You've got to be kidding.
Now Mitt Romney has taken a little, harmless off-the-cuff remark made by President Obama Friday and tried to turn it into a big negative deal on the campaign trail.
President Obama, at a campaign appearance in Ohio on Friday, Nov. 2, heard some people boo-ing at the mention of Romney. Obama responded by saying: "Don't boo, vote....voting's the best revenge.."
Now, Romney is running a campaign commercial focusing solely on this "nothing" moment. Except Romney has attempted to transform it into a very serious matter.
In the TV ad, Romney is seen asking an audience of his supporters, "Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge -- for revenge..."
The ad then shows an excerpt of Obama's remark, with just his words about "revenge" so that it's taken completely out of context. (with nothing showing Obama's response to the people supporters booing Romney's name,etc.)
Then, the camera focuses back on Romney, who says, "Instead, I ask the American people to vote for love of their country."
So, Romney uses this pitiful ad to portray himself as the "good" person with only the most noble, patriotic intentions while trying to make Obama look like a "bad man" motivated by revenge. Romney had to know that Obama was NOT really urging his supporters to vote out of revenge, but that didn't stop him. He's got no moral compass. Anything to win. He's much more of a sleazy huckster than members of the media or the public seems to think. Do you think Romney's campaign decisions and moves are motivated by his "love of country"? He'd probably try to sell you on that.
You can't tell how desparate Romney felt when he made this ad because he distorts, lies and misleads every single day.
In my view, while some might view this ad as irrelevant, I see it as a metaphor for Romney's entire campaign. He's got the media covering this lame, little negative ad as a "campaign development" without, instead, explaining how misleading and base-less the ad is or questioning how Romney could even run such an ad. Shame on the news media, including those political reporters assigned to the campaign fulltime for failing to draw attention to the mendacity of Romney's campaign remarks.
If Romney wins this election blatantly twisting events and facts like this, he surely will not deserve the victory. Win or lose, Romney has displayed "new lows" in terms of the bull he slings on the campaign trail.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Romney is the biggest liar in presidential campaign history!
With just a few days before the 2012 presidential election, I want to go on record with this:
I believe Mitt Romney is the most dishonest of all the presidential candidates I've observed in my entire life.
I started following elections as a 12-year-old in 1968, so, that shows you how strongly I feel about Romney. I know almost all politicians lie and I admit it's hard to rank Romney below Richard Nixon, but, I do. (My impression is that Nixon did the vast majority of his lying after he was president.
Every time I watch Romney, it's hard for me to take him seriously. He just doesn't seem authentic about anything most of the time. He seems like a big phony. He lies so openly that he's almost daring voters to care. For just two recent examples: He aired a controversial advertisement in Ohio suggesting that Chrysler might move jobs to China to produce Jeeps. He was criticized by many parties, including Chrysler itself. Yet, Romney left the inaccurate ad airing.
That's Romney. He lies right out in front of everyone. In the first debate, when President Obama referrrred to his plans for a tax cut that would be given to the most wealthy, Romney denied having such a plan. Romney has spoken about the plan for months and months, but he denied it about three times to the President's face, and misled some viewers into thinking he was the "bold aggressor" in the debate, when, in fact, he was being as shifty and reckless as possible. He should've lost ground due to that lying, but, the media propelled him, citing his gains in the "horserace."
He and his running mate Paul Ryan are the most glaringly anti-choice ticket in our lifetimes; yet, Romney, in a devious, sleazy way, made a few, off-the-cuff remarks, about two weeks ago, to create confusion about his stance on abortion. Remember it? Romney said something about how, he didn't know of any abortion-related legislation out there that he felt required action on. As if to suggest, his anti-choice position wasn't as "threatening" to women. Nice try, Mitt, but, that's a bit too glaring a contradiction!
I could go on for 40 pages with Romney's lies and contradictions. He's made a false claim in the first debate that his health care plan covered pre-existing conditions when, in fact, it didn't and his staff had to correct the record afterward. That's pretty low. Seventy-million people in the audience heard the false statement but, I'm sure the correction didn't reach as many. (And the Romney camp was not pleased?)
Romney indicated very clearly he'd prefer to do away with FEMA and give that federal agency's responsibilities to state and local governments, but, then, predictably, after Sandy hit this week, Romeny first avoided press queries and then said he'd not eliminate FEMA.
Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of allowing states to weaken their rules for requiring welfare recipients to get jobs, but, the facts prove Romney's lying. Obama has, in fact, allowed states to try different approaches, but has not loosened the rules regarding work.
For many months, Romney has been aggressive in warning that the US must take a tougher posture toward Iran. He's sounded more hawkish than almost any national leader on this. Then, in the foreign policy debate - unbelievably - Romney "converted" on this, and said he supported Obama's sanctions and presented no concrete difference in his position to the President's.
Romney's positions on many foreign policy issues are unclear because, as Obama said, he's been "all over the map."
Romney, in the primaries, rarely mentioned his job as governor of Massachusetts. He was too busy appealing to the far right-wing side of the Republican party. Now, with only weeks before the Election, after his sudden transformation into a centrist in the first debate, Romney is raising is record as governor a lot more often. Clearly, he's trying to create an impression that he's a "centrist" and can work with Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I'll stop here. I challenge anyone reading this: Think slowly about all the candidates who have campaigned in past presidential elections on either side. Did anyone but Romney behave like a "super-chameleon" by switching so often that one can't track him? Anyone else make the term "flip-flopper" seem way, way too mild a term for the frequency of shifting? Anyone else who couldn't even do "small" things in a natural, authentic way? ("Binders full of women..") For example, Romney's lame attempt to put on an event this week in Ohio to help victims of Hurricane Sandy: Romney switched what was scheduled as a campaign event into a "storm relief" event and asked people to donate goods to the Red Cross without apparently doing so in a way that would be as helpful to the Red Cross. Plus, US Sen. John McCain, who attended, ended up speaking to reporters and blasting Obama's handling of the Libya tragedy. It looked like Romney was "going through the motions" at a contrived event, and, he was.
Romney has "gotten away" with releasing only two years of his income tax returns; He simply refused to release more and the press simply gave up on asking anymore or making any more fuss. Romney has gotten away with not discussing details of all his years at Bain Capital. Romney has not discussed his serious involvement with the Mormon religion and its influence on his life, views and values. No one has really prodded him on either large topic.
Now, in a highly unusual move, in the last two weeks of the campaign, Romney has refused to talk to any members of the press He's locked them out, apparently to minimize any risk of mistakes or problems. He and his camp must think that will increase his chances to win.
It's interesting. Even now, it's hard to tell why the amorphous Romney wants to be President besides just wanting the power and influence. He's been so shifty and the press has failed to make a real effort to hold him accountable for his shifts, denials and lies.
Tonight, I heard a rare, refreshing excepton to the press norm of letting Romney "off the hook" for his chronic lying. I heard the legendary Gloria Steinem, interviewed on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show, bluntly heap substantive criticisms on Romney. At the very end of her interview, Steinem said, spontaneously, "He (Romney) is the least honest, most plastic candidate I have ever seen in my life."
Right on, Gloria. Where are other public figures who know Romney is a documented, chronic liar?
No matter what the outcome on Election Day, I believe Romney is the biggest liar of all the presidential candidates I've seen in my life. I don't trust him. I hope very much that he loses, for the sake of our country.
I believe Mitt Romney is the most dishonest of all the presidential candidates I've observed in my entire life.
I started following elections as a 12-year-old in 1968, so, that shows you how strongly I feel about Romney. I know almost all politicians lie and I admit it's hard to rank Romney below Richard Nixon, but, I do. (My impression is that Nixon did the vast majority of his lying after he was president.
Every time I watch Romney, it's hard for me to take him seriously. He just doesn't seem authentic about anything most of the time. He seems like a big phony. He lies so openly that he's almost daring voters to care. For just two recent examples: He aired a controversial advertisement in Ohio suggesting that Chrysler might move jobs to China to produce Jeeps. He was criticized by many parties, including Chrysler itself. Yet, Romney left the inaccurate ad airing.
That's Romney. He lies right out in front of everyone. In the first debate, when President Obama referrrred to his plans for a tax cut that would be given to the most wealthy, Romney denied having such a plan. Romney has spoken about the plan for months and months, but he denied it about three times to the President's face, and misled some viewers into thinking he was the "bold aggressor" in the debate, when, in fact, he was being as shifty and reckless as possible. He should've lost ground due to that lying, but, the media propelled him, citing his gains in the "horserace."
He and his running mate Paul Ryan are the most glaringly anti-choice ticket in our lifetimes; yet, Romney, in a devious, sleazy way, made a few, off-the-cuff remarks, about two weeks ago, to create confusion about his stance on abortion. Remember it? Romney said something about how, he didn't know of any abortion-related legislation out there that he felt required action on. As if to suggest, his anti-choice position wasn't as "threatening" to women. Nice try, Mitt, but, that's a bit too glaring a contradiction!
I could go on for 40 pages with Romney's lies and contradictions. He's made a false claim in the first debate that his health care plan covered pre-existing conditions when, in fact, it didn't and his staff had to correct the record afterward. That's pretty low. Seventy-million people in the audience heard the false statement but, I'm sure the correction didn't reach as many. (And the Romney camp was not pleased?)
Romney indicated very clearly he'd prefer to do away with FEMA and give that federal agency's responsibilities to state and local governments, but, then, predictably, after Sandy hit this week, Romeny first avoided press queries and then said he'd not eliminate FEMA.
Romney has repeatedly accused Obama of allowing states to weaken their rules for requiring welfare recipients to get jobs, but, the facts prove Romney's lying. Obama has, in fact, allowed states to try different approaches, but has not loosened the rules regarding work.
For many months, Romney has been aggressive in warning that the US must take a tougher posture toward Iran. He's sounded more hawkish than almost any national leader on this. Then, in the foreign policy debate - unbelievably - Romney "converted" on this, and said he supported Obama's sanctions and presented no concrete difference in his position to the President's.
Romney's positions on many foreign policy issues are unclear because, as Obama said, he's been "all over the map."
Romney, in the primaries, rarely mentioned his job as governor of Massachusetts. He was too busy appealing to the far right-wing side of the Republican party. Now, with only weeks before the Election, after his sudden transformation into a centrist in the first debate, Romney is raising is record as governor a lot more often. Clearly, he's trying to create an impression that he's a "centrist" and can work with Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I'll stop here. I challenge anyone reading this: Think slowly about all the candidates who have campaigned in past presidential elections on either side. Did anyone but Romney behave like a "super-chameleon" by switching so often that one can't track him? Anyone else make the term "flip-flopper" seem way, way too mild a term for the frequency of shifting? Anyone else who couldn't even do "small" things in a natural, authentic way? ("Binders full of women..") For example, Romney's lame attempt to put on an event this week in Ohio to help victims of Hurricane Sandy: Romney switched what was scheduled as a campaign event into a "storm relief" event and asked people to donate goods to the Red Cross without apparently doing so in a way that would be as helpful to the Red Cross. Plus, US Sen. John McCain, who attended, ended up speaking to reporters and blasting Obama's handling of the Libya tragedy. It looked like Romney was "going through the motions" at a contrived event, and, he was.
Romney has "gotten away" with releasing only two years of his income tax returns; He simply refused to release more and the press simply gave up on asking anymore or making any more fuss. Romney has gotten away with not discussing details of all his years at Bain Capital. Romney has not discussed his serious involvement with the Mormon religion and its influence on his life, views and values. No one has really prodded him on either large topic.
Now, in a highly unusual move, in the last two weeks of the campaign, Romney has refused to talk to any members of the press He's locked them out, apparently to minimize any risk of mistakes or problems. He and his camp must think that will increase his chances to win.
It's interesting. Even now, it's hard to tell why the amorphous Romney wants to be President besides just wanting the power and influence. He's been so shifty and the press has failed to make a real effort to hold him accountable for his shifts, denials and lies.
Tonight, I heard a rare, refreshing excepton to the press norm of letting Romney "off the hook" for his chronic lying. I heard the legendary Gloria Steinem, interviewed on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show, bluntly heap substantive criticisms on Romney. At the very end of her interview, Steinem said, spontaneously, "He (Romney) is the least honest, most plastic candidate I have ever seen in my life."
Right on, Gloria. Where are other public figures who know Romney is a documented, chronic liar?
No matter what the outcome on Election Day, I believe Romney is the biggest liar of all the presidential candidates I've seen in my life. I don't trust him. I hope very much that he loses, for the sake of our country.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Find the Truth Outside the Regular News Section
I wrote in my last blog about how difficult it has been to find the truth in the media coverage of this 2012 presidential campaign. That has applied mostly to the mainstream news departments of television networks, local TV news, and, to a lesser, but still significant extent, to most newspapers' news sections.
That's why this has been such a big deal; You often cannot find good, substantive versions of the truth in the normal places where you would see it or look for it.
However, if one (like me, a political junkie) looks hard enough, you can find pieces of the truth in magazine articles or on newspapers' editorial pages or occasional television stories or from discussion and commentary on television interview shows. MSNBC's regular shows on weeknights from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" to Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word" all regularly feature discussion and interviews that at least some of the time, attempt to get at the truth and key aspects driving the main stories on the presidential campaign. I think O'Donnell is particularly good at not only identifying overlooked angles to campaign developments, but, then, to share his original insights, opinions or arguments.
For example: try reading this terrific, timely piece by Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012.10/23/the_man_without_a_soul/print/)
Or, read about a rare guest appearance on one of the Sunday talk shows when rare guest, Andrew Sullivan, actually expressed spontaneous truths about Mitt Romney in his comments:
(http://news.yahoo.com/andrew-sullivan-mitt-romney-alien-ripped-off-mask-163618529--)
Or, try reading Paul Krugman's New York Times column that appeared the day after the first debate, when he pointed out one of Romney's enormous lies: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0&pa)
Or, read Matt Taibbi's thorough, in-depth piece in Rolling Stone on Mitt Romney's record at
Bain Capital: (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)
Or, for a rare, very different take on the first debate, try reading Juan Williams' opinion piece, apparently done for Fox News: (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/obama-didnt-lose-debate-romney-didnt-win-it...)
Or, lastly, read an article about the astonishing remark by Neil Newhuose, a Romney pollster, at the Republican National Convention, about fact-checkers: (http://www.bendbulletion.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120902/NEWSO107/2090020401...)
These are just a few examples, but, in general, seeking publications where truth-seeking and free expression of opinions is encouraged will get you on the right track.
That's why this has been such a big deal; You often cannot find good, substantive versions of the truth in the normal places where you would see it or look for it.
However, if one (like me, a political junkie) looks hard enough, you can find pieces of the truth in magazine articles or on newspapers' editorial pages or occasional television stories or from discussion and commentary on television interview shows. MSNBC's regular shows on weeknights from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" to Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word" all regularly feature discussion and interviews that at least some of the time, attempt to get at the truth and key aspects driving the main stories on the presidential campaign. I think O'Donnell is particularly good at not only identifying overlooked angles to campaign developments, but, then, to share his original insights, opinions or arguments.
For example: try reading this terrific, timely piece by Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012.10/23/the_man_without_a_soul/print/)
Or, read about a rare guest appearance on one of the Sunday talk shows when rare guest, Andrew Sullivan, actually expressed spontaneous truths about Mitt Romney in his comments:
(http://news.yahoo.com/andrew-sullivan-mitt-romney-alien-ripped-off-mask-163618529--)
Or, try reading Paul Krugman's New York Times column that appeared the day after the first debate, when he pointed out one of Romney's enormous lies: (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0&pa)
Or, read Matt Taibbi's thorough, in-depth piece in Rolling Stone on Mitt Romney's record at
Bain Capital: (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)
Or, for a rare, very different take on the first debate, try reading Juan Williams' opinion piece, apparently done for Fox News: (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/obama-didnt-lose-debate-romney-didnt-win-it...)
Or, lastly, read an article about the astonishing remark by Neil Newhuose, a Romney pollster, at the Republican National Convention, about fact-checkers: (http://www.bendbulletion.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120902/NEWSO107/2090020401...)
These are just a few examples, but, in general, seeking publications where truth-seeking and free expression of opinions is encouraged will get you on the right track.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
The Media Have Helped Romney Get Away with Lying
Mitt Romney's success, to this point, is living proof that the media fail to cover presidential campaigns adequately anymore.
Romney has been telling enormous lies - "whoppers" - right in nationally televised debates, and, the media have, largely failed to identify them and put them in the context they deserve. I'll cite a most recent example: In the last presidential debate on foreign policy, Romney criticized President Obama
for going on "an apology tour" to different countries early in his presidency. It was a line Romney used frequently during the Republican primaries. It was a lie. Obama never went on a trip "apologizing" to countries. (He made a speech or two when he acknowledged the United States, in the past, had made some mistakes). So, the day after this Oct. 22nd debate, did the media play up Romney's repeating a lie he had used all year? No. It got mentioned briefly on a few TV talk shows, but the point is Romney has never really been held accountable for characterizing the President's actions in a completely false way. Of course, Romney has made numerous false statements in just the past few weeks. I could write 15 blogs about that topic alone, but, right now I want to focus on just one aspect of this that has been overlooked: Romney is the perfect candidate for today's media covering the election.
Why? Today's entertainment-driven news media pay less and less attention to seeking and identifying the truth than at any time in our history.
So, there is a convergence of two forces:
1) Romney does more lying, distorting, omitting, misleading than any past presidential nominee. In fact, he lies and misleads on the run because he also has changed his positions more than any candidate in history AND his has also changed his entire political persona more than any past nominees. Romney is a chameleon. His aide warned us that the Romney campaign could "Etch-a-Sketch" themes for his general election campaign and that's exactly what has happened. It was even more jarring to see Romney do that "Etch-a-Sketch" all in one night - during the first debate. Romney transformed himself, like a butterfly, from a right-winger into a "reasonable centrist" before our very eyes.
2) The news media, going back to the 1970s, has become worse and worse about reporting on the substance of presidential campaigns. Covering "the horserace" on a 24-hour basis became the dominant goal and this left less time for truth-telling. I recall my frustration in 1980 when President Reagan's little quip about "not holding the youth of his opponent (Walter Mondale) against him" immediately prompted political reporters to declare that election over because Reagan has somehow overcome the damage of the first debate when he performed very poorly against Mondale, who did very well. Every four years, we've seen evidence that the media cares more about entertainment and sound bites more than telling us who's telling truth. Look at Sarah Palin four years ago. She demonstrated she was poorly equipped to even be a vice-presidential candidate, but, the press didn't hold her accountable for reckless anti-Obama remarks she made in the general election campaign. I could give 100 example of how superficial the coverage has become, but I don't think people will argue. Maybe that's part of the problem: The public doesn't even seem to care anymore.
You can bet that the Romney campaign has noticed the press and public doesn't seem to care if Romney switches his positions in the same week or tells incredible lies.
If Romney wins, and he implements huge tax cuts - including for the wealthiest Americans - that he can't pay for - just as President Obama tried to point out repeatedly in the first debate - I think I will partly blame the media for that. I recall that the media, after that first debate was so busy talking about "Romney's Big Win" that they forgot to identify the big lies about his tax cut that he relied on to get that "Win" It wasn't a "Win" in my book.
Romney has shown he has no core. It's not clear what he believes in because he's lied and reversed himself so many times. And everyone, including the media, seems to accept this.
That's how bad things have gotten.
Romney has been telling enormous lies - "whoppers" - right in nationally televised debates, and, the media have, largely failed to identify them and put them in the context they deserve. I'll cite a most recent example: In the last presidential debate on foreign policy, Romney criticized President Obama
for going on "an apology tour" to different countries early in his presidency. It was a line Romney used frequently during the Republican primaries. It was a lie. Obama never went on a trip "apologizing" to countries. (He made a speech or two when he acknowledged the United States, in the past, had made some mistakes). So, the day after this Oct. 22nd debate, did the media play up Romney's repeating a lie he had used all year? No. It got mentioned briefly on a few TV talk shows, but the point is Romney has never really been held accountable for characterizing the President's actions in a completely false way. Of course, Romney has made numerous false statements in just the past few weeks. I could write 15 blogs about that topic alone, but, right now I want to focus on just one aspect of this that has been overlooked: Romney is the perfect candidate for today's media covering the election.
Why? Today's entertainment-driven news media pay less and less attention to seeking and identifying the truth than at any time in our history.
So, there is a convergence of two forces:
1) Romney does more lying, distorting, omitting, misleading than any past presidential nominee. In fact, he lies and misleads on the run because he also has changed his positions more than any candidate in history AND his has also changed his entire political persona more than any past nominees. Romney is a chameleon. His aide warned us that the Romney campaign could "Etch-a-Sketch" themes for his general election campaign and that's exactly what has happened. It was even more jarring to see Romney do that "Etch-a-Sketch" all in one night - during the first debate. Romney transformed himself, like a butterfly, from a right-winger into a "reasonable centrist" before our very eyes.
2) The news media, going back to the 1970s, has become worse and worse about reporting on the substance of presidential campaigns. Covering "the horserace" on a 24-hour basis became the dominant goal and this left less time for truth-telling. I recall my frustration in 1980 when President Reagan's little quip about "not holding the youth of his opponent (Walter Mondale) against him" immediately prompted political reporters to declare that election over because Reagan has somehow overcome the damage of the first debate when he performed very poorly against Mondale, who did very well. Every four years, we've seen evidence that the media cares more about entertainment and sound bites more than telling us who's telling truth. Look at Sarah Palin four years ago. She demonstrated she was poorly equipped to even be a vice-presidential candidate, but, the press didn't hold her accountable for reckless anti-Obama remarks she made in the general election campaign. I could give 100 example of how superficial the coverage has become, but I don't think people will argue. Maybe that's part of the problem: The public doesn't even seem to care anymore.
You can bet that the Romney campaign has noticed the press and public doesn't seem to care if Romney switches his positions in the same week or tells incredible lies.
If Romney wins, and he implements huge tax cuts - including for the wealthiest Americans - that he can't pay for - just as President Obama tried to point out repeatedly in the first debate - I think I will partly blame the media for that. I recall that the media, after that first debate was so busy talking about "Romney's Big Win" that they forgot to identify the big lies about his tax cut that he relied on to get that "Win" It wasn't a "Win" in my book.
Romney has shown he has no core. It's not clear what he believes in because he's lied and reversed himself so many times. And everyone, including the media, seems to accept this.
That's how bad things have gotten.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Obama Should Give Strong Comment on Libya Topic in 3rd Debate
Barack Obama should be able to respond to any questions or criticisms from Mitt Romney about the attack on the US Consulate in Libya. I refer in particular to the speculation that Romney will try to go after Obama on this topic aggressively at Monday night's presidential debate on foreign policy.
I've been puzzled and disappointed that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have gotten away with all of their criticisms of Obama over the tragedy in Libya so far. Yes, I understand why Romney would want to raise questions about the Administration's "evolving" account of what happened at the embassy.
What's harder to understand is why Obama and his administration has not responded more directly to these partisan attacks.
We will all learn, over time, considerably more about what led to the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi that left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. My guess is there are some good reasons and an array of factors that will help explain the different descriptions of the attack that have come from various Obama administration officials. It appears likely the Administration could have handled aspects of communications better.
However, even with the sensitive circumstances surrounding this, I will find it inexcusable if President Obama does not handle this Libya subject without any problem on Monday night. In fact, I hope and expect him to make comments that are more clear and direct and show a bit more leadership on this than he has shown until now. Why? Obama should have nothing to hide and nothing to stop him from being more direct and candid. Even if he cannot disclose some large details and has to keep some of his comments more general, he can still sound more decisive and responsive.
The only thing that would prevent Obama from providing a good response would be if he and his administration had been engaged in a clear "cover-up" of what happened at the embassy. I do not believe there was such a coverup. (If there were, then Romney's criticisms would all seem "justified" later) Right now, Romney has no evidence of a "coverup." Instead, he's pieced things together in order to make charges and maximize his political benefits. Romney, from the moment, he put out a press release in the earliest hours after the attack on the US Consulate until now, has behaved irresponsibly on this
topic. He's come off as a guy who will do anything to benefit his candidacy - even in a matter involving national security. I think many Americans share my view that Romney has shown very poor judgement on this and appeared to put his own interests ahead of everything else.
Yet, as we approach Monday night's debate, I've heard many speculate that Romney will really try to hammer away at Obama's poor handling of the Libya matter. Obama is the President. He knows a hell of a lot more than Romney about what's going on regarding the US embassy in Libya. He knows far more about foreign policy, in general, than Romney. Why should Obama not be the one to hit the topic of Libya out of the park?
If, by some chance, Romney "does significant damage" to Obama on this topic of Libya, I will not only be surprised and disappointed, but I will have new questions myself about the President's outlook and approach on this subject.
Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign for re-election, and, he may lose in November, but, as a sitting president, he should perform better than Romney at a foreign policy debate - including on the topic of Libya. Period.
I've been puzzled and disappointed that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have gotten away with all of their criticisms of Obama over the tragedy in Libya so far. Yes, I understand why Romney would want to raise questions about the Administration's "evolving" account of what happened at the embassy.
What's harder to understand is why Obama and his administration has not responded more directly to these partisan attacks.
We will all learn, over time, considerably more about what led to the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi that left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. My guess is there are some good reasons and an array of factors that will help explain the different descriptions of the attack that have come from various Obama administration officials. It appears likely the Administration could have handled aspects of communications better.
However, even with the sensitive circumstances surrounding this, I will find it inexcusable if President Obama does not handle this Libya subject without any problem on Monday night. In fact, I hope and expect him to make comments that are more clear and direct and show a bit more leadership on this than he has shown until now. Why? Obama should have nothing to hide and nothing to stop him from being more direct and candid. Even if he cannot disclose some large details and has to keep some of his comments more general, he can still sound more decisive and responsive.
The only thing that would prevent Obama from providing a good response would be if he and his administration had been engaged in a clear "cover-up" of what happened at the embassy. I do not believe there was such a coverup. (If there were, then Romney's criticisms would all seem "justified" later) Right now, Romney has no evidence of a "coverup." Instead, he's pieced things together in order to make charges and maximize his political benefits. Romney, from the moment, he put out a press release in the earliest hours after the attack on the US Consulate until now, has behaved irresponsibly on this
topic. He's come off as a guy who will do anything to benefit his candidacy - even in a matter involving national security. I think many Americans share my view that Romney has shown very poor judgement on this and appeared to put his own interests ahead of everything else.
Yet, as we approach Monday night's debate, I've heard many speculate that Romney will really try to hammer away at Obama's poor handling of the Libya matter. Obama is the President. He knows a hell of a lot more than Romney about what's going on regarding the US embassy in Libya. He knows far more about foreign policy, in general, than Romney. Why should Obama not be the one to hit the topic of Libya out of the park?
If, by some chance, Romney "does significant damage" to Obama on this topic of Libya, I will not only be surprised and disappointed, but I will have new questions myself about the President's outlook and approach on this subject.
Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign for re-election, and, he may lose in November, but, as a sitting president, he should perform better than Romney at a foreign policy debate - including on the topic of Libya. Period.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Five Random Observations After the Oct. 16th Presidential Debate
1. Some of the television coverage "building up" the second presidential debate got really crazy. News anchors and correspondents were all but saying this event WILL determine the outcome of the election. While I could accept it was important for President Obama to rebound, I reject the notion that a 90-minute "performance" on television should ever be labled as that dominant a factor. What does that say about our system? It's one of a thousand reminders that our process is all about the media's influence. It's the media that places the incredibly distorted, enormous weight on debates and the media that then subjectively "scores" the debates. It's then the media that then "creates" "momentum" for one candidate and negativity for the other. For example: This year, the media went way, way overboard in its emphasis on Romney's supposedly "huge win" over Obama in the first debate. (I argued that Romney lost because he relied on enormous lies) What if the media had chosen to be more "balanced" in that post-debate coverage? Well, Romney might not have been able to burst even with Obama. The media fueled a sizeable chunk of Romney's "momentum." The media has become far too powerful in this whole game -- period. Case closed.
2. It's 48 hours after the event and I am still disgusted that Mitt Romney treated the President with open disrespect in several moments during that debate. I've never seen an incumbent President treated that way in my life. Gee, I wonder why that happened. (sarcasm) Romney thought he could get away with that and it reflects on his character, in my opinion. First, Romney can act like a rude little baby at debates; he displayed that in Republican primary debates, when he became all uptight when any opponent really challenged him to his face. He fussed about the moderators and the rules. (He acts like he's back in a prep school competition..) Second, he's been disrespectful in his rhetorical attacks and barbs aimed at Obama consistently on the campaign trail; so, this was an extension of that. Third, and the big, ugly reason in my opinion: Romney treats Obama condescendingly because Obama is black, and even if Romney himself is not racist, he acts like other white people who inexplicably still feel they don't have to apply the same standard of decency, respect and reciprocity to minorities.
How else can one explain Romney getting in Obama's face when: a) he asked him rudely & sharply what permits existed for drilling oil, or, b) when he told Obama, in an abrupt, curt manner, to stop asking a question and wait his turn, and, c) at the end, when Romney tried so hard for his "gotcha" moment by asking the President if he had just said he called the attack on the Libyan embassy "an act of terror." Romney seemed to forget who he was talking to. He acted like he was in a debate competition with "just another opponent" and all that mattered was his getting a win - by any means.
3. Romney's spontaneous reference to "binders with women" (referring to his recruitment efforts when he was the newly-elected governor of MA.) was very typical of an uncountable number of instances in this campaign when he's revealed he acts like a character out of a 1950s TV series. Yes, to Romney, he still thinks it was a big deal that he and his team "found" so many qualified women to serve in his administration. Romney, one senses, seems to be "stuck" in a time tunnel. He seems to fit in with the Cleaver family or perhaps on "Father Knows Best" - although these shows might have been too far ahead for old-school, old-fashioned, old-values Mitt.
4. I think, at the very end of the debate, when Romney thought he had "caught" President Obama in a contradiction, his very serious expression and his ultra-competitiveness were on display. I've sensed for a long time that Romney would do almost anything to win this election. Romney seemed oblivious to the fact that the President has just scolded him on national television for taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points.....Romney didn't care about that at all. He was too busy trying to go for the jugular. Question: Would Romney "go for the jugular" for all the people in this country OR or just his elite constituents who are not in the infamous "47 percent" of the public who, Romney said, are dependent on governent and makes not effort to be responsible for themselves?
5. Romney demonstrated, again, that he's willing to lie openly, to deny, to distort just about anything in an attempt to "look good" to voters and win. When Obama pointed out the factual differences between him and Romney on women's health issues, Romney felt compelled to issue a quick denial, arguing, falsely that he didn't want to take decisionmaking away from women. The facts all indicate Romney and Ryan support doing just that. And, again, when Obama explained, this time, even more persuasively, that Romney's tax cut plan doesn't add up, Romney offered an empty reply about how one might pick any one of several tax deductions to eliminate as a way to pay for his cuts. His answer was so openly a BS job to "sound good" and confuse voters.
The problem is that the media, after this event, doesn't seize enough on Romney's deceptions. Hopefully, the media will try to steer its audience toward the truth more in the last few weeks. If not, Romney might suceeed in lying and distorting his way to the presidency.
2. It's 48 hours after the event and I am still disgusted that Mitt Romney treated the President with open disrespect in several moments during that debate. I've never seen an incumbent President treated that way in my life. Gee, I wonder why that happened. (sarcasm) Romney thought he could get away with that and it reflects on his character, in my opinion. First, Romney can act like a rude little baby at debates; he displayed that in Republican primary debates, when he became all uptight when any opponent really challenged him to his face. He fussed about the moderators and the rules. (He acts like he's back in a prep school competition..) Second, he's been disrespectful in his rhetorical attacks and barbs aimed at Obama consistently on the campaign trail; so, this was an extension of that. Third, and the big, ugly reason in my opinion: Romney treats Obama condescendingly because Obama is black, and even if Romney himself is not racist, he acts like other white people who inexplicably still feel they don't have to apply the same standard of decency, respect and reciprocity to minorities.
How else can one explain Romney getting in Obama's face when: a) he asked him rudely & sharply what permits existed for drilling oil, or, b) when he told Obama, in an abrupt, curt manner, to stop asking a question and wait his turn, and, c) at the end, when Romney tried so hard for his "gotcha" moment by asking the President if he had just said he called the attack on the Libyan embassy "an act of terror." Romney seemed to forget who he was talking to. He acted like he was in a debate competition with "just another opponent" and all that mattered was his getting a win - by any means.
3. Romney's spontaneous reference to "binders with women" (referring to his recruitment efforts when he was the newly-elected governor of MA.) was very typical of an uncountable number of instances in this campaign when he's revealed he acts like a character out of a 1950s TV series. Yes, to Romney, he still thinks it was a big deal that he and his team "found" so many qualified women to serve in his administration. Romney, one senses, seems to be "stuck" in a time tunnel. He seems to fit in with the Cleaver family or perhaps on "Father Knows Best" - although these shows might have been too far ahead for old-school, old-fashioned, old-values Mitt.
4. I think, at the very end of the debate, when Romney thought he had "caught" President Obama in a contradiction, his very serious expression and his ultra-competitiveness were on display. I've sensed for a long time that Romney would do almost anything to win this election. Romney seemed oblivious to the fact that the President has just scolded him on national television for taking advantage of a tragedy to make political points.....Romney didn't care about that at all. He was too busy trying to go for the jugular. Question: Would Romney "go for the jugular" for all the people in this country OR or just his elite constituents who are not in the infamous "47 percent" of the public who, Romney said, are dependent on governent and makes not effort to be responsible for themselves?
5. Romney demonstrated, again, that he's willing to lie openly, to deny, to distort just about anything in an attempt to "look good" to voters and win. When Obama pointed out the factual differences between him and Romney on women's health issues, Romney felt compelled to issue a quick denial, arguing, falsely that he didn't want to take decisionmaking away from women. The facts all indicate Romney and Ryan support doing just that. And, again, when Obama explained, this time, even more persuasively, that Romney's tax cut plan doesn't add up, Romney offered an empty reply about how one might pick any one of several tax deductions to eliminate as a way to pay for his cuts. His answer was so openly a BS job to "sound good" and confuse voters.
The problem is that the media, after this event, doesn't seize enough on Romney's deceptions. Hopefully, the media will try to steer its audience toward the truth more in the last few weeks. If not, Romney might suceeed in lying and distorting his way to the presidency.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Five Quick Suggestions for Obama
President Obama, suddenly, had better get performing better in debates and on the campaign trail, or, he just might lose this thing. After the past two debates, I've developed five quick ideas for Obama:
1. Find a way in Tuesday's debate to ask Romney to discuss his view of those people who depend on government and those who don't. Romney will be defensive if asked to get into details of his "47 percent" remarks at the Florida fundraiser, but you can word a question in such a way to force Romney to essentially address the topic. You can lure him into it because Romney described his outlook in blunt, simple terms. Romney even stuck to his remarks when they were discovered. He said up to 47 percent of people are dependent on goverment, that they believe they'e victims, etc, etc.
Romney believes what he said, and, Obama should try repeatedly to hold him accountable for those remarks. If Romney keeps admitting to less and less of what he said, Obama could say: "But, Governor, you have, on other occasions, discussed poor people as if they're a separate class of people -- You said, in one debate, I think, that "they're covered by the safety net".....You said, in our last debate that I advocate "trickle-down government" -- so, I think you owe it to voters to explain your outlook toward people who receive government benefits. (Do you see them in as a group separate from the rest of us - or from you and your potential administration? You could say, "Governor, you've accused me of encouraging "class warfare" with my proposals to tax the wealthy, but, your remarks (on the 47 percent) are much more of a damaging, negative assault on a economic class of Americans, aren't they?
2. You absolutely MUST discuss your several most important ideas for improving the economy and do so in a concise, understandable way. Further, you should describe your policies and iniativies in a short bullet-type form --quickly and in simple terms -- plus, with energy and excitement and optimism
It has been a long time since you brought much to the table in terms of "what you're going to do" in an upbeat way. I've heard you discuss repeatedly your economic proposals that the Republicans prevented you from getting through Congress - like defeat of the proposed cutting of the payroll tax.
Joe Klein of Time wrote an excellent article on Obama's need to discuss his proposals.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126665,00.html
3. You should try to prod Romney into a full acknowledgement of what his running mate, Paul Ryan, said in the VP debate about the abortion issue (and, to acknowledge what he's said too). Ryan said that not only do he and Romney want to appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose Roe vs. Wade, but they intend to press for a new law outlawing abortion. Ryan indicated they'd suppport efforts to change the law - meaning an unprecedented effort in the US Congress to ban abortion forever by law.
You should press Romney on his opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood and other related women's health issues.
4. Governor, stop telling Americans the lie that I've gone around "apologizing for America." It's simply not true. You and know you have no evidence that it is true. So, stop misleading people and if you want to challenge me, challenge me with facts."
5. Govenor, stop misleading people about what my administration accomplished with the economic stimulus package when I arrived in office and by bailing out the auto industry and taking other actions. You make it appear like I had a big choice and that the stimulus amounted to a waste of money more than anything. But, economists of all persuasions recommended that the government pass that stimulus and you've been good at whining from the sidelines - but I don't think you could have done anything any better if you had been President.
1. Find a way in Tuesday's debate to ask Romney to discuss his view of those people who depend on government and those who don't. Romney will be defensive if asked to get into details of his "47 percent" remarks at the Florida fundraiser, but you can word a question in such a way to force Romney to essentially address the topic. You can lure him into it because Romney described his outlook in blunt, simple terms. Romney even stuck to his remarks when they were discovered. He said up to 47 percent of people are dependent on goverment, that they believe they'e victims, etc, etc.
Romney believes what he said, and, Obama should try repeatedly to hold him accountable for those remarks. If Romney keeps admitting to less and less of what he said, Obama could say: "But, Governor, you have, on other occasions, discussed poor people as if they're a separate class of people -- You said, in one debate, I think, that "they're covered by the safety net".....You said, in our last debate that I advocate "trickle-down government" -- so, I think you owe it to voters to explain your outlook toward people who receive government benefits. (Do you see them in as a group separate from the rest of us - or from you and your potential administration? You could say, "Governor, you've accused me of encouraging "class warfare" with my proposals to tax the wealthy, but, your remarks (on the 47 percent) are much more of a damaging, negative assault on a economic class of Americans, aren't they?
2. You absolutely MUST discuss your several most important ideas for improving the economy and do so in a concise, understandable way. Further, you should describe your policies and iniativies in a short bullet-type form --quickly and in simple terms -- plus, with energy and excitement and optimism
It has been a long time since you brought much to the table in terms of "what you're going to do" in an upbeat way. I've heard you discuss repeatedly your economic proposals that the Republicans prevented you from getting through Congress - like defeat of the proposed cutting of the payroll tax.
Joe Klein of Time wrote an excellent article on Obama's need to discuss his proposals.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126665,00.html
3. You should try to prod Romney into a full acknowledgement of what his running mate, Paul Ryan, said in the VP debate about the abortion issue (and, to acknowledge what he's said too). Ryan said that not only do he and Romney want to appoint Supreme Court justices who oppose Roe vs. Wade, but they intend to press for a new law outlawing abortion. Ryan indicated they'd suppport efforts to change the law - meaning an unprecedented effort in the US Congress to ban abortion forever by law.
You should press Romney on his opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood and other related women's health issues.
4. Governor, stop telling Americans the lie that I've gone around "apologizing for America." It's simply not true. You and know you have no evidence that it is true. So, stop misleading people and if you want to challenge me, challenge me with facts."
5. Govenor, stop misleading people about what my administration accomplished with the economic stimulus package when I arrived in office and by bailing out the auto industry and taking other actions. You make it appear like I had a big choice and that the stimulus amounted to a waste of money more than anything. But, economists of all persuasions recommended that the government pass that stimulus and you've been good at whining from the sidelines - but I don't think you could have done anything any better if you had been President.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Media Should Be Prodding Romney On His "47 %" Remarks
Many people, by now, have heard about Mitt Romney's disturbingly revealing remarks he made about the "47 percent" of the country who depended on the federal government.
Romney made the remarks at a private fundraising event in May in Boca Raton, Florida that someone videotaped surreptitiously - before it became public.
That Romney made the later-publicized remarks, quickly labled one of the most unusual, enormous campaign mistakes in history, drew initial heat and and controversy. Then, the Obama campaign used the remarks in paid television commercials.
But, in recent weeks, the story of the "47 percent" incident has been largely absent from campaign coverage. Obama certainly could have mentioned it more in the first debate!
But, where has the media been on this? Given the extent to which Romney's remarks revealed his actual outook on the "haves" and "have-nots" in our society, at least in terms of taxation, the political media should have persistently asked Romney about this. Instead, Romney was pressed on it only the night that it became public and then, in an interview with his friendly media organization, FOX News.
His remarks, in my view, are repugnant enough and harmful enough to be considered - at face value - "disqualifying" to Romney.
Let's revisit the "meat" of Romney's remarks, which came in reply to someone in attendance:
"...Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said, according to Maureen Dowd's Sept. 19th, NY Times column. "All right?There are 47 percent who are with him. Who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it....These are people who pay no imcome tax. So my job is not to worry about those people," "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...."
To me, any presidential candidate who utters these words, deserves, at a minimum, to be questioned vigorously and thoroughly to determine if he or she should be taken seriously as a candidate from that point on. My view is that Romney's remarks were, in fact, virtually "disqualifying" on their own. Then, when Romney was first asked about it and he didn't deny the substance and said only they were "inelegant," that response did further damage to Romney because he had really "owned" the substance.
Romney did not disavow the remarks for quite a few days, then, he began a different pitch about how he cares about "100 percent" of the American people and he has made little attempts to un-do the damage.
Again, where is the media? If reporters had a chance to press Romney about his feelings of those dependent on goverment - and he was prodded, maybe he'd be led to tell more of the truth - about his viewpoint. Of course, if he commented candidly, he might further damage his chances to be President of the United States!
I've observed how the media covers presidential campaigns for my entire adult life and I've identified hundreds of instances when the media fails to ask questions, fails to follow up, fails to investigate, fails to ask how or why, but this particular media failure to press Romney for an explanation of his "47 percent" remarks has been one of the worst. The task is easy. The material has been gathered. All news organizations have to do is decide it's a priority to keep asking Romney about it and instruct their reporters to do so.
So far, this has NOT happened and Romney has controlled his handling of the matter - like it's all up to him. He's been questioned directly on it only a few times by my count.
This is not a healthy democracy if the media can't get the voters prod and pry for better answers than that -- especially when Romney's initial comment was to not take the remarks back. If he meant them, he owes of all us a much better explanation how he can own them and believe, at the same time, that he possesses an outlook that qualifies him to be President.
Romney made the remarks at a private fundraising event in May in Boca Raton, Florida that someone videotaped surreptitiously - before it became public.
That Romney made the later-publicized remarks, quickly labled one of the most unusual, enormous campaign mistakes in history, drew initial heat and and controversy. Then, the Obama campaign used the remarks in paid television commercials.
But, in recent weeks, the story of the "47 percent" incident has been largely absent from campaign coverage. Obama certainly could have mentioned it more in the first debate!
But, where has the media been on this? Given the extent to which Romney's remarks revealed his actual outook on the "haves" and "have-nots" in our society, at least in terms of taxation, the political media should have persistently asked Romney about this. Instead, Romney was pressed on it only the night that it became public and then, in an interview with his friendly media organization, FOX News.
His remarks, in my view, are repugnant enough and harmful enough to be considered - at face value - "disqualifying" to Romney.
Let's revisit the "meat" of Romney's remarks, which came in reply to someone in attendance:
"...Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," he said, according to Maureen Dowd's Sept. 19th, NY Times column. "All right?There are 47 percent who are with him. Who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it....These are people who pay no imcome tax. So my job is not to worry about those people," "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...."
To me, any presidential candidate who utters these words, deserves, at a minimum, to be questioned vigorously and thoroughly to determine if he or she should be taken seriously as a candidate from that point on. My view is that Romney's remarks were, in fact, virtually "disqualifying" on their own. Then, when Romney was first asked about it and he didn't deny the substance and said only they were "inelegant," that response did further damage to Romney because he had really "owned" the substance.
Romney did not disavow the remarks for quite a few days, then, he began a different pitch about how he cares about "100 percent" of the American people and he has made little attempts to un-do the damage.
Again, where is the media? If reporters had a chance to press Romney about his feelings of those dependent on goverment - and he was prodded, maybe he'd be led to tell more of the truth - about his viewpoint. Of course, if he commented candidly, he might further damage his chances to be President of the United States!
I've observed how the media covers presidential campaigns for my entire adult life and I've identified hundreds of instances when the media fails to ask questions, fails to follow up, fails to investigate, fails to ask how or why, but this particular media failure to press Romney for an explanation of his "47 percent" remarks has been one of the worst. The task is easy. The material has been gathered. All news organizations have to do is decide it's a priority to keep asking Romney about it and instruct their reporters to do so.
So far, this has NOT happened and Romney has controlled his handling of the matter - like it's all up to him. He's been questioned directly on it only a few times by my count.
This is not a healthy democracy if the media can't get the voters prod and pry for better answers than that -- especially when Romney's initial comment was to not take the remarks back. If he meant them, he owes of all us a much better explanation how he can own them and believe, at the same time, that he possesses an outlook that qualifies him to be President.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Guess what? Romney Lost the First Debate
I don't think Mitt Romney "won" the first presidential debate.
Sorry, I guess that means I'm "nuts" or something, huh? Everyone in the news media and on
talk shows has walked in lockstep, emphasizing how Romney so decisively defeated President Obama. The discussion of the resulting media-driven "momentum" is changing the entire contest.
But, did Romney actually deserve all the praise? Think about it.
Romney, in the debate, told several enormous lies about important positions he's held for nearly two years on important topics to the country. Early on, he stunned Obama and the audience by suddenly denying that he even had a position in support of 20 percent cuts in income tax rates for the wealthy - which the President, like many others, had projected would cause a loss of about $5 trillion in revenue.
Obama repeatedly referred to Romney's position on tax cuts and Romney repeatedly denied having that position.
After the debate, I did my own verification by finding several instances (of MANY) when Romney, in fact, had publicly stated his support of the 20 percent tax cuts in during his long campaign.
In all the presidential debates I'd ever watched, I had never seen a party nominee flatly deny their own position with only a few weeks left before the Election. It was outrageous.
Then, when asked about his position on health care, Romney had the gall to say: "No. 1," "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan..." The facts, however, contradicted Romney's statement and his own campaign immediately tried to correct that statement after the debate. Romney's statement had made it appear that far more people were covered under his plan than would be. In fact, Romney's plan
requires that more qualifying conditions are met.
Further, Romney transformed his entire political outlook and political persona in the first debate for the first time in his long campaign. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." It was the first time he seemed like he was acting like he did when he was governor of Massachusetts. He talked like a pragmatic, approachable politician who was eager to work with Democrats to get things done. Compared to his constant attempts earlier this year to appear just as right-wing as the extreme right-wing candidates he competed with in the primaries, Romney's recent debate emergence was as a "Super Chameleon" unlike any chameleon in the political universe.
To me, it makes no sense to separate the content of a debate from the theatrics, but, that's what the mainstream media now does in American politics. The post-debate coverage stressed Romney being "more agggressive" and "Obama kept looking down at his notes" and, "Obama looked like he didn't want to be there." Now, I freely admit that Romney "outperformed" Obama in several indicators pertaining to his demeanor, energy, outlook and "hunger" to promote himself. Obama was far too passive all night.
But, shouldn't the mainstream media care more about who tells the truth more, who backs up their arguments and who is more authentic? On those (my) "criteria," Romney failed in dramatic fashion.
In fact, I think he emerged as one of the most fraudulent presidential candidates I've ever seen.
Romney didn't just lie on long-held positions on important issues, but he put on a misleading act about his entire political outlook and persona. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed and promised for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist."
I'd argue that we've gotten to the very depressing point in media coverage of presidential campaigns that most people now accept that the substance simply won't be covered. Yeah. That's right. So, if someone (like Romney) looks good and "aggressive" as he's telling huge lies and misleading millions of Americans, the media feels no qualms about telling us "Romney won big" and "Obama had a very bad night"
What does all this mean? It means that because coverage of American politics is so extensively entertainment-driven now, that the "performance" of the candidates at the theatrics of the debate are often more important than the content of what the candidates say.
That's pretty scary, don't you think?
Sorry, I guess that means I'm "nuts" or something, huh? Everyone in the news media and on
talk shows has walked in lockstep, emphasizing how Romney so decisively defeated President Obama. The discussion of the resulting media-driven "momentum" is changing the entire contest.
But, did Romney actually deserve all the praise? Think about it.
Romney, in the debate, told several enormous lies about important positions he's held for nearly two years on important topics to the country. Early on, he stunned Obama and the audience by suddenly denying that he even had a position in support of 20 percent cuts in income tax rates for the wealthy - which the President, like many others, had projected would cause a loss of about $5 trillion in revenue.
Obama repeatedly referred to Romney's position on tax cuts and Romney repeatedly denied having that position.
After the debate, I did my own verification by finding several instances (of MANY) when Romney, in fact, had publicly stated his support of the 20 percent tax cuts in during his long campaign.
In all the presidential debates I'd ever watched, I had never seen a party nominee flatly deny their own position with only a few weeks left before the Election. It was outrageous.
Then, when asked about his position on health care, Romney had the gall to say: "No. 1," "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan..." The facts, however, contradicted Romney's statement and his own campaign immediately tried to correct that statement after the debate. Romney's statement had made it appear that far more people were covered under his plan than would be. In fact, Romney's plan
requires that more qualifying conditions are met.
Further, Romney transformed his entire political outlook and political persona in the first debate for the first time in his long campaign. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." It was the first time he seemed like he was acting like he did when he was governor of Massachusetts. He talked like a pragmatic, approachable politician who was eager to work with Democrats to get things done. Compared to his constant attempts earlier this year to appear just as right-wing as the extreme right-wing candidates he competed with in the primaries, Romney's recent debate emergence was as a "Super Chameleon" unlike any chameleon in the political universe.
To me, it makes no sense to separate the content of a debate from the theatrics, but, that's what the mainstream media now does in American politics. The post-debate coverage stressed Romney being "more agggressive" and "Obama kept looking down at his notes" and, "Obama looked like he didn't want to be there." Now, I freely admit that Romney "outperformed" Obama in several indicators pertaining to his demeanor, energy, outlook and "hunger" to promote himself. Obama was far too passive all night.
But, shouldn't the mainstream media care more about who tells the truth more, who backs up their arguments and who is more authentic? On those (my) "criteria," Romney failed in dramatic fashion.
In fact, I think he emerged as one of the most fraudulent presidential candidates I've ever seen.
Romney didn't just lie on long-held positions on important issues, but he put on a misleading act about his entire political outlook and persona. Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed and promised for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist."
I'd argue that we've gotten to the very depressing point in media coverage of presidential campaigns that most people now accept that the substance simply won't be covered. Yeah. That's right. So, if someone (like Romney) looks good and "aggressive" as he's telling huge lies and misleading millions of Americans, the media feels no qualms about telling us "Romney won big" and "Obama had a very bad night"
What does all this mean? It means that because coverage of American politics is so extensively entertainment-driven now, that the "performance" of the candidates at the theatrics of the debate are often more important than the content of what the candidates say.
That's pretty scary, don't you think?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Barack Obama Has Missed Ted Kennedy
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Belichick's Incredible Coaching Feat
Something truly extraordinary has been unfolding with the New England Patriots this season.
It is so extraordinary that even the millions of football fans who despise the Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, should take notice. Why? Belichick has taken a very young, inexperienced team that was very flawed and mediocre at the start of the 2010-11 season and coached it into one of the best teams in the NFL - all within a few months.
I know it sounds like I'm embellishing, but, it's true. I've watched all the games. At the start of the year, I told my brother the team was simply not good enough to make it this season. It looks like this will be a "rebuilding" year, I said. "If this team makes the playoffs, it will be one of Belichick's best coaching jobs ever.." I said.
Then, I witnessed the miracle with my own eyes: The team got better and better, and, now, it has not only made the playoffs, but, just clinched the AFC East with a 13-2 record, the best in all of football. I know some of you are thinking: "What's the big deal? The Patriots are always good. They have Tom Brady....And, it's true that Brady has been off-the-charts this season, but, trust me: The more astonishing part is that this team has improved so much - so fast - that it's now contending for a Super Bowl.
Though it's hard to believe, one key explanation appears, convincingly, to be that Belichick and his assistant coaches have taught many of these young players how to play better and better as the season has progressed. The Patriots, with Belichick, have always placed emphasis on instructing each player to "do his own job well" within "the system." If they do that, the players have learned, Belichick will give them a terrific game plan uniquely aimed at the weaknesses of each opposing team each week - and, good execution will often lead to a win.
What's been amazing is that Belichick has pulled this off with so many kids on his team this year!
The Patriots' roster had already been injected with a lot of rookies before last season, and, that 2009-2010 edition ended with the Baltimore Ravens coming to town and kicking the shit out of the Patriots by a score of 33-14. The team made no big moves in the off-season, and added even more young players, but, many football observers still guessed the team might win up to 10 games. Watching the Pats in the first few weeks, it was easy to imagine them winning less than 10 games and failing to make the playoffs.
The improbable aspect of this turnaround has been Belichick's ability to mold and tweak this Patriots team to success despite the glaring weaknesses of its defense. Again, he's found ways to make "the system" work despite the lack of many "star" players. At the start of the year, the defense, particularly, its pass defense, was HORRIBLE. No matter which team they played and who was at quarterback, their opponents could throw pass after pass and just drive down the field. Patriots cornerbacks were either badly beaten, or, in position, but flailing helplessly as the football went into receivers' hands. The Patriots were OK against he run, but flawed in that department too. They had no pass rush, as expected.
The Patriots, reportedly, have the youngest defense in the NFL and one of the youngest (or the youngest) overall teams in the league. Yet, slowly but surely, the defense has played better, and, even, found a large strength of its own by creating a lot of turnovers, particularly a steady number of interceptions. The defense is still not great. The secondary is still very weak at times. All season, the Patriots' pass defense has been one of the worst, or The Worst, of all 32 teams in the NFL. The Patriots have ranked consistently behind most teams at stopping opposing teams on 3rd down. Even now, going into the season's final game on Jan. 2nd, the Patriots' defense is ranked 27th of the 32 teams in overall defense by ESPN.
It is so extraordinary that even the millions of football fans who despise the Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, should take notice. Why? Belichick has taken a very young, inexperienced team that was very flawed and mediocre at the start of the 2010-11 season and coached it into one of the best teams in the NFL - all within a few months.
I know it sounds like I'm embellishing, but, it's true. I've watched all the games. At the start of the year, I told my brother the team was simply not good enough to make it this season. It looks like this will be a "rebuilding" year, I said. "If this team makes the playoffs, it will be one of Belichick's best coaching jobs ever.." I said.
Then, I witnessed the miracle with my own eyes: The team got better and better, and, now, it has not only made the playoffs, but, just clinched the AFC East with a 13-2 record, the best in all of football. I know some of you are thinking: "What's the big deal? The Patriots are always good. They have Tom Brady....And, it's true that Brady has been off-the-charts this season, but, trust me: The more astonishing part is that this team has improved so much - so fast - that it's now contending for a Super Bowl.
Though it's hard to believe, one key explanation appears, convincingly, to be that Belichick and his assistant coaches have taught many of these young players how to play better and better as the season has progressed. The Patriots, with Belichick, have always placed emphasis on instructing each player to "do his own job well" within "the system." If they do that, the players have learned, Belichick will give them a terrific game plan uniquely aimed at the weaknesses of each opposing team each week - and, good execution will often lead to a win.
What's been amazing is that Belichick has pulled this off with so many kids on his team this year!
The Patriots' roster had already been injected with a lot of rookies before last season, and, that 2009-2010 edition ended with the Baltimore Ravens coming to town and kicking the shit out of the Patriots by a score of 33-14. The team made no big moves in the off-season, and added even more young players, but, many football observers still guessed the team might win up to 10 games. Watching the Pats in the first few weeks, it was easy to imagine them winning less than 10 games and failing to make the playoffs.
The improbable aspect of this turnaround has been Belichick's ability to mold and tweak this Patriots team to success despite the glaring weaknesses of its defense. Again, he's found ways to make "the system" work despite the lack of many "star" players. At the start of the year, the defense, particularly, its pass defense, was HORRIBLE. No matter which team they played and who was at quarterback, their opponents could throw pass after pass and just drive down the field. Patriots cornerbacks were either badly beaten, or, in position, but flailing helplessly as the football went into receivers' hands. The Patriots were OK against he run, but flawed in that department too. They had no pass rush, as expected.
The Patriots, reportedly, have the youngest defense in the NFL and one of the youngest (or the youngest) overall teams in the league. Yet, slowly but surely, the defense has played better, and, even, found a large strength of its own by creating a lot of turnovers, particularly a steady number of interceptions. The defense is still not great. The secondary is still very weak at times. All season, the Patriots' pass defense has been one of the worst, or The Worst, of all 32 teams in the NFL. The Patriots have ranked consistently behind most teams at stopping opposing teams on 3rd down. Even now, going into the season's final game on Jan. 2nd, the Patriots' defense is ranked 27th of the 32 teams in overall defense by ESPN.
But, somehow......Belichick has found little ways to get the very most out of the talent he has. He's found a formula for his flawed defense to do just well enough to allow the Patriots offense to carry the team to victory. It is not a coincidence, for instance, that the Pats place so much emphasis on executing great offensive drives early in the game to give them a lead, thereby "setting the dynamics" for the rest of the game, and helping its young defense do its job.
The team has outperformed, or, on occasion, demolished, top-quality opponents with more "stars" or established talent on paper - like the NY Jets, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Indiannapolis Colts, Chicago Bears and the Baltimore Ravens. Usually, the Patriots play more efficiently - and, appear to play with more mental toughness and focus - than their opponents. With each passing week, the defense has played with more aggressiveness and discipline - and begun to supplement the offense more. For instance, after the first several weeks, it seemed, the pass defenders got a bit more aggressive, in general - on their tackling and getting in position to make interceptions.
The team is using the Patriots' old "bend, but don't break" approach to defense, allowing the shortest passes but tackling receivers very quickly to limit their opponents to short gains. Plus, the team is succeeding at another old Belichick goal of limiting the opposition's Big Plays. This year, after the first few weeks, the defense has gotten very good at this - even though, often, it doesn't look that good as it "allows" opposing teams to march down the field by completing short passes. But, this young Pats team - like its predecessors - gets tougher in the red zone.
Meanwhile, the Pats' offense has been prolific - the most high-scoring, consistent unit in the league. Fittingly, one of the offensive keys has been the fantastic play of the Pats' two rookie tight ends - Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, who is the youngest player in the NFL. They both play like veterans. Danny Woodhead, an unknown, practice squad player for the Jets in the preseason, joined the Pats and has been a surprising juggernaut, making one big play after another.
OK, I have to state the other, most obvious part of this story: Brady is performing as well ever at quarterback. He just broke the all-time NFL record for consecutive passes thrown without an interception. When the team traded Randy Moss and Brady began focusing on the short passing game he excells at, everything "took off" for the offense, and, the team as a whole. An overlooked factor has been the terrific play-calling of Bill O'Brien, who plays the role of offensive coordinator though he still doesn't have the title. O'Brien's play-calling suddenly got much better after Moss left too. It was as if the whole offense found its identity with the approach the Patriots had used so well in past glory years - with Brady hitting the open man rather than worrying about hitting Moss for bombs.
Other factors in the team's success have been:
1) The outstanding play of rookie cornerback Devin McCourty.
2) The incredible contributions of offensive tackle Logan Mankins, who, despite missing a bunch of games at the start of the year, was playing in peak form from Day One, and has helped add more fiery aggressiveness to the entire offensive line.
3) The entire offensive line has played well all year, giving Brady time to do his thing.
4) Middlie linebacker Jerod Mayo, who leads the NFL in tackles and always seems to catch an offensive player a split second before he breaks for much more yardage.
5) Vince Wilfork, the nose tackle, who, the team has moved around to keep offensive teams off balance, and has made many "big plays."
6) The great play of two "no-name" running backs, BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead. Both have been consistent. Both have caught short passes well. Both have surprised the hell out of other teams and the football media.
7) The play of the Pats' special teams, which always seem to leave the team with good field position, and, that has helped Brady and the offense do their thing.
8) Wes Welker, who despite being in his first year back from a serious knee injury, is still a huge contributor to the offense getting in rhythm and moving the chains.
This year's Patriots reminds me, to some extent, of the Pats team that came out of nowhere in the 2001-2002 season and upset the St.Louis Rams in the Super Bowl. That team, like this one, had many players no one had heard of. That team, like this one, was disciplined and mentally tough and played together.
If this Patriots team loses its first game in the playoffs, I will still consider this an amazing season that I will never forget. In an era of big-name, multi-million dollar stars like LeBron James and others, it's refreshing to see a team win mainly because it excells as a group.
Bill Belichick has already received accolades and won enough to go down as one of the greatest football coaches of all time. I think that's one reason his superb coaching this year has gone a bit overlooked. Everyone just assumes his Patriot teams will be good, but, only those of us who have watched the evolution of this 2010 edition know how special this team has been. And so, regardless of Belichick's past achievements, he has demonstrated his unique talents with this particular football team in this particular year.
Belichick is the indisputable Coach of the Year in the NFL.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
When Will Obama Fight For His Own Beliefs?
I've never been more disappointed in President Barack Obama.
Obama's choice to not mount any fight against eliminating former President George W. Bush's
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans was yet another "new low point" for me. The tax cuts are due to expire Dec. 31st, but, it now looks like the both the U.S. Senate and House will approve the compromise Obama ironed out with Republican leaders to keep tax cuts for all, including the richest.
Yeah, I've heard Obama's arguments about why he had to go along with this to protect keeping a tax cut for the rest of us, along with another round of unemployment benefits and so on....but, come on! Obama had pledged repeatedly to eliminate this tax cut for the richest income brackets. If a Democratic president chooses to not even put up a fight against this most glaring inequity, what does that say about him? Or, the state of our politics?
I have not wanted to face just how little Obama has fought for his convictions for most of his first two years. He keeps getting pushed around. He doesn't draw a line in the sand on big issues. He fails to identify the largest, key issues from the smaller ones. He doesn't seem to have issues that he simply will not give in on.
In fact, I have to ask: what are Obama's convictions? I've recently realized more deeply that he just might remain a centrist compromiser who lacks a clear, strong ideology.
It's true that when he came into office, he already had a reputation as a pragmatic conciliator - a leader who liked to work out compromises in the middle. However, I thought he'd advocate for basic Democratic Party principles fairly well. I thought I could count on that. I still think he believes in ideas I care about, but, to my surprise, he has seemed unwilling and uncomfortable about stating, boldly, what he stands for.
Obama seems to have fallen into a very familiar "trap" that catches other new Presidents. After speaking out more candidly and refreshingly during a long campaign, he got into office and suddenly pulled the reigns in on all his views, feelings and public positioning. He stopped speaking from the heart - with spontaneity and conviction - and, instead, got caught up in the Washington DC whirlwind of day-to-day crisis management, including coping with conflict-oriented news media cycles and responding to critics and polls.
This phenomenon has impacted most Presidents. I recall Jimmy Carter got swallowed up by Washington. Bill Clinton's first year became a nightmare - as the media heaped coverage on every little mistake he made. It's interesting; I think it's tougher for Democratic presidents because, when they start off, they've usually promised to change a few things. Republicans often have pledged to "lower taxes" and "keep defense spending high" -- not exactly courageous principles. In any event, the larger point is that new Presidents often have trouble remaining true to themselves and sticking their necks out on issues. They're new in this biggest job in the world and they tend to want to please everyone.
Well, two years have passed and I'm still waiting to find out what Obama is FOR. I know he tried hard during his first year to keep the economy from falling into a depression. I thought he offered good leadership during a stressful, traumatic national crisis that included the need to pass and push for an unprecedented stimulus package, the failure of the auto industry, bank failures, a foreclosure crisis and on and on. But, that period required "crisis management" and Obama was able to stay in his (comfortable) "middle" much of the time.
Then, he chose to initiate a major effort at health care reform, but, during this battle, Obama showed some of his weaker tendencies; he cut ill-advised deals with players such as the pharmaceutical industry presumably to smooth the way for a bill to get passed, but, by the time the bill emerged, it was - by most accounts - incredibly watered down and didn't force change and sacrifice on the health care industry's dominant players.
So, during the health care debate, we saw Obama fail to take strong stands; in fact, he waffled so much that even his Democratic base, the key allies in the fight, grew dissatisfied with his
vagueness and refusal to dig in his heels. This was illustrated when Obama chose to not support the so-called "public option" even though he had shown support for it during the buildup to the debate.
Yet, despite my disappointment with the health care bill, I tried to focus on the positive: Obama had managed to at least get some good components approved such as much greater protection of coverage of people's pre-existing conditions.
Then, Obama, after holding lengthy deliberations over his Adminstration's policy on Afghanistan, the President emerged with a proposal to increase troops by 30,000 while insisting he'd initiate a withdrawal of those troops in the middle of 2o11. People questioned if he'd be able to stick to his plan for early withdrawal, but Obama insisted he would. Now, in recent weeks, Obama and his team are indicating they're reconsidering the goal for withdrawal, and, insteady, feel it'll probably be necessary to keep American troops in Afghanistan much longer.
That reversal, if it comes true, disgusts me. I'm opposed to American military intervention in Afghanistan altogether, but, I'm so bothered tha Obama, appareantly, can be that cynical toward the public that he advertised this "early withdrawal date" and now thinks he can reverse himself and no one will care?
I followed Obama's handling of the tax cut closely. While I tried to cut him slack initially, the more I heard mention of the unnecessary "waste" of spending that'd help the richest, I grew very disenchanted. It all hit home for me one night as I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, "The Last Word" one night. O'Donnell had several excellent guests on to comment on the Obama tax cut topic. One guest was Ralph Nader. I've grown increasingly impatient with Nader in recent years, but, he was on the money this night. Nader commented that Obama has acted like the Republicans had the majority the past two years rather than seizing on the Democratic majority he has. Nader said that Obama was "conflict-averse." He said that Obama should have taken the lead on some issues by saying "Here's what we're going to do..." (meaning, or, "Here's what I want to do and here's why you should follow me")
I watched and cringed: I agreed completely with Nader. Why the hell have we all heard so much about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell the past two years? Hell, they haven't even said anything compelling. All they've done is attack Obama and oppose virtually everything he proposes. Why hasn't Obama challenged these leaders and other Republicans to argue the merits of far more issues? I'm convinced that Obama would win most debates. He's superb at arguing his points -- once he has a position, that is!
I think Nader is, at least partly, correct about Obama's conflict-avoidance. There is no reason Obama couldn't attempt more forceful persuasion about issues he cares the most about. Obama doesn't seem to "get it" that the American people like to gain "a sense" about their President's identity, his personality and passions. Look at the unique appeal of Ronald Reagan. No matter what one's view of him was, he always spoke naturally about his ideological convictions - which, conveniently, were supported by most Americans. (reduce the federal government, boost defense spending, etc.)
Obama seems constitutionally unable to articulate what he cares the most about vs. what he is willing to compromise on. I'd love to hear him identify a few things that he'll fight for no matter what -- no matter what the opposition, no matter the impact on his political fortunes.
I'm still waiting for that. Instead, he projects that he cares about everything and every issue in sort of the same voice, context and perspective.
Obama has made matters much worse by making far, far too many appearances on television. He's badly, badly overexposed and many people, I think, are predisposed to tune him out now, automatically, as a result. Sometimes, Obama comes off as another, self-absorbed, narcissistic leader who cares more about being in the limelight than the issues he's supposedly addressing.
Another discouraging example: I had thought Obama and his administration were acting a bit tougher toward Israel by prodding that Israel should really halt all construction of new settlements in designated areas, but, now, the Administration has dropped this precondition. Why? I had hoped Obama was willing to tolerate criticism and resistance on the Middle East - which would have been praiseworthy. Now, I fear that he's "wimping out" on this topic too by avoiding further conflict with Israel.
I'll tell you. After Obama's inspirational 2008 presidential campaign, he at least sounded like he'd try to change a few things in Washington. He was such a gifted orator. He could shine in debates with his opponents. He appeared like someone who could use his strengths to lead by persuasion. Now, halfway through his first term, he's appearing to be "just another President," who cannot overcome the waves of outside influence.
I hope he can rediscover his voice in the next two years. Or, perhaps, to put it more accurately: That he can learn how to articulate and fight for his own convictions more than he has so far in his public life.
Obama's choice to not mount any fight against eliminating former President George W. Bush's
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans was yet another "new low point" for me. The tax cuts are due to expire Dec. 31st, but, it now looks like the both the U.S. Senate and House will approve the compromise Obama ironed out with Republican leaders to keep tax cuts for all, including the richest.
Yeah, I've heard Obama's arguments about why he had to go along with this to protect keeping a tax cut for the rest of us, along with another round of unemployment benefits and so on....but, come on! Obama had pledged repeatedly to eliminate this tax cut for the richest income brackets. If a Democratic president chooses to not even put up a fight against this most glaring inequity, what does that say about him? Or, the state of our politics?
I have not wanted to face just how little Obama has fought for his convictions for most of his first two years. He keeps getting pushed around. He doesn't draw a line in the sand on big issues. He fails to identify the largest, key issues from the smaller ones. He doesn't seem to have issues that he simply will not give in on.
In fact, I have to ask: what are Obama's convictions? I've recently realized more deeply that he just might remain a centrist compromiser who lacks a clear, strong ideology.
It's true that when he came into office, he already had a reputation as a pragmatic conciliator - a leader who liked to work out compromises in the middle. However, I thought he'd advocate for basic Democratic Party principles fairly well. I thought I could count on that. I still think he believes in ideas I care about, but, to my surprise, he has seemed unwilling and uncomfortable about stating, boldly, what he stands for.
Obama seems to have fallen into a very familiar "trap" that catches other new Presidents. After speaking out more candidly and refreshingly during a long campaign, he got into office and suddenly pulled the reigns in on all his views, feelings and public positioning. He stopped speaking from the heart - with spontaneity and conviction - and, instead, got caught up in the Washington DC whirlwind of day-to-day crisis management, including coping with conflict-oriented news media cycles and responding to critics and polls.
This phenomenon has impacted most Presidents. I recall Jimmy Carter got swallowed up by Washington. Bill Clinton's first year became a nightmare - as the media heaped coverage on every little mistake he made. It's interesting; I think it's tougher for Democratic presidents because, when they start off, they've usually promised to change a few things. Republicans often have pledged to "lower taxes" and "keep defense spending high" -- not exactly courageous principles. In any event, the larger point is that new Presidents often have trouble remaining true to themselves and sticking their necks out on issues. They're new in this biggest job in the world and they tend to want to please everyone.
Well, two years have passed and I'm still waiting to find out what Obama is FOR. I know he tried hard during his first year to keep the economy from falling into a depression. I thought he offered good leadership during a stressful, traumatic national crisis that included the need to pass and push for an unprecedented stimulus package, the failure of the auto industry, bank failures, a foreclosure crisis and on and on. But, that period required "crisis management" and Obama was able to stay in his (comfortable) "middle" much of the time.
Then, he chose to initiate a major effort at health care reform, but, during this battle, Obama showed some of his weaker tendencies; he cut ill-advised deals with players such as the pharmaceutical industry presumably to smooth the way for a bill to get passed, but, by the time the bill emerged, it was - by most accounts - incredibly watered down and didn't force change and sacrifice on the health care industry's dominant players.
So, during the health care debate, we saw Obama fail to take strong stands; in fact, he waffled so much that even his Democratic base, the key allies in the fight, grew dissatisfied with his
vagueness and refusal to dig in his heels. This was illustrated when Obama chose to not support the so-called "public option" even though he had shown support for it during the buildup to the debate.
Yet, despite my disappointment with the health care bill, I tried to focus on the positive: Obama had managed to at least get some good components approved such as much greater protection of coverage of people's pre-existing conditions.
Then, Obama, after holding lengthy deliberations over his Adminstration's policy on Afghanistan, the President emerged with a proposal to increase troops by 30,000 while insisting he'd initiate a withdrawal of those troops in the middle of 2o11. People questioned if he'd be able to stick to his plan for early withdrawal, but Obama insisted he would. Now, in recent weeks, Obama and his team are indicating they're reconsidering the goal for withdrawal, and, insteady, feel it'll probably be necessary to keep American troops in Afghanistan much longer.
That reversal, if it comes true, disgusts me. I'm opposed to American military intervention in Afghanistan altogether, but, I'm so bothered tha Obama, appareantly, can be that cynical toward the public that he advertised this "early withdrawal date" and now thinks he can reverse himself and no one will care?
I followed Obama's handling of the tax cut closely. While I tried to cut him slack initially, the more I heard mention of the unnecessary "waste" of spending that'd help the richest, I grew very disenchanted. It all hit home for me one night as I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, "The Last Word" one night. O'Donnell had several excellent guests on to comment on the Obama tax cut topic. One guest was Ralph Nader. I've grown increasingly impatient with Nader in recent years, but, he was on the money this night. Nader commented that Obama has acted like the Republicans had the majority the past two years rather than seizing on the Democratic majority he has. Nader said that Obama was "conflict-averse." He said that Obama should have taken the lead on some issues by saying "Here's what we're going to do..." (meaning, or, "Here's what I want to do and here's why you should follow me")
I watched and cringed: I agreed completely with Nader. Why the hell have we all heard so much about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell the past two years? Hell, they haven't even said anything compelling. All they've done is attack Obama and oppose virtually everything he proposes. Why hasn't Obama challenged these leaders and other Republicans to argue the merits of far more issues? I'm convinced that Obama would win most debates. He's superb at arguing his points -- once he has a position, that is!
I think Nader is, at least partly, correct about Obama's conflict-avoidance. There is no reason Obama couldn't attempt more forceful persuasion about issues he cares the most about. Obama doesn't seem to "get it" that the American people like to gain "a sense" about their President's identity, his personality and passions. Look at the unique appeal of Ronald Reagan. No matter what one's view of him was, he always spoke naturally about his ideological convictions - which, conveniently, were supported by most Americans. (reduce the federal government, boost defense spending, etc.)
Obama seems constitutionally unable to articulate what he cares the most about vs. what he is willing to compromise on. I'd love to hear him identify a few things that he'll fight for no matter what -- no matter what the opposition, no matter the impact on his political fortunes.
I'm still waiting for that. Instead, he projects that he cares about everything and every issue in sort of the same voice, context and perspective.
Obama has made matters much worse by making far, far too many appearances on television. He's badly, badly overexposed and many people, I think, are predisposed to tune him out now, automatically, as a result. Sometimes, Obama comes off as another, self-absorbed, narcissistic leader who cares more about being in the limelight than the issues he's supposedly addressing.
Another discouraging example: I had thought Obama and his administration were acting a bit tougher toward Israel by prodding that Israel should really halt all construction of new settlements in designated areas, but, now, the Administration has dropped this precondition. Why? I had hoped Obama was willing to tolerate criticism and resistance on the Middle East - which would have been praiseworthy. Now, I fear that he's "wimping out" on this topic too by avoiding further conflict with Israel.
I'll tell you. After Obama's inspirational 2008 presidential campaign, he at least sounded like he'd try to change a few things in Washington. He was such a gifted orator. He could shine in debates with his opponents. He appeared like someone who could use his strengths to lead by persuasion. Now, halfway through his first term, he's appearing to be "just another President," who cannot overcome the waves of outside influence.
I hope he can rediscover his voice in the next two years. Or, perhaps, to put it more accurately: That he can learn how to articulate and fight for his own convictions more than he has so far in his public life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)