork of limited meaning, but, not in this particular case.
Kennedy epitomizes the kind of political support that Obama has lacked in Washington.
Obama has lacked true, steady political allies. When the President has faced one storm after
another, often, it’s been striking how few political leaders or, strong, bold surrogates have
spoken up to defend him. I think Teddy would have stood with Obama through thick and thin.
It’s not hard to imagine Kennedy’s forceful reaction to some of the unfair, unsubstantiated,
“loaded” criticisms leveled at Obama by Tea Party members or “birthers” or former Vice
President Dick Cheney. Kennedy would have had more than one sharp retort to US Sen. Mitch
McConnell’s ludicrous, ill-intentioned pledge, a year ago, that the Republican leadership’s top priority was to prevent Obama from winning a second term.
Kennedy died in August, 2009, during Obama’s first year in office. But, what if Senator Kennedy had lived on a bit longer? He had already become a unique partner of Barack Obama’s from the moment he endorsed him during the 2008 presidential campaign.
If Kennedy had been around, how would the entire health care reform debate been different? It’s hard to say, but his voice and support would have been welcomed by Obama, who often appeared alone in a storm.
Kennedy would not have sat back and witnessed the negative, damaging distortion caused by the Tea Party-dominated, obstructionist Republican Party. He would have helped Obama and his colleagues hold Republicans accountable.
At the same time, Kennedy could have helped Obama to try to build support and mend fences with members of the US Congress, even with more partisan Republicans.
Kennedy was as effective as anyone at that and Obama has suffered from a failure to maintain a genuine connection to US representatives and senators.
Obama has needed a heavy dose of wisdom from more experienced national leaders. Kennedy could have offered insights that matched some of the difficult hurdles faced by this young President.
The President has needed to hear more candid views and constructive criticisms from those around him. Ted Kennedy could have shared his views directly with Obama, but done so with a tact and context unavailable to others.
Kennedy and Obama were joined, in a very special way, from early in Obama’s inspiring 2008 presidential campaign. It’s hard to forget the extraordinary, ringing endorsement that Teddy gave to Obama at that pivotal moment not long before Super Tuesday in the primary campaign. Kennedy gave one of his roaring, enthusiastic speeches that not only boosted Obama, but knocked down a few campaign barbs that had been thrown at Obama by then-opponent Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy had just written a piece in the New York Times titled “A President Like My Father,” and, indeed, it seemed the Kennedys were “passing the torch” to Obama.
Kennedy’s health began to fail, of course, but he courageously pushed himself to give a short speech for Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Then, during Obama’s first year as President, Kennedy’s health declined further before he died in August, 2009.
President Obama gave memorable remarks at Kennedy’s memorial service about Kennedy’s unique contributions to the country.
What Obama didn’t know then is how much he’d miss Kennedy during his rocky first term as President.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Will Obama Ever Show Us What He Stands For? (Now Would Be a Good Time!)
Barack Obama created a little stir early in his 2008 presidential campaign when, one day, out-of-the-blue, he went out of his way to praise Ronald Reagan.
"...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not....", Obama said.
It was during a media interview in January, 2008, at the start of the primary campaign. A few Democrats - including then-opponent US Sen. John Edwards - criticized Obama for citing Reagan as an example given that Reagan's reactionary beliefs were antithetical to Democrats' most basic values.
Right now, Obama should try to follow Reagan's example in another important way: He should
open up and speak more about his most deeply-held political convictions.
What is Obama's "ideology"? Maybe he feels he doesn't have one strong philosophy, but, what are a few positions that he feels most strongly about?
Everyone always knew where Reagan stood. Reagan came in preaching about reducing the size, role and costs of government and he never stopped. He was an anti-communist coming in, and, while he negotiated important treaties with the then-Soviet Union, he always displayed his suspicions about the USSR. (Remember S.D.I.?)
Obama desparately needs to identify and share a few "heartfelt" convictions.
Why is this so urgent right now? Because Obama has damaged his image in recent months by rushing to compromise so much that it hasn't been clear what his original position is.
Usually, a politician starts negotiations by clearly articulating what he feels most strongly about. In the recent debt-ceiling crisis, Obama never really did that. He said a bunch of different things at different times. He appeared more concerned with the "inside strategy" game than showing the American people his firm beliefs. So, for instance, while he spoke, at times. of the importance of raising revenue (taxes) as part of a solution, he also didn't push hard to keep taxes in the final deal. Instead, he gave in on that, and the Republicans got a deal including only spending cuts.
Now, maybe Obama was calculating that he'll make his real push for a "balanced approach" as he approaches the 2012 presidential campaign season and he argues for expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But, why doesn't he understand that it helps his image to show us what he cares about all the time? Even if he fights for his values and loses, Americans would know what he felt was worth fighting for. Right now, Obama's image is that of a guy who is easily pushed around at the negotiating table --- someone for whom talk is too cheap and who doesn't seem able to dig his heels and both say "No" and mean "No."
(Obama would also benefit by simply not talking so much. He's so over-exposed now it's ridiculous. I think when some people see him on television, the impact has been tremendously diminished before he opens his mouth. He should hold far less public appearances, and, when, he does speak, try to say something more substantive)
One thing I've learned about American politics is that people genuinely appreciate and credit a President who says what he stands for --- even if people disagree with that President. Again, the best example is The Gipper.
I hope that Obama learns and applies this lesson in the months ahead. If not, it will likely impact the 2012 presidential election.
From the outset, Obama has seemed surprisingly oblivioius to how his image is impacting his success or failure as President. For example, when he came into office and advocated passage of the economic stimulus, he didn't pay attention to some's concerns about the government spending so much money. When Obama had to help bail out banks, A.I.G. and the auto iindustry, again, he did so without seeming to pay much attention to the impact on the image of the President, the US Congress or the federal government.
Then, the whole way Obama went about pushing his health care reform bill exacerbated this problem enormously. Not only did he and his White House team do a poor job of leading the health care reform effort and allow way too much of a swampy, messy process for Congress to handle, but, again, Obama didn't make much of an attempt to alleviate the reasonable concerns of people about how all the changes would be paid for.
So, now, Obama has gone so far the other way - rushing to cut billions the budget to make sure he appears centrist enough after the 2010 election results --that it's hard to know where he stands.
For instance, wouldn't it help if he told us if he will fight to the end to protect Medicare and Social Security? Or, if he feels that certain aspects of Medicare should be examined for potential savings in the future? Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Wyoming US Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to make recommendations for debt-reduction, but, when the commission came out with a report that suggested some cuts to entitlement programs, Obama was silent. He has avoided taking a real stand on entitlements, choosing to allow observers to conclude he wants to avoid really getting into it much before the 2012 election.
Well, that choice of being silent and afraid of risks has hurt Obama. He simply has not learned that people would have more respect for him as a leader if he took chances to fight for what he believed was right. Too often, we've seen Obama fight for a "middle position." Maybe, he'll choose to fight for total protection of Medicare.
On Afghanistan, it's hard to tell if Obama really believes the US should keep troops there or if he's just going along with the generals' position. On the Middle East, at the start of his presidency, it appeared Obama might be a bit tougher on Israel (a welcome change) but, in the past six months or year, he seems to have morphed into taking the same "middle ground" positions of past Presidents.
I could go on, but my point remains the same. Obama, in the end, may want to be the ultimate compromiser, but, he'd be much better at compromising and leading the country, if he first
tells us all where he really stands.
"...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not....", Obama said.
It was during a media interview in January, 2008, at the start of the primary campaign. A few Democrats - including then-opponent US Sen. John Edwards - criticized Obama for citing Reagan as an example given that Reagan's reactionary beliefs were antithetical to Democrats' most basic values.
Right now, Obama should try to follow Reagan's example in another important way: He should
open up and speak more about his most deeply-held political convictions.
What is Obama's "ideology"? Maybe he feels he doesn't have one strong philosophy, but, what are a few positions that he feels most strongly about?
Everyone always knew where Reagan stood. Reagan came in preaching about reducing the size, role and costs of government and he never stopped. He was an anti-communist coming in, and, while he negotiated important treaties with the then-Soviet Union, he always displayed his suspicions about the USSR. (Remember S.D.I.?)
Obama desparately needs to identify and share a few "heartfelt" convictions.
Why is this so urgent right now? Because Obama has damaged his image in recent months by rushing to compromise so much that it hasn't been clear what his original position is.
Usually, a politician starts negotiations by clearly articulating what he feels most strongly about. In the recent debt-ceiling crisis, Obama never really did that. He said a bunch of different things at different times. He appeared more concerned with the "inside strategy" game than showing the American people his firm beliefs. So, for instance, while he spoke, at times. of the importance of raising revenue (taxes) as part of a solution, he also didn't push hard to keep taxes in the final deal. Instead, he gave in on that, and the Republicans got a deal including only spending cuts.
Now, maybe Obama was calculating that he'll make his real push for a "balanced approach" as he approaches the 2012 presidential campaign season and he argues for expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But, why doesn't he understand that it helps his image to show us what he cares about all the time? Even if he fights for his values and loses, Americans would know what he felt was worth fighting for. Right now, Obama's image is that of a guy who is easily pushed around at the negotiating table --- someone for whom talk is too cheap and who doesn't seem able to dig his heels and both say "No" and mean "No."
(Obama would also benefit by simply not talking so much. He's so over-exposed now it's ridiculous. I think when some people see him on television, the impact has been tremendously diminished before he opens his mouth. He should hold far less public appearances, and, when, he does speak, try to say something more substantive)
One thing I've learned about American politics is that people genuinely appreciate and credit a President who says what he stands for --- even if people disagree with that President. Again, the best example is The Gipper.
I hope that Obama learns and applies this lesson in the months ahead. If not, it will likely impact the 2012 presidential election.
From the outset, Obama has seemed surprisingly oblivioius to how his image is impacting his success or failure as President. For example, when he came into office and advocated passage of the economic stimulus, he didn't pay attention to some's concerns about the government spending so much money. When Obama had to help bail out banks, A.I.G. and the auto iindustry, again, he did so without seeming to pay much attention to the impact on the image of the President, the US Congress or the federal government.
Then, the whole way Obama went about pushing his health care reform bill exacerbated this problem enormously. Not only did he and his White House team do a poor job of leading the health care reform effort and allow way too much of a swampy, messy process for Congress to handle, but, again, Obama didn't make much of an attempt to alleviate the reasonable concerns of people about how all the changes would be paid for.
So, now, Obama has gone so far the other way - rushing to cut billions the budget to make sure he appears centrist enough after the 2010 election results --that it's hard to know where he stands.
For instance, wouldn't it help if he told us if he will fight to the end to protect Medicare and Social Security? Or, if he feels that certain aspects of Medicare should be examined for potential savings in the future? Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Wyoming US Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to make recommendations for debt-reduction, but, when the commission came out with a report that suggested some cuts to entitlement programs, Obama was silent. He has avoided taking a real stand on entitlements, choosing to allow observers to conclude he wants to avoid really getting into it much before the 2012 election.
Well, that choice of being silent and afraid of risks has hurt Obama. He simply has not learned that people would have more respect for him as a leader if he took chances to fight for what he believed was right. Too often, we've seen Obama fight for a "middle position." Maybe, he'll choose to fight for total protection of Medicare.
On Afghanistan, it's hard to tell if Obama really believes the US should keep troops there or if he's just going along with the generals' position. On the Middle East, at the start of his presidency, it appeared Obama might be a bit tougher on Israel (a welcome change) but, in the past six months or year, he seems to have morphed into taking the same "middle ground" positions of past Presidents.
I could go on, but my point remains the same. Obama, in the end, may want to be the ultimate compromiser, but, he'd be much better at compromising and leading the country, if he first
tells us all where he really stands.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Media's Flawed Approach On Display During Debt Ceiling Crisis
The nation's debt-ceiling crisis lurches on and nothing is what it appears to be
in American politics.
I say that after being inspired by a timely, insightful July 26th column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. (http://Krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/) Krugman expressed amazement that the news media has described both the Democratic and Republican sides as being "intransigent" when, obviously, the Tea Party core of Republicans has caused most of the trouble in recent days. Krugman also found it striking that the media continues to portray President Barack Obama as a liberal voice, when, in fact, his position during this crisis has been remarkably conservative. Obama has gone so far out of his way to "compromise" with Republicans that his position could be labled as "moderate" at best and conservative if you consider the voluntary nature of his concessions.
Krugman's column got me thinking about one of my favorite topics: The extent to which large truths are simply not presented in news stories in the media - whether it's television, online or print. We've all grown so used to the incomplete or distorted presentation of the news that we feel resigned, powerless and further removed from our democracy.
in American politics.
I say that after being inspired by a timely, insightful July 26th column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. (http://Krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/) Krugman expressed amazement that the news media has described both the Democratic and Republican sides as being "intransigent" when, obviously, the Tea Party core of Republicans has caused most of the trouble in recent days. Krugman also found it striking that the media continues to portray President Barack Obama as a liberal voice, when, in fact, his position during this crisis has been remarkably conservative. Obama has gone so far out of his way to "compromise" with Republicans that his position could be labled as "moderate" at best and conservative if you consider the voluntary nature of his concessions.
Krugman's column got me thinking about one of my favorite topics: The extent to which large truths are simply not presented in news stories in the media - whether it's television, online or print. We've all grown so used to the incomplete or distorted presentation of the news that we feel resigned, powerless and further removed from our democracy.
What's annoying is that the Republicans seem to take advantage of the deep flaws and omissions of the media far more than Democrats. It's as if they know, in advance, how superficial the coverage will be and, in the case of the debt-ceiling story, I think they knew that even if they drew much criticism, they could damage Obama substantially in the process.
The following are just a few examples of the media's superficial, misleading coverage of the debt-ceiling crisis:
1. Look at the basic frame of this debt-ceiling story. For weeks, we've heard about how "both sides continued to make no progress...." blah, blah, blah. Well, the story could have been presented like this: "The new right-wing Tea Party faction of the Republican Party continued to block any progress in a crisis that it has been most responsible for creating......"
2. The media never places enough weight on the fact that the wealthiest segment of Americans will continue to avoid paying a proportionate share of tax revenue that the US Congress could easily ask to step up and contribute to a solution of the debt crisis. The Bush tax cuts have allowed the nation's richest citizens to avoid paying a proportional share of taxes for years and now, even during this debt ceiling crisis, it appears a final solution will not include any taxes!
3. The media has failed to explain the reasons for the enormous debt. Republicans have spouted the mantra that Obama caused the debt for so long that reporters have neglected to explain not only the huge Bush tax cuts, but, the war in Iraq - with its tremendous costs over years - was a factor, along with the war in Afghanistan under both Bush and Obama. Also, the unusual, costly steps Obama authorized to try to save the economy from spiraling even further downward and the funds spent to save the auto industry, banks, AIG and other entities going broke in 2009. The point is the debt grew a lot under Bush, and some of its growth under Obama was related to Obama's efforts to save the economy from a Depression.
4. The Republicans are responsible for this entire debt ceiling crisis. They calculated to attach their urgent insistence on spending cuts to the deadline for raising the debt ceiling. They refused to give in one inch on including any tax revenue in a proposed solution. Obama, meanwhile, has been extremely willing to compromise to avert the last-minute crisis we face today while Republicans have not been. His offer, more than a week ago, to agree to huge cuts in spending totalling $3-4 trillion as long as tax revenue paid for a relatively small, but substantial share of it was a major compromise. (The Republicans were stupid to not accept it, in my view) It would not have taken much legwork for reporters and their editors/producers to document and "play up" the leading role of Tea Party Republicans in causing this entire mess, but, instead, they've fallen into their usual pathetic role of "presenting both sides" as if they share equal responsibility.
5. The coverage of this story illustrates, in disturbing fashion, how television simply will not make any effort to let opposing parties have a genuine argument on camera. Instead, it's all about sound bites and who's ahead and superficial updating of the "debate." Wouldn't you love to see Obama and Boehner be left alone to have an actual debate on the issues related to the debt for an hour? I think we'd find out how little substance there is behind much of the rhetoric, particularly on Boehner's side. The problem is Obama and other Democrats have failed to find ways to make persuasive, compelling arguments that reach the American people. Perhaps if they singled out how an individual millionaire's tax status has been impacted in recent years vs. a lower-middle class person's tax status, that would help them make their bigger argument.
6. Michele Bachmann, now a Republican presidential candidate, aired a television ad saying she would not vote to increase the debt ceiling, which she said "goes completely contrary to commonsense and how I grew up in Iowa...." I saw this remark displayed on television without anyone challenging Bachmann on how or why she could make such a reckless, thoughtless remark.
7. Some Republicans have been right in pointing out one thing: Prior to this recent crisis, Obama did little or nothing to tackle the huge debt facing the nation. In early 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission led by former US Sen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles
to develop recommendations for reducing the enormous debt. When the commission released its final report in December, 2010, Obama remained relatively silent. He said nothing about the commission's positions on potential cuts in entitlement programs or other recommendations, and, it appeared obvious he didn't want to alienate anyone in the base of his party. The point is Obama has shown the same lack of leadership as everyone else on making tough decisions to reduce the debt.
8. If Obama has some heart and soul left, now is the time for him to look deeply within himself to find both. He has to stop acting like a leader who cares only about avoiding mistakes for the purpose of getting re-elected. Where is the Obama from the 2008 campaign? That wasn't all an act, was it? If not, Mr. President, it's time for you to stand up to this "small-minded" group of Republicans, tap your oratorical talents and speak up - from your gut - about what's right and wrong as you advocate for the American people. People would love to see that side of you.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Galling Hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich
I just wish Newt Gingrich would do us all a favor and end his presidential campaign now.
He's already made a fool out of himself on multiple occasions. He has made comments on large topics like the US role in Libya or Medicare reform and then tried to reverse himself.
He routinely distorts, exaggerates or lies. He takes things out of context so constantly that no one tries to correct him. And, he is one of the most full-fledged, annoying hypocrites I've seen in American politics.
Newt's latest whining about NBC doing such an unfair story about his wife's role in his presidential campaign was very hard to take.
As those of us political junkies know, Gingrich's campaign suffered a major setback recently when 16 of his campaign staffers resigned all at once due to disagreements with the candidate over the overall direction of Gingrich's campaign. In some stories about this embarrassing development, Gingrich staffers told reporters anonymously that they felt Newt's wife, Callista, was part of the problem because she was influencing Newt to make bad decisions. For instance, news reports said, it was at Callista's urging that she and Newt went on a recent vacation to Greece despite Gingrich's campaign getting off to a horrible start. It was very bad timing, his staff felt, according to news reports.
So, Gingrich, being the clever guy he is, made some initial remarks to the effect that, yes, he did have a large disagreement with his staff, but, he explained, he was running a non-traditional campaign, so, it wasn't surprising that campaign consultant types would complain. He claimed he felt fine about the state of affairs despite the incredible mass exodus of his campaign staff.
Then, Gingrich protested later about NBC's story on this topic.
"I believe NBC owes Callista an apology," Newt said, "because the fact is my campaign is my campaign....Yes, we make decisions as a couple, but in the end, I take full responsibility. And I think the program this morning was totally irresponsible, and personally reprehensible, and the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for public office..."
Are you kidding me, Newt?
You think the reporting on your wife's role was vicious? Yeah, the news media felt it was a big story that after months of your public exploration of a run for the presidency, most of your top campaign staff decided to resign after only a couple of months. That IS a big story! I can see you reacting if you felt the reporting of your wife's role was described accurately or not, but somehow, certain members of your staff chose to talk to the press about your wife's role.
So, that's the way it goes.
What kills me about this is that Newt, over the years, has been the most unfair, callous, inflammatory, insensitive politician with his own biting, critical remarks about everyone else.
Now, he's barely out of the gate, and he and his campaign have screwed up about 15 ways in two months, and he's whining about NBC!!!!
Poor Newt!! I do NOT feel sympathy for you. And what gall Gingrich has to suggest that this is "the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for office.."
Newt, you have not seen anything yet! Barack Obama has taken more criticism and crap in the past few years than you could ever handle. You want to see unfair attacks? Did you listen when Obama's patriotism and very citizenship was questioned during the 2008 campaign? What about the reactionary pack that called for him to produce his "long-form" birth certificate after he was President for two years? (I could list examples for about 24 hours straight...)
Newt, you are not as strong or tough as Obama and many, many other politicians. You are a guy
who belongs on the sidelines. That way, you can hurl your reckless, attention-grabbling, rhetorical "grenades" and avoid responsibility.
You are not a serious candidate. You are not worthy of being treated as such.
As Harry Truman said: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen..."
Please stop whining about NBC reporting facts and spare us your self-absorption and hypocrisy.
If you stay in the race, I hope the media holds you accountable for your falsehoods and irresponsible remarks. Maybe, you'll get more of a dose of the kind of coverage you've deserved for a long time.
He's already made a fool out of himself on multiple occasions. He has made comments on large topics like the US role in Libya or Medicare reform and then tried to reverse himself.
He routinely distorts, exaggerates or lies. He takes things out of context so constantly that no one tries to correct him. And, he is one of the most full-fledged, annoying hypocrites I've seen in American politics.
Newt's latest whining about NBC doing such an unfair story about his wife's role in his presidential campaign was very hard to take.
As those of us political junkies know, Gingrich's campaign suffered a major setback recently when 16 of his campaign staffers resigned all at once due to disagreements with the candidate over the overall direction of Gingrich's campaign. In some stories about this embarrassing development, Gingrich staffers told reporters anonymously that they felt Newt's wife, Callista, was part of the problem because she was influencing Newt to make bad decisions. For instance, news reports said, it was at Callista's urging that she and Newt went on a recent vacation to Greece despite Gingrich's campaign getting off to a horrible start. It was very bad timing, his staff felt, according to news reports.
So, Gingrich, being the clever guy he is, made some initial remarks to the effect that, yes, he did have a large disagreement with his staff, but, he explained, he was running a non-traditional campaign, so, it wasn't surprising that campaign consultant types would complain. He claimed he felt fine about the state of affairs despite the incredible mass exodus of his campaign staff.
Then, Gingrich protested later about NBC's story on this topic.
"I believe NBC owes Callista an apology," Newt said, "because the fact is my campaign is my campaign....Yes, we make decisions as a couple, but in the end, I take full responsibility. And I think the program this morning was totally irresponsible, and personally reprehensible, and the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for public office..."
Are you kidding me, Newt?
You think the reporting on your wife's role was vicious? Yeah, the news media felt it was a big story that after months of your public exploration of a run for the presidency, most of your top campaign staff decided to resign after only a couple of months. That IS a big story! I can see you reacting if you felt the reporting of your wife's role was described accurately or not, but somehow, certain members of your staff chose to talk to the press about your wife's role.
So, that's the way it goes.
What kills me about this is that Newt, over the years, has been the most unfair, callous, inflammatory, insensitive politician with his own biting, critical remarks about everyone else.
Now, he's barely out of the gate, and he and his campaign have screwed up about 15 ways in two months, and he's whining about NBC!!!!
Poor Newt!! I do NOT feel sympathy for you. And what gall Gingrich has to suggest that this is "the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for office.."
Newt, you have not seen anything yet! Barack Obama has taken more criticism and crap in the past few years than you could ever handle. You want to see unfair attacks? Did you listen when Obama's patriotism and very citizenship was questioned during the 2008 campaign? What about the reactionary pack that called for him to produce his "long-form" birth certificate after he was President for two years? (I could list examples for about 24 hours straight...)
Newt, you are not as strong or tough as Obama and many, many other politicians. You are a guy
who belongs on the sidelines. That way, you can hurl your reckless, attention-grabbling, rhetorical "grenades" and avoid responsibility.
You are not a serious candidate. You are not worthy of being treated as such.
As Harry Truman said: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen..."
Please stop whining about NBC reporting facts and spare us your self-absorption and hypocrisy.
If you stay in the race, I hope the media holds you accountable for your falsehoods and irresponsible remarks. Maybe, you'll get more of a dose of the kind of coverage you've deserved for a long time.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Why Can't Republicans Just Give Obama Credit for Getting Bin Laden?
The night President Barack Obama told the nation that the US had killed Osama Bin Laden, one of my reactions was: "This is a giant accomplishment that no one will be able to take away from him."
Then, the next morning, Rush Limbaugh launched into a weird sarcastic rant about how unique Obama's role was in the mission. Sarah Palin later offered congratulations to the military, and gave prominent mention to former President George W. Bush without mentioning Obama by name. Glenn Beck later said he thought it was "disgusting" for Obama to visit Ground Zero in New York City on Thursday, May 5th, because, apparently, he thought the President was trying to draw extra attention to himself. (In fact, Obama went to meet with 9/11 families, firefighters and police, and, in fact, didn't give a speech there).
Other Republicans who commented on the US raid on Bin Laden seemed determined to give much public credit to Bush, and usually stressed his contributions at least as much as Obama's and often more.
Consider the statement the next morning from "Keep America Safe," an organization run by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame:
"Today marks a major victory for the people of the United States and the forces of freedom and justice all over the world," the statement said. "We are grateful for the bravery of the Americans who raided the compound near Islamabad and killed Osama Bin Laden. We are also grateful to the men and women of America's intelligence services, who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to Bin Laden.......
How small and cowardly of this group to disregard President Obama, who, indisputably, played a central, commanding role in the planning and order for the raid that led to killing Bin Laden. Of course, Kristol was a big booster of the invasion of Iraq who I've never heard utter any regret for being on the side of such a disaster that killed thousands of human beings.
As the next few days unfolded, the trend became even more clear: Republicans often gave far more emphasis to Bush's contributions even if they praised Obama.
My reaction: When Bin Laden has just been killed nearly ten years after 9/11, any Republican choosing to bring up Bush as someone who should share credit with Obama is either can't face the truth, is stupidly partisan or has a lack of character in more ways than one.
After all, it's the Republicans who are always running over each other to compete for the "most patriotic" label. Why not show a little loyalty to your country, you Republicans, by acknowledging that the current President had a lot to do with the raid on Bin Laden? In fact, it would not have happened if he had not given the order, you turkeys!!!!!
But, even after Obama played an impressive, commanding role in this huge event - the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist and mass murderer - some of his reactionary critics still are unwilling to acknowledge reality. It's embarrassing. Why don't Democrats ever challenge these kind of ludicrous remarks? Why can't they stand up for Obama even when he's pulled off a great achievement the whole country has waited for?
Bin Laden was responsible for the worst mass killing of Americans (nearly 3,000) in the U.S. since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden essentially led the Bush Administration to make its disastrous decision to invade Iraq for no good reason. This led to thousands of people dying. Hate for the US intensified and multiplied around the world. Bin Laden has caused a lot of bad things to happen for the US. Now, thanks mostly to Obama and his team, Bin Laden is gone.
Further, it takes a lot of gall for Republicans to push Bush's name out there at all when it comes to Bin Laden. Bush failed in several enormous ways regarding Bin Laden while Obama did much better.
First, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and while I'm not blaming Bush for that directly, news stories have surfaced through the years about certain reports of an increased likelihood of terrorist activity in the days before 9/11. I won't second-guess it now, but, I'm just stating that the Bush administration was in power.
Second, Bush's outlook toward catching Bin Laden seemed to change dramatically in 2002, when he and his team were planning the invasion of Iraq. I've seen the tape on TV the past week of Bush saying he didn't know where Bin Laden was and it was not a real concern of his. Then, of course, the Bush Administration dragged the US into a completely unnecessary war with Iraq, but, before they did, they attempted to substitute Saddam Hussein in their propagandist rhetoric for Bin Laden, who they seemed to view as less relevant then.
Obama, by contrast, as a presidential candidate, said he'd go after Bin Laden aggressively and said that if he had to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan to get him, he would authorize that.
Third, Bush, by reports and indications, was a President who relied very heavily on VP Cheney and other advisors to make key decisions, including on foreign policy and intelligence matters.
Obama, by contrast, apparently, oversaw at least nine meetings held to discuss the details and ramifications of the raid on Bin Laden. He's been heavily involved in deliberations with his military team about Afghanistan. He comes across as a President who's more knowledgeable, more hands-on, more intelligent, more competent, more able to participate in discussions, and more eager to seek out others' opinions. (You'd think such a leader would deserve a few words of praise after this historic raid)
Fourth, Bush and his team actually caused an increase in Al Qaeda involvement in parts of the world, particularly Iraq, where Al Qaeda men poured in to take part in the war there. Obama, by contrast, from the first months of his presidency, intensified US attacks on Al Qaeda in various locations and sometimes used drones, unmanned vehicles, to fire missile attacks.
Some of these more aggressive attacks have reportedly been successful, and, at times, reports have indicated the killing of various Al Qaeda leaders.
I feel one could write a book documenting why Obama deserves more credit than Bush for this recent raid. Frankly, I think it's sad and discouraging that people are discussing Bush's role
at all. One of the only reasons, I guess, is that supporters of the use of torture (like Liz Cheney's group) claim that the enhanced interrogations used under Bush led to bits of information that proved useful to the Obama team. However, this conclusion is premature and people are still debating what led to what. My bigger point is that even if some intelligence was passed on usefully, how can anyone forget that Bush's main response to Bin Laden and 9/11 was to invade a country and kill thousands of people there along with our own men.
_____________________________________
I'm just tired of Obama never receiving unqualified praise for the good things he's done. I know he's made many mistakes. I disagree with him no some important issues like Afghanistan. But, I believe that people set unrealistic standards for him because he's black. No matter what he does, people seem a bit more eager and a bit more able to voice some grievance. Why is that?
People blame the economy on Obama. That's not really fair, either, because Presidents can only do so much to impact the whole economy, especially with today's complex, interactive global economy. When Obama took the advice of most economists and got a stimulus package passed, he was ripped from all sides that the stimulus didn't work. He helped bail out the auto companies, which were on the verge of collapse. Some ripped him for that. He bailed out the banks, to help the economy, in the longer run. He got criticized. Obama took a lot of heat for his handling of the BP oil spill, which was largely out of his control.I saw journalist Jonathan Alter being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. Alter was asked about the impact of the killing of Bin Laden on Obama as President. Alter said that Presidents are often rightfully held responsible for things that happen on their watch.
"..So, if Obamais going to take blame for the economy, he needs to get credit for this," (killing of Bin Laden) Alter said.
That sounds fairly sensible to me even though some things that happen on a President's watch are truly out of his control.
All I know is I do not recall any President taking on more enormous crises and problems all at once in his first two years than President Obama. That he tried to get a major health care reform bill passed while his plate was so full probably was a mistake. His bill ended up being very flawed. Yet, he'd probably argue that it was a giant step for the country to get something done - to get the ball rolling.
There are reasons Obama gets criticized and it's another blog topic. But, his particular strengths really helped him show leadership in the raid on Bin Laden and if Republicans or others cannot see that in perspective, then we'll have even more meaningless partisan sniping all the way until Election Day in 2012. I predict that, anyway, I guess.
Then, the next morning, Rush Limbaugh launched into a weird sarcastic rant about how unique Obama's role was in the mission. Sarah Palin later offered congratulations to the military, and gave prominent mention to former President George W. Bush without mentioning Obama by name. Glenn Beck later said he thought it was "disgusting" for Obama to visit Ground Zero in New York City on Thursday, May 5th, because, apparently, he thought the President was trying to draw extra attention to himself. (In fact, Obama went to meet with 9/11 families, firefighters and police, and, in fact, didn't give a speech there).
Other Republicans who commented on the US raid on Bin Laden seemed determined to give much public credit to Bush, and usually stressed his contributions at least as much as Obama's and often more.
Consider the statement the next morning from "Keep America Safe," an organization run by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame:
"Today marks a major victory for the people of the United States and the forces of freedom and justice all over the world," the statement said. "We are grateful for the bravery of the Americans who raided the compound near Islamabad and killed Osama Bin Laden. We are also grateful to the men and women of America's intelligence services, who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to Bin Laden.......
How small and cowardly of this group to disregard President Obama, who, indisputably, played a central, commanding role in the planning and order for the raid that led to killing Bin Laden. Of course, Kristol was a big booster of the invasion of Iraq who I've never heard utter any regret for being on the side of such a disaster that killed thousands of human beings.
As the next few days unfolded, the trend became even more clear: Republicans often gave far more emphasis to Bush's contributions even if they praised Obama.
My reaction: When Bin Laden has just been killed nearly ten years after 9/11, any Republican choosing to bring up Bush as someone who should share credit with Obama is either can't face the truth, is stupidly partisan or has a lack of character in more ways than one.
After all, it's the Republicans who are always running over each other to compete for the "most patriotic" label. Why not show a little loyalty to your country, you Republicans, by acknowledging that the current President had a lot to do with the raid on Bin Laden? In fact, it would not have happened if he had not given the order, you turkeys!!!!!
But, even after Obama played an impressive, commanding role in this huge event - the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist and mass murderer - some of his reactionary critics still are unwilling to acknowledge reality. It's embarrassing. Why don't Democrats ever challenge these kind of ludicrous remarks? Why can't they stand up for Obama even when he's pulled off a great achievement the whole country has waited for?
Bin Laden was responsible for the worst mass killing of Americans (nearly 3,000) in the U.S. since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden essentially led the Bush Administration to make its disastrous decision to invade Iraq for no good reason. This led to thousands of people dying. Hate for the US intensified and multiplied around the world. Bin Laden has caused a lot of bad things to happen for the US. Now, thanks mostly to Obama and his team, Bin Laden is gone.
Further, it takes a lot of gall for Republicans to push Bush's name out there at all when it comes to Bin Laden. Bush failed in several enormous ways regarding Bin Laden while Obama did much better.
First, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and while I'm not blaming Bush for that directly, news stories have surfaced through the years about certain reports of an increased likelihood of terrorist activity in the days before 9/11. I won't second-guess it now, but, I'm just stating that the Bush administration was in power.
Second, Bush's outlook toward catching Bin Laden seemed to change dramatically in 2002, when he and his team were planning the invasion of Iraq. I've seen the tape on TV the past week of Bush saying he didn't know where Bin Laden was and it was not a real concern of his. Then, of course, the Bush Administration dragged the US into a completely unnecessary war with Iraq, but, before they did, they attempted to substitute Saddam Hussein in their propagandist rhetoric for Bin Laden, who they seemed to view as less relevant then.
Obama, by contrast, as a presidential candidate, said he'd go after Bin Laden aggressively and said that if he had to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan to get him, he would authorize that.
Third, Bush, by reports and indications, was a President who relied very heavily on VP Cheney and other advisors to make key decisions, including on foreign policy and intelligence matters.
Obama, by contrast, apparently, oversaw at least nine meetings held to discuss the details and ramifications of the raid on Bin Laden. He's been heavily involved in deliberations with his military team about Afghanistan. He comes across as a President who's more knowledgeable, more hands-on, more intelligent, more competent, more able to participate in discussions, and more eager to seek out others' opinions. (You'd think such a leader would deserve a few words of praise after this historic raid)
Fourth, Bush and his team actually caused an increase in Al Qaeda involvement in parts of the world, particularly Iraq, where Al Qaeda men poured in to take part in the war there. Obama, by contrast, from the first months of his presidency, intensified US attacks on Al Qaeda in various locations and sometimes used drones, unmanned vehicles, to fire missile attacks.
Some of these more aggressive attacks have reportedly been successful, and, at times, reports have indicated the killing of various Al Qaeda leaders.
I feel one could write a book documenting why Obama deserves more credit than Bush for this recent raid. Frankly, I think it's sad and discouraging that people are discussing Bush's role
at all. One of the only reasons, I guess, is that supporters of the use of torture (like Liz Cheney's group) claim that the enhanced interrogations used under Bush led to bits of information that proved useful to the Obama team. However, this conclusion is premature and people are still debating what led to what. My bigger point is that even if some intelligence was passed on usefully, how can anyone forget that Bush's main response to Bin Laden and 9/11 was to invade a country and kill thousands of people there along with our own men.
_____________________________________
I'm just tired of Obama never receiving unqualified praise for the good things he's done. I know he's made many mistakes. I disagree with him no some important issues like Afghanistan. But, I believe that people set unrealistic standards for him because he's black. No matter what he does, people seem a bit more eager and a bit more able to voice some grievance. Why is that?
People blame the economy on Obama. That's not really fair, either, because Presidents can only do so much to impact the whole economy, especially with today's complex, interactive global economy. When Obama took the advice of most economists and got a stimulus package passed, he was ripped from all sides that the stimulus didn't work. He helped bail out the auto companies, which were on the verge of collapse. Some ripped him for that. He bailed out the banks, to help the economy, in the longer run. He got criticized. Obama took a lot of heat for his handling of the BP oil spill, which was largely out of his control.I saw journalist Jonathan Alter being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. Alter was asked about the impact of the killing of Bin Laden on Obama as President. Alter said that Presidents are often rightfully held responsible for things that happen on their watch.
"..So, if Obamais going to take blame for the economy, he needs to get credit for this," (killing of Bin Laden) Alter said.
That sounds fairly sensible to me even though some things that happen on a President's watch are truly out of his control.
All I know is I do not recall any President taking on more enormous crises and problems all at once in his first two years than President Obama. That he tried to get a major health care reform bill passed while his plate was so full probably was a mistake. His bill ended up being very flawed. Yet, he'd probably argue that it was a giant step for the country to get something done - to get the ball rolling.
There are reasons Obama gets criticized and it's another blog topic. But, his particular strengths really helped him show leadership in the raid on Bin Laden and if Republicans or others cannot see that in perspective, then we'll have even more meaningless partisan sniping all the way until Election Day in 2012. I predict that, anyway, I guess.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Pondering the Crazy Times We Live In
Let's see. Which of the 150 or so disturbing things happening in the world should I begin with?
I've chosen just five topics that are bugging me. I'll start with the coverage of Charlie Sheen.
I've chosen just five topics that are bugging me. I'll start with the coverage of Charlie Sheen.
- Coverage of Charlie Sheen Shows We Are LOSING. The coverage of Sheen's behavior represents a new "low" of sorts because the television networks, particularly cable and gossip shows, are so openly exploiting Sheen's personal problems to increase their ratings. The context for this is not the least bit subtle. The television industry doesn't give a damn about Sheen's mental health or substance abuse problems. As long as he's outrageous, they keep the limelight on him. What does this say about our society? People are gobbling up reports on Sheen. What's next? Do you think television will give us prime-time coverage of a man setting himself on fire? It seems the door has been kicked further open for almost anything. I recall when the networks, back in 1994, broke to live coverage of O.J. Simpson's Bronco chase away from the Los Angeles police. Helicopters helped bring the country live shots of Simpson's Bronco pulling into his driveway as reporters openly wondered if he'd kill himself then and there. I remember sensing that that had begun a new "era" - a new "low." We've seen many other "lows" since, but, this Charlie Sheen saga is now the newest episode on the list, and, I find it an embarrassing metaphor for the "entertainment-first" culture we live in. I was disgusted to see an article in the March 21st Newsweek by Bret Easton Ellis that actually heaped praise on the unique contributions of Sheen. The headline reads: "Charlie Sheen is Winning - With his tweets, his manic interviews, his insurgent campaign against the entertainment world, the star is giving America exactly what it wants out of a modern celebirty" The author gives his views on why Sheen's one-man "protest" has struck a chord, but he barely mentions the actor's problems that are driving all his behavior. So, this Newsweek article - like Sheen - puts entertainment ahead of all. Forget the truth. Forget context. Forget discretion. We live in a sick society.
- It seems fitting, in a negative way, that Newt Gingrich is taking preliminary steps toward running for President in 2012. Why? Because Gingrich knows that in today's crazy media climate, he's much more likely to get away with failing to explain his personal mistakes in the past AND that he can speak in extreme, reckless terms - the way he likes to. Think about it. In today's media landscape, people say outrageous things one day, and they're forgotten a few days later. So, for example, even though Sarah Palin, as a vice presidential candidate, couldn't discuss the most basic issues in 2008, the media has been hyping her every move since because of her entertainment value. Glenn Beck says wacky things on FOX television, but, he keeps his job. Rush Limbaugh spouts wild, negative comments and yet, he retains, mysteriously, enough political "clout" that politicians, particularly Republicans, often remain afraid to challenge him publicly. So, it seems to "follow" that Gingrich has already pulled off an amazing, objectionable move: He blamed his infidelities (that led to his two divorces) on his extraordinary patriotism. Yeah, he actually said words to this effect - in case you missed it. David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network recently asked him about his past behavior. Newt, in his reply, said: "...There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate...I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness. Not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there's a forgiving God...." Gingrich reportedly chose to discuss his divorce of his first wife while she was sick with cancer recovering from surgery in the hospital. Then, his second wife reportedly found out about his later infidelity right after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
- The state of Texas is giving serious consideration to a proposed new law that would allow college students and professors to carry handguns on campus. Just a few months after the horrific shooting episode in Arizona when US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot by an unstable man, it is hard for me to fathom why legislators in Texas or any other state would choose to allow more handguns to be in circulation rather than less. It would only increase the chances for someone to be wounded or killed by a gun. Texas allows concealed firearms in most public places, but not in college buildings. Eight other states are considering bills that would allow concealed firearms to be carried on college campuses. Utah is currently the only state in the US that in allows concealed guns on public college campuses. In more than 20 other states, similar proposed bills have been defeated in the past, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. If anything, the Arizona tragedy demonstrated the tremendous need for stricter gun control across the country. After all, the shooter used a gun with a high-capacity magazine that would have been prohibited if the assault weapons ban law had not expired in 2004. It defies common sense that politicians are so fearful of the gun lobby that they do not take action to prevent the needless deaths of so many people due to gun violence.
- Politicians - including US congressmen and a potential presidential candidate - continue to stir discussion about whether President Obama was truly born in the US. This false claim should have never been treated as a legitimate topic for media coverage unless some facts had emerged that raised actual doubt or questions about Obama's citizenship. That has never happened. Yet news organizations keep allowing individuals to raise this ludicrous topic without vigorously questioning and objecting to it. Although not one shred of new evidence has surfaced that indicates anything contradictory about Obama's citizenship, we keep hearing about the "birthers." News organizations keep reporting on lies related to Obama's birth. The latest example: 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently made the glaring mistake of saying Obama had grown up in Kenya. My view is that anyone who makes his false claim about Obama ought to be aggressively questioned, scrutinized, criticized and held accountable. Obama is two years into his presidency. That this subject is even on anyone's radar is inexcusable and suggests either racism, stupidity or motivation stemming only from ill will.
- The coverage of President Obama often suggests that public and/or media expectations of what a US president can do are so far off the charts that it reveals troubling trends. Barack Obama inherited a boatload of troubles when he took office and it seems he's been wrestling with crises during much of his tenure. I'm used to noticing that people expect Presidents to do far more than they can, but, in Obama's case, I feel the expectations have been laughably extreme. He came into office inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Economists from all sides recommended passage of a stimulus package. Later, Republicans ripped Obama because, they claimed, the stimulus was wasteful and didn't create enough growth. The auto industry failed. Obama's administration stepped in. Banks failed. Obama intervened to bail them out. Later, these actions were part of the Republicans' overall criticism of Obama being a "socialist" proponent of big government. Then, there the BP oil spill and people complained Obama should've done more. (Did they want him to wear scuba gear and clean up the oil himself?) With the latest unrest in countries in or near the Middle East, critics said first that Obama was saying too much about Egypt. Then, they said he wasn't doing enough. Just recently, some critics have suggested that Obama should be doing more to intervene to help the rebels in Libya. Of course, for the US to create a "no-fly-zone" would have required bombing sites in Libya first and such action would stir up incredible hostility from other countries - including Iran, which already urged the US to refrain. Sometimes I wonder how Obama keeps his sanity in the White House. I do notice that he seems to receive far more criticism and scrutiny than George W. Bush received at times. I vividly recall the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign to create public acceptance for the invasion of Iraq. I recall the media "going along" with much of the campaign and failing to raise nearly enough questions. Can you imagine if Obama tried to launch an invasion of a country like Iraq without justification - and, that thousands of people then died as a result? Unfortunately, it's clear that Obama is held to a different standard due to his race. It's time for people to be more realistic and fair in those expectations.
Friday, January 28, 2011
A Lingering Thought After Tucson Tragedy
For a few days last month, we witnessed something truly unusual: Some of the country's right-wing talk show hosts received a little scrutiny and criticism for their reckless words. I'm referring to the few days after the tragic shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people in Arizona.
Many people felt that these talk show hosts' (among others) disturbing tendency of using hostile, violent references toward government officials had contributed to an environment that might push the wrong buttons for the killer, Jared Loughner, who clearly suffers from severe mental illness.
The biggest names of the bunch - such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - immediately became extremely defensive about this viewpoint. They charged that this sentiment amounted to ridiculous scapegoating when, in fact, the killer had been identifed.
Limbaugh, predictably, went on the offensive rather than to attempt any thoughtful reflection about the potentially negative impact of his own "attacking" rants on his show.
"....What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country," Limbaugh said on his show. "He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that ...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame....."
That was a really stupid comment - even for Limbaugh. He and other right-wingers just couldn't face that maybe the subject of what makes a mentally ill person suddenly commit a violent act is more complex and worthy of thoughtful examination than the same old black and white labeling.
It's true that no one can prove the extent to which Loughner was or wasn't influenced by the "discourse" in the background. However, for a few days, television and radio shows were actually discussing whether the level of "vitriol"in this country had become more dangerous than it should be.
My reaction: It was about time.
It has always struck me how little public criticism is directed at right-wing talk show hosts who routinely spout irresponsible, inflammatory, inaccurate words on the airwaves. I refer to Limbaugh, Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly of FOX-TV and Sarah Palin, who has seemed to assume the role of an "entertainer" more than a serious former governor.
It seems clear that politicians in both parties feel it's not in their interests to take on these controversial talk show hosts publicly. Others might feel it's a no-win scenario because Limbaugh and company will always get the last word.
But I wish so much that more politicians and public figures would publicly criticize these right-wing talk show hosts more often. Why? That's the least they deserve for the many outrageous, unsubstantiated things they say and holding them more accountable would be good for all of us.
I heard some topics discussed after the Tucson shootings that deserve ongoing attention.
Chris Matthews, the host of "Hardball" on MSNBC kept raising the question of: Why have people on the Right, in certain parts of the country, more often been bringing guns to public appearances such as speeches or rallies?
Good question. It's a scary development. People should not be allowed to carry guns to these sort of events - period.
It's also worth worrying about why the threats made against members of the US Congress went way up during the first three months of 2010, according to the Associated Press. A Jan. 8, 2011 A.P. story (following the Giffords shooting) reported that in the first three months of 2010 alone, there were 42 threats made against members of Congress -- nearly three times the number of cases reported during the same three months in 2009. In March of 2010, someone "either kicked in or shot out a window in Giffords' Tucson office just hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for an expansion in government-directed health care," stated an A.P. article by Alicia Caldwell.
As we all know by now, Giffords was one of the 20 House Democratic supporters of the health care bill whose congressional district was put "in the cross hairs" of a gun site on a map that was posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page asking people to work against those members' re-election. I haven't heard Palin ever apologize for that choice of imagery. Has she?
Interestingly, it was the local sheriff in Arizona, Clarence Dupnik, whose remarks after the Tucson shootings, brought some of the scrutiny of talk show hosts.
Dupnik said: "..It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business....The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line...."
Dupnik - like police across the land - must respond to indivuduals who "cross that line"
due to mental illness.
What's a revealing, sad commentary is that the very right-wing talk show hosts who use "loaded" rhetoric on their shows continued - after the Arizona shootings - to exhibit the same ignorance and insensitivity that they display, embarrassingly, all the time in this way: The Limbaughs and Becks of the world simply would not - and could not - discuss possible causes or factors that led Loughner to commit violence. Rather, they followed a pattern I've witnessed for years of conservatives referring to those who commit murders as being fully aware and totally responsible for their actions. They always seem to characterize acts of violence as being about only individuals and their choices. Of course, it's usually much more complicated because so many murderers are mentally ill, disturbed in some way or insane. Many of us are interested in helping mentally ill people in ways that minimize the chances of they're engaging in violence. And, yes, we want our society to try to create an environment that discourages violence - and, yes, maybe even prevents violence. Unfortunately, for many years now, politicians have been afraid to discuss the "causes of crime" out of fear they'd be viewed as "too soft on crime."
Indeed, the Limbaughs and Becks kept this bad habit alive by acting like it was so far-fetched to even imagine that the national "discourse" could contribute to anything. They dismissed the concern voiced by many. They ridiculed it. What a pathetic, unintelligent response at a sensitive moment when people were traumatized by the events in Tucson.
Rush Limbaugh and too many of his "colleagues" on the radio don't take responsibility for what they say. It's about time that Democratic and Republican politicians and the rest of us stopped tolerating that irresponsible rhetoric. People need to speak up in opposition to it - not just for a few days following a national tragedy like Tucson - but, all the time.
Many people felt that these talk show hosts' (among others) disturbing tendency of using hostile, violent references toward government officials had contributed to an environment that might push the wrong buttons for the killer, Jared Loughner, who clearly suffers from severe mental illness.
The biggest names of the bunch - such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - immediately became extremely defensive about this viewpoint. They charged that this sentiment amounted to ridiculous scapegoating when, in fact, the killer had been identifed.
Limbaugh, predictably, went on the offensive rather than to attempt any thoughtful reflection about the potentially negative impact of his own "attacking" rants on his show.
"....What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country," Limbaugh said on his show. "He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that ...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame....."
That was a really stupid comment - even for Limbaugh. He and other right-wingers just couldn't face that maybe the subject of what makes a mentally ill person suddenly commit a violent act is more complex and worthy of thoughtful examination than the same old black and white labeling.
It's true that no one can prove the extent to which Loughner was or wasn't influenced by the "discourse" in the background. However, for a few days, television and radio shows were actually discussing whether the level of "vitriol"in this country had become more dangerous than it should be.
My reaction: It was about time.
It has always struck me how little public criticism is directed at right-wing talk show hosts who routinely spout irresponsible, inflammatory, inaccurate words on the airwaves. I refer to Limbaugh, Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly of FOX-TV and Sarah Palin, who has seemed to assume the role of an "entertainer" more than a serious former governor.
It seems clear that politicians in both parties feel it's not in their interests to take on these controversial talk show hosts publicly. Others might feel it's a no-win scenario because Limbaugh and company will always get the last word.
But I wish so much that more politicians and public figures would publicly criticize these right-wing talk show hosts more often. Why? That's the least they deserve for the many outrageous, unsubstantiated things they say and holding them more accountable would be good for all of us.
I heard some topics discussed after the Tucson shootings that deserve ongoing attention.
Chris Matthews, the host of "Hardball" on MSNBC kept raising the question of: Why have people on the Right, in certain parts of the country, more often been bringing guns to public appearances such as speeches or rallies?
Good question. It's a scary development. People should not be allowed to carry guns to these sort of events - period.
It's also worth worrying about why the threats made against members of the US Congress went way up during the first three months of 2010, according to the Associated Press. A Jan. 8, 2011 A.P. story (following the Giffords shooting) reported that in the first three months of 2010 alone, there were 42 threats made against members of Congress -- nearly three times the number of cases reported during the same three months in 2009. In March of 2010, someone "either kicked in or shot out a window in Giffords' Tucson office just hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for an expansion in government-directed health care," stated an A.P. article by Alicia Caldwell.
As we all know by now, Giffords was one of the 20 House Democratic supporters of the health care bill whose congressional district was put "in the cross hairs" of a gun site on a map that was posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page asking people to work against those members' re-election. I haven't heard Palin ever apologize for that choice of imagery. Has she?
Interestingly, it was the local sheriff in Arizona, Clarence Dupnik, whose remarks after the Tucson shootings, brought some of the scrutiny of talk show hosts.
Dupnik said: "..It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business....The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line...."
Dupnik - like police across the land - must respond to indivuduals who "cross that line"
due to mental illness.
What's a revealing, sad commentary is that the very right-wing talk show hosts who use "loaded" rhetoric on their shows continued - after the Arizona shootings - to exhibit the same ignorance and insensitivity that they display, embarrassingly, all the time in this way: The Limbaughs and Becks of the world simply would not - and could not - discuss possible causes or factors that led Loughner to commit violence. Rather, they followed a pattern I've witnessed for years of conservatives referring to those who commit murders as being fully aware and totally responsible for their actions. They always seem to characterize acts of violence as being about only individuals and their choices. Of course, it's usually much more complicated because so many murderers are mentally ill, disturbed in some way or insane. Many of us are interested in helping mentally ill people in ways that minimize the chances of they're engaging in violence. And, yes, we want our society to try to create an environment that discourages violence - and, yes, maybe even prevents violence. Unfortunately, for many years now, politicians have been afraid to discuss the "causes of crime" out of fear they'd be viewed as "too soft on crime."
Indeed, the Limbaughs and Becks kept this bad habit alive by acting like it was so far-fetched to even imagine that the national "discourse" could contribute to anything. They dismissed the concern voiced by many. They ridiculed it. What a pathetic, unintelligent response at a sensitive moment when people were traumatized by the events in Tucson.
Rush Limbaugh and too many of his "colleagues" on the radio don't take responsibility for what they say. It's about time that Democratic and Republican politicians and the rest of us stopped tolerating that irresponsible rhetoric. People need to speak up in opposition to it - not just for a few days following a national tragedy like Tucson - but, all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)