Conservatives and Libertarians such as I have consistently lamented the rising sentiment over the last 20 years among America’s far left as they labor to embrace the contemporary socialist ideology so prevalent in Europe.
Also, in light of the unfair and inaccurate rhetoric that has been directed at the Tea Party movement and its participants by high-profile liberals over the past 10 months, I have been unrelenting in linking media coverage, political commentary, and trends in White House policy that come together and paint a picture I find very disturbing.
As the push continues to extend ever expanding powers and authority to various federal entities (the FCC, Health and Human Services, and the EPA to name a few), I read yesterday morning of an agency that exists in the United Kingdom that should alarm anyone who worries as much as me about the ongoing push to make the United States more closely resemble our European counterparts. This British organization is titled the National Domestic Extremism Team.
You can read a very brief posting discussing it here.
Can you say MIAC report?
Of course as the word spreads about President Barack Obama’s recent Christmas present, the amendment of Executive Order 12425 signed on Dec. 17, the prospect of such a federal agency here doesn’t seem so farfetched.
Wait a minute. Are you puzzled as to what Obama’s amendment of E.O. 12425 is? In yet another bypass of Congress by the Executive Branch, our President has granted immunity from lawful search and seizure to the International Criminal Police Organization – better known as Interpol.
What does this mean? The answer: the protections associated with full diplomatic immunity have been bestowed upon all offices and facilities Interpol has here on American soil. In essence, all evidence, files, and any other documents collected by a foreign law enforcement agency is no longer subject to proper legal scrutiny of any kind – the door is open for them to operate like a secret police within the United States.
Don’t just raise your eyebrow at me. Do a Google search of “Obama amendment Executive Order 12425” and read it yourself.
The next item on my political radar is equally as disturbing, published yesterday by the Boston Herald.
News is surfacing that if Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown can manage a political upset and defeat Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley – in the state’s upcoming special election on January 19 for the U.S. Senate seat previously held by the late Ted Kennedy – there are mechanisms in place that would delay validation of Brown’s Senate seat.
The holdup, evidently, would be intentionally long enough to allow interim Senator Paul Kirk to vote “yes” on the final health care reform bill currently being negotiated in conference by Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
That article can be read in its entirety here.
This story is floating to the surface on the heels of Massachusetts’s state government leaders changing their election laws yet again in a scramble to ensure both of the state’s Senate seats are held by Democrats.
For some background with this news gem, the law for filling a vacated U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts was rewritten in 2004 during Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Before it was altered, state law there authorized the governor to hand-select a successor to either Senate seat should it suddenly be open – as a result of whoever holding it dying, retiring/resigning in midterm, or getting elected to another public office.
However, in 2004 Republican Mitt Romney was governor at the time. With the prospect of Kerry getting elected President being a very real possibility, Romney would have been in a position to install a fellow party member in Kerry’s place had he won, giving Massachusetts its first Republican senator in decades.
So in light of the fact residents in that state vote heavily Democrat, the Democratic majority in Massachusetts’ state legislature worked diligently to change the election law so that any Senate vacancies would have to be filled only by a specially scheduled public vote. Not surprisingly, they overturned Romney’s veto of the bill in the process.
This past year with the Tea Party movement’s rapid rise and the manner which public sentiment for it has grown, Democrats everywhere are experiencing a real fear of voter backlash. And so, the death of Kennedy in August sent Massachusetts Democrats scrambling to change the law back to allow the governor (now Deval Patrick, who just happens to be a Democrat) to select an interim Senator until a permanent replacement can be elected.
This also was done so the U.S. Senate could have the 60 votes from the left needed to ensure Democrats could both defeat any filibuster attempts and get a vote of cloture for all debates on proposed legislation.
Is this or is this not partisan politics at its truly best?
Finally, we have revelations of comments made by Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nevada) during the 2008 presidential campaign.
This can be verified here.
According to a book about the 2008 presidential race, Game Change by New York Times reporter Mark Halperin and New York magazine writer John Heilemann, Reid described then-Senator Obama as “light-skinned” and “with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
The book is set to be in stores Tuesday. Reid made his public apology yesterday.
Now lo-and-behold, liberals are tripping over themselves and each other to accept the senator’s act of contrition.
Reportedly also contained in Game Change, former President Bill Clinton paid a visit to Kennedy along the campaign trail seeking the senator’s endorsement for Hillary’s nomination. At one point during this occasion Mr. Clinton made the observation about Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Can anyone else hear the absence of uproar? The hypocrisy is nauseating me beyond description.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The Incumbent Dilemma: will a voter movement turn into Political Musical Chairs?
One item I’ve been seeing in my online perusals (in particular Facebook and the Activity Pit) has been a wonderful slogan that reads, “No Incumbents 2010,” and includes a big “I” encased in the ever-popular red-circle-and-slash.
Undoubtedly, a lot of prominent politicians (Democrats in particular) have been getting an eyeful of this inspiring logo, namely Connecticut Senator Christopher “Let’s Make A Mortgage Deal” Dodd, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. That’s not including Senate appointees Roland Burris (Illinois) and Ted Kaufman (Delaware) – although in fairness these two announced very early on they would not seek reelection.
But, Dodd’s announcement is the real bombshell. Regarded as one of America’s most influential senators, his so-called retirement most certainly will create a significant power void among congressional Democrats.
Still, it’s not that surprising as Dodd had been one of many politicians who appeared would be swept-away by the massive wave of displeasure with incumbents everywhere. His choice to step aside is reportedly opening the door for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to make a viable run to be the next Democratic senator from that state. For those who are faithful viewers like me of the Glenn Beck program, you may remember Blumenthal from the shredding he endured at Beck’s hands last spring over his short-lived attempt to prosecute AIG executives for the crime of receiving bonuses.
In addition, speculation is rampant regarding other incumbent senators and representatives and their chances of retaining their seats. A bit more specifically, those commonly considered most vulnerable are the ones expected to vote “yes” on the proposed so-called health care reform and Cap andTrade Tax as well as having voted for the Stimulus Bill.
Now knowing how politicians traditionally operate, when you consider how enormously unpopular the current health care reform package is the obvious question one would ask is, “Why would any politician who values their career in elected office vote for this legislation and other similar bills that the public has clearly and vocally rejected?”
During former President Bill Clinton’s first term in office, as the polling numbers began to circulate how unpopular his administration’s health care agenda was at that time the original proponents couldn’t abandon ship fast enough in order to preserve their own political futures.
The difference this time around is what I call “The Van Jones Effect.”
More commonly referred-to as President Barack Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” by conservative commentators, Jones held the title of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality during his brief tenure with the current administration.
Despite repeated calls by Beck (and eventually others) for an explanation why the White House would appoint someone as a special advisor to the President who had publicly described himself as a communist and political radical, it wasn’t until after revelations that Jones was a 9-11 truther that he finally resigned. Quite curiously, Jones’ resignation was announced shortly after midnight on September 5 (the Sunday of Labor Day Weekend).
However by the time most folks were back to work following Labor Day, it was announced Jones had already accepted a position with the Center for American Progress, a Progressive Liberal think tank run by former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and heavily funded by billionaire George Soros.
During the first attempt to nationalize health care in America 16 years ago, Soros had not yet become the omnipresent left-wing bankroller he is today. It is his deep-pockets methodology toward politics that has emboldened many Democrats to advance widely unpopular legislation – no matter how inevitably this agenda jeopardizes their future chances of election.
Basically, those who toe the progressive liberal line most faithfully have been enabled to adopt a “No Worries” mindset. And why should they worry? After witnessing Jones’ fate, many of Congress’ liberals can sit back in near-perfect comfort and ram-charge any insanely socialist measure they want: if they get voted out for it they know there will be a cushy, well-paying job waiting for them at either Center for American Progress, Moveon.org, the Apollo Alliance, or any number of other Soros-funded groups.
Isn’t the marriage of Washington and corporate fat cats a beautiful thing to behold?
To me the sad part of this scenario is regardless of how irresponsibly members of Congress vote between now and November, those who choose not to run again have created an easy path for their respective parties’ candidates to side-step the anti-incumbent movement. As in the case of Blumenthal, should he emerge as the Democratic candidate for senator in Connecticut he will enjoy the luxury of being able to sell to voters the notion, “I’m not the incumbent so it’s really not fair to hold me up against Christopher Dodd.”
In other words: in Connecticut, North Dakota, Illinois, Delaware, and various other states and districts we will be seeing a new round of “Change you can believe in.” Only this time it will be packaged differently – possibly creatively – depending on where it needs to be marketed.
Our hopes for the future as it relates to the upcoming elections rely heavily on one principle: don’t believe the hype!
Undoubtedly, a lot of prominent politicians (Democrats in particular) have been getting an eyeful of this inspiring logo, namely Connecticut Senator Christopher “Let’s Make A Mortgage Deal” Dodd, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. That’s not including Senate appointees Roland Burris (Illinois) and Ted Kaufman (Delaware) – although in fairness these two announced very early on they would not seek reelection.
But, Dodd’s announcement is the real bombshell. Regarded as one of America’s most influential senators, his so-called retirement most certainly will create a significant power void among congressional Democrats.
Still, it’s not that surprising as Dodd had been one of many politicians who appeared would be swept-away by the massive wave of displeasure with incumbents everywhere. His choice to step aside is reportedly opening the door for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to make a viable run to be the next Democratic senator from that state. For those who are faithful viewers like me of the Glenn Beck program, you may remember Blumenthal from the shredding he endured at Beck’s hands last spring over his short-lived attempt to prosecute AIG executives for the crime of receiving bonuses.
In addition, speculation is rampant regarding other incumbent senators and representatives and their chances of retaining their seats. A bit more specifically, those commonly considered most vulnerable are the ones expected to vote “yes” on the proposed so-called health care reform and Cap and
Now knowing how politicians traditionally operate, when you consider how enormously unpopular the current health care reform package is the obvious question one would ask is, “Why would any politician who values their career in elected office vote for this legislation and other similar bills that the public has clearly and vocally rejected?”
During former President Bill Clinton’s first term in office, as the polling numbers began to circulate how unpopular his administration’s health care agenda was at that time the original proponents couldn’t abandon ship fast enough in order to preserve their own political futures.
The difference this time around is what I call “The Van Jones Effect.”
More commonly referred-to as President Barack Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” by conservative commentators, Jones held the title of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality during his brief tenure with the current administration.
Despite repeated calls by Beck (and eventually others) for an explanation why the White House would appoint someone as a special advisor to the President who had publicly described himself as a communist and political radical, it wasn’t until after revelations that Jones was a 9-11 truther that he finally resigned. Quite curiously, Jones’ resignation was announced shortly after midnight on September 5 (the Sunday of Labor Day Weekend).
However by the time most folks were back to work following Labor Day, it was announced Jones had already accepted a position with the Center for American Progress, a Progressive Liberal think tank run by former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and heavily funded by billionaire George Soros.
During the first attempt to nationalize health care in America 16 years ago, Soros had not yet become the omnipresent left-wing bankroller he is today. It is his deep-pockets methodology toward politics that has emboldened many Democrats to advance widely unpopular legislation – no matter how inevitably this agenda jeopardizes their future chances of election.
Basically, those who toe the progressive liberal line most faithfully have been enabled to adopt a “No Worries” mindset. And why should they worry? After witnessing Jones’ fate, many of Congress’ liberals can sit back in near-perfect comfort and ram-charge any insanely socialist measure they want: if they get voted out for it they know there will be a cushy, well-paying job waiting for them at either Center for American Progress, Moveon.org, the Apollo Alliance, or any number of other Soros-funded groups.
Isn’t the marriage of Washington and corporate fat cats a beautiful thing to behold?
To me the sad part of this scenario is regardless of how irresponsibly members of Congress vote between now and November, those who choose not to run again have created an easy path for their respective parties’ candidates to side-step the anti-incumbent movement. As in the case of Blumenthal, should he emerge as the Democratic candidate for senator in Connecticut he will enjoy the luxury of being able to sell to voters the notion, “I’m not the incumbent so it’s really not fair to hold me up against Christopher Dodd.”
In other words: in Connecticut, North Dakota, Illinois, Delaware, and various other states and districts we will be seeing a new round of “Change you can believe in.” Only this time it will be packaged differently – possibly creatively – depending on where it needs to be marketed.
Our hopes for the future as it relates to the upcoming elections rely heavily on one principle: don’t believe the hype!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Sanford bursts 'Rising Star Bubble': look back at 2009 continues
Let’s take a look at a depressing list. The 90s gave us the “dot-com” bubble burst. In 2008 our country saw the housing bubble burst with economically catastrophic results we’re still feeling today. And this past summer, 2009, a previously obscure Republican governor gave his party their own little bursting bubble.
Of course, I write of inevitably-outgoing South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. The governor’s Melrose Place-esque antics last year served to burst what had become his party’s Rising Star Bubble.
Unfortunately, for those already fully familiar with the Sanford Saga, some text must be devoted at this time to fill in the blanks for those who are not caught-up on all the details.
Gov. Sanford was viewed as a key, up-and-coming leader within the GOP as public displeasure with the Obama Administration’s economic policies continued to boil-over by midyear. That is, he was until it was revealed he had hopped on a small jet down to Buenos Aires, Argentina, to enjoy a siesta with his long-time mistress.
Sanford had led some of his staff to believe he was on a hiking excursion to essentially blow-off some steam after being ordered by the South Carolina State Supreme Court to accept federal stimulus money he had been refusing to take delivery of on behalf of his state. However, when he could not be located early in his excursion a massive search by state authorities ensued as many feared the governor might have suffered some calamity out in the wild – the entire endeavor serving to copiously waste taxpayer-funded resources.
As to exactly how many in his administration knew the whole story at the time, we may never know.
Related to the Sanford saga, the problem for the Republican Party is after the 2008 election, there has been such a void in terms of national GOP leadership the public could wrap their arms around that anyone who could make a splash and generate some positive PR for them was virtually guaranteed to grab headlines everywhere. And so this bubble – one revolving around the desperate search for new, hip rising stars within the party – began to rapidly expand.
Consequently, the clash of personalities between Sanford and President Barack Obama – over acceptance or refusal of stimulus funds – jet-propelled the governor into that very position of national prominence. Many if not all of the top political analysts (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) began discussing at length how he not only was rapidly emerging as a potential GOP front-runner to challenge Obama in the 2012 election but he also could be the up-and-coming leader the Republicans were needing to unify them and lead the party back to the promised land – like some sort of NeoCon Messiah.
Instead, Sanford revealed himself to be a false prophet for the Right Wing. More simply, he’s a dirtbag.
Along with his image, so went the GOP’s rising star bubble: “Pop!”
Don’s customary side note:
When I read the initial full-length AP article detailing Gov. Sanford’s mess, I remember being struck by one of the points mentioned in the story. The reporter had gone in length about how the governor’s wife, Jenny Sanford, had been his top advisor throughout his political career – during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, through his gubernatorial campaign, and of course into his governorship. In essence, she was portrayed as the brains behind the public persona.
If there’s any truth to the depictions and assertions made in that article, then I cannot help but reach this conclusion: Jenny Sanford should run for public office – be it the House of Representatives, state legislature, S.C. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator (to replace Lindsey Graham, preferably), hell even governor, or wherever she may fit the bill!
When you consider the following details, such an idea makes perfect sense.
If Jenny Sanford truly was the driving force behind her spouse’s political success, then she obviously possesses a high degree of political acumen, which goes without saying is a vital quality when running for office.
The other factor weighing heavily in Ms. Sanford’s favor is the manner in which she handled the entire issue of her husband’s affair.
She was willing to giver her estranged husband the opportunity to reconcile. It was what many of us in a civilized society would hope to see in such a situation and some would consider the Christian thing to do.
However, when Mark Sanford was offered a reasonable second chance and could not garner the good sense or decency to embrace the opportunity, Jenny did what any self-respecting woman should: she dropped his sorry ass like the wet noodle he is. This demonstrates her to be – in my mind – a person of dignity and character, another quality sorely lacking today among most office holders across this nation.
Returning to the first part of Jenny Sanford’s qualifications – since she packed up their children and moved on and without her there to coach him along, Jenny’s soon-to-be-ex-husband has spewed-forth a steady stream of nonsense and stupid comments: further proving she was the brains in that family.
Of course, I write of inevitably-outgoing South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. The governor’s Melrose Place-esque antics last year served to burst what had become his party’s Rising Star Bubble.
Unfortunately, for those already fully familiar with the Sanford Saga, some text must be devoted at this time to fill in the blanks for those who are not caught-up on all the details.
Gov. Sanford was viewed as a key, up-and-coming leader within the GOP as public displeasure with the Obama Administration’s economic policies continued to boil-over by midyear. That is, he was until it was revealed he had hopped on a small jet down to Buenos Aires, Argentina, to enjoy a siesta with his long-time mistress.
Sanford had led some of his staff to believe he was on a hiking excursion to essentially blow-off some steam after being ordered by the South Carolina State Supreme Court to accept federal stimulus money he had been refusing to take delivery of on behalf of his state. However, when he could not be located early in his excursion a massive search by state authorities ensued as many feared the governor might have suffered some calamity out in the wild – the entire endeavor serving to copiously waste taxpayer-funded resources.
As to exactly how many in his administration knew the whole story at the time, we may never know.
Related to the Sanford saga, the problem for the Republican Party is after the 2008 election, there has been such a void in terms of national GOP leadership the public could wrap their arms around that anyone who could make a splash and generate some positive PR for them was virtually guaranteed to grab headlines everywhere. And so this bubble – one revolving around the desperate search for new, hip rising stars within the party – began to rapidly expand.
Consequently, the clash of personalities between Sanford and President Barack Obama – over acceptance or refusal of stimulus funds – jet-propelled the governor into that very position of national prominence. Many if not all of the top political analysts (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) began discussing at length how he not only was rapidly emerging as a potential GOP front-runner to challenge Obama in the 2012 election but he also could be the up-and-coming leader the Republicans were needing to unify them and lead the party back to the promised land – like some sort of NeoCon Messiah.
Instead, Sanford revealed himself to be a false prophet for the Right Wing. More simply, he’s a dirtbag.
Along with his image, so went the GOP’s rising star bubble: “Pop!”
Don’s customary side note:
When I read the initial full-length AP article detailing Gov. Sanford’s mess, I remember being struck by one of the points mentioned in the story. The reporter had gone in length about how the governor’s wife, Jenny Sanford, had been his top advisor throughout his political career – during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, through his gubernatorial campaign, and of course into his governorship. In essence, she was portrayed as the brains behind the public persona.
If there’s any truth to the depictions and assertions made in that article, then I cannot help but reach this conclusion: Jenny Sanford should run for public office – be it the House of Representatives, state legislature, S.C. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator (to replace Lindsey Graham, preferably), hell even governor, or wherever she may fit the bill!
When you consider the following details, such an idea makes perfect sense.
If Jenny Sanford truly was the driving force behind her spouse’s political success, then she obviously possesses a high degree of political acumen, which goes without saying is a vital quality when running for office.
The other factor weighing heavily in Ms. Sanford’s favor is the manner in which she handled the entire issue of her husband’s affair.
She was willing to giver her estranged husband the opportunity to reconcile. It was what many of us in a civilized society would hope to see in such a situation and some would consider the Christian thing to do.
However, when Mark Sanford was offered a reasonable second chance and could not garner the good sense or decency to embrace the opportunity, Jenny did what any self-respecting woman should: she dropped his sorry ass like the wet noodle he is. This demonstrates her to be – in my mind – a person of dignity and character, another quality sorely lacking today among most office holders across this nation.
Returning to the first part of Jenny Sanford’s qualifications – since she packed up their children and moved on and without her there to coach him along, Jenny’s soon-to-be-ex-husband has spewed-forth a steady stream of nonsense and stupid comments: further proving she was the brains in that family.
Transformational Speech serve as punch line for Obama's, Napolitano's first year
As I begin (finally) to do my look-back at 2009 I cannot help but focus first on the Obama Administration’s insistence upon trying to introduce new, misdirectional euphemisms into our vernacular. My need to go in this direction is inspired by our President’s speech on Thursday (January 7) regarding the foiled terrorist plot Christmas Day on Flight 253.
As President Barack Obama begrudgingly orates about the United States being at war with al Qaeda, I am reminded of his efforts shortly after his inauguration to refer to the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns in the Global War on Terror as “overseas contingency operations.”
And so the next domino of memory falls as that phrase by the President reminds me of then-newly-appointed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her attempt to nudge us toward using the expression “man-caused disasters” instead of allegedly more inflammatory terms such as “terrorism” and “act of terror.”
It was a rough start to Napolitano’s new career path in politics. In March she became the poster child for irresponsibly sweeping items under the proverbial rug when she was called to the carpet over the now-infamous report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. This was the government-produced piece that weighed-in on the growing threat of home-grown terrorists and extrapolated on the notion that as people become more disgruntled in these economic times they are more likely to engage in radical anti-government activity. Among the talking points, the report stated these people are easily identifiable by their affinity toward clothing or any other paraphernalia that has a camouflage color scheme and displays of bumper stickers with right-wing slogans. Additionally it suggested veterans returning from the war are more susceptible to embracing violent rhetoric.
2009 ended for Napolitano much like it started. She has been ridiculed and derided for her recent comments that “the system worked” when asked how Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab was able to board Flight 253 in the first place.
The negative publicity she has faced in all these instances could have been avoided by exercising just a little responsibility.
I get that the Obama Administration has felt a sense of mandate bolstering them – between the President’s election and the sweeping majorities his party claimed in both houses of Congress – and it is not difficult to see how this situation would lead anyone in such a position of authority to believe they could roll out their agenda unquestioned. Obama was voted into office based in large part on his promise of change in how business would be handled in Washington.
What people in America were hoping to see first were a change in how money would be spent (or even not spent), a rapid departure from the policies of George W. Bush, and greater transparency in how government activity will be handled. What people saw before anything else was a bait-and-switch game of terminology: essentially an adolescent effort to coerce the public into adopting new speech patterns using a mindset of, “see, we popular people are talking like this therefore you should, too.”
This, of course, was accompanied by the trillion-dollar crap sandwich better known as the Stimulus Bill – but I digress as usual.
To offer a real-world example of why, a year later, I still cannot get over the Obama Administration’s terminology bait-and-switch, a previous workplace of mine implemented something just like this several years ago. Management’s title for it was “Transformational Speech.” (hmmm, “transformational…” seems to me I’ve heard this term used to describe Obama before – apologies, another digression on my part)
At my previous job, we were instructed to never use the phrase, “I don’t know,” in response to a member’s question if we didn’t genuinely know the answer. We were trained our reply had to be, “That’s an excellent question! Let me go find someone who can answer that more effectively.”
Also, the front desk was renamed “The Connection Desk” as this was the primary area where our facility “made the connection with our members” – we were expected to purge the phrase “customer service” from our lexicon.
I have nothing sarcastic to add here that you the reader haven’t been able to formulate on your own.
In case you were wondering, the list of transformational euphemisms went on and on.
The problem here was not much really had changed in the way we operated beyond the subliminal effort to make our members feel good about doing business with us. The whole phraseology ploy by the White House employs the same premise. Unfortunately, untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted doing the research on such dribble by this administration.
Related side note:
One subject at which I have hammered before and will belabor for the remainder of this presidential administration is the aforementioned MIAC report on potential domestic terror threats. As I stated earlier, some responsibility would have accomplished a great deal for not only Obama’s public image but his cabinet secretaries’ as well.
The MIAC story created the most visible early chink in the administration’s transparency armor. America’s secretary of Homeland Security took the single-worst course of action imaginable: Napolitano slid that report toward the bottom of a pile of paperwork on her desk as quickly as it had come to her attention.
All the White House needed to do was quickly go to the public with it once they were aware of its contents. The comedic part of this whole story is the truth was on their side: this report was initiated during the Bush Administration.
Napolitano could very easily have held a press conference with the report in hand, looked everyone in attendance in the eye and told them the report was initially published before Obama was sworn-in, and then declared the current administration did not subscribe to the conclusions reached by the MIAC.
This simple yet direct course of action would have shown a bright positive light on the new administration. It may even to some extent have stemmed the rising tide of the Tea Party movement in America, which was just beginning to gain momentum at this time. After all, President Obama was elected on a wave of anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiment. Such an act of undeniable transparency combined with pinning this document onto his predecessor would have been a PR boon for a President whose approval numbers already were slipping not even two months into his term. And since the MIAC report focused almost exclusively on so-called right-wing extremists, outing this document on their own accord would have demonstrated the kind of bipartisanship Obama insisted he sought during his campaign.
Instead, the “keep quiet and maybe no one will notice it” approach only served to fuel suspicion surrounding Obama’s agenda. This action combined with the endless rhetoric attempting to paint Tea Partiers as “angry mobs,” racists, and a general bastion for potential violence, as well as the President’s decision in September to continue several “key provisions” of the Patriot Act, the so-called Net Neutrality Act, and the appointment of Mark Lloyd as FCC diversity officer (Lloyd having gone on record recently as saying the Fairness Doctrine does not go far enough) all come together to begin painting an alarming picture of how the left intends to deal with political dissent.
As President Barack Obama begrudgingly orates about the United States being at war with al Qaeda, I am reminded of his efforts shortly after his inauguration to refer to the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns in the Global War on Terror as “overseas contingency operations.”
And so the next domino of memory falls as that phrase by the President reminds me of then-newly-appointed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her attempt to nudge us toward using the expression “man-caused disasters” instead of allegedly more inflammatory terms such as “terrorism” and “act of terror.”
It was a rough start to Napolitano’s new career path in politics. In March she became the poster child for irresponsibly sweeping items under the proverbial rug when she was called to the carpet over the now-infamous report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. This was the government-produced piece that weighed-in on the growing threat of home-grown terrorists and extrapolated on the notion that as people become more disgruntled in these economic times they are more likely to engage in radical anti-government activity. Among the talking points, the report stated these people are easily identifiable by their affinity toward clothing or any other paraphernalia that has a camouflage color scheme and displays of bumper stickers with right-wing slogans. Additionally it suggested veterans returning from the war are more susceptible to embracing violent rhetoric.
2009 ended for Napolitano much like it started. She has been ridiculed and derided for her recent comments that “the system worked” when asked how Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab was able to board Flight 253 in the first place.
The negative publicity she has faced in all these instances could have been avoided by exercising just a little responsibility.
I get that the Obama Administration has felt a sense of mandate bolstering them – between the President’s election and the sweeping majorities his party claimed in both houses of Congress – and it is not difficult to see how this situation would lead anyone in such a position of authority to believe they could roll out their agenda unquestioned. Obama was voted into office based in large part on his promise of change in how business would be handled in Washington.
What people in America were hoping to see first were a change in how money would be spent (or even not spent), a rapid departure from the policies of George W. Bush, and greater transparency in how government activity will be handled. What people saw before anything else was a bait-and-switch game of terminology: essentially an adolescent effort to coerce the public into adopting new speech patterns using a mindset of, “see, we popular people are talking like this therefore you should, too.”
This, of course, was accompanied by the trillion-dollar crap sandwich better known as the Stimulus Bill – but I digress as usual.
To offer a real-world example of why, a year later, I still cannot get over the Obama Administration’s terminology bait-and-switch, a previous workplace of mine implemented something just like this several years ago. Management’s title for it was “Transformational Speech.” (hmmm, “transformational…” seems to me I’ve heard this term used to describe Obama before – apologies, another digression on my part)
At my previous job, we were instructed to never use the phrase, “I don’t know,” in response to a member’s question if we didn’t genuinely know the answer. We were trained our reply had to be, “That’s an excellent question! Let me go find someone who can answer that more effectively.”
Also, the front desk was renamed “The Connection Desk” as this was the primary area where our facility “made the connection with our members” – we were expected to purge the phrase “customer service” from our lexicon.
I have nothing sarcastic to add here that you the reader haven’t been able to formulate on your own.
In case you were wondering, the list of transformational euphemisms went on and on.
The problem here was not much really had changed in the way we operated beyond the subliminal effort to make our members feel good about doing business with us. The whole phraseology ploy by the White House employs the same premise. Unfortunately, untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted doing the research on such dribble by this administration.
Related side note:
One subject at which I have hammered before and will belabor for the remainder of this presidential administration is the aforementioned MIAC report on potential domestic terror threats. As I stated earlier, some responsibility would have accomplished a great deal for not only Obama’s public image but his cabinet secretaries’ as well.
The MIAC story created the most visible early chink in the administration’s transparency armor. America’s secretary of Homeland Security took the single-worst course of action imaginable: Napolitano slid that report toward the bottom of a pile of paperwork on her desk as quickly as it had come to her attention.
All the White House needed to do was quickly go to the public with it once they were aware of its contents. The comedic part of this whole story is the truth was on their side: this report was initiated during the Bush Administration.
Napolitano could very easily have held a press conference with the report in hand, looked everyone in attendance in the eye and told them the report was initially published before Obama was sworn-in, and then declared the current administration did not subscribe to the conclusions reached by the MIAC.
This simple yet direct course of action would have shown a bright positive light on the new administration. It may even to some extent have stemmed the rising tide of the Tea Party movement in America, which was just beginning to gain momentum at this time. After all, President Obama was elected on a wave of anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiment. Such an act of undeniable transparency combined with pinning this document onto his predecessor would have been a PR boon for a President whose approval numbers already were slipping not even two months into his term. And since the MIAC report focused almost exclusively on so-called right-wing extremists, outing this document on their own accord would have demonstrated the kind of bipartisanship Obama insisted he sought during his campaign.
Instead, the “keep quiet and maybe no one will notice it” approach only served to fuel suspicion surrounding Obama’s agenda. This action combined with the endless rhetoric attempting to paint Tea Partiers as “angry mobs,” racists, and a general bastion for potential violence, as well as the President’s decision in September to continue several “key provisions” of the Patriot Act, the so-called Net Neutrality Act, and the appointment of Mark Lloyd as FCC diversity officer (Lloyd having gone on record recently as saying the Fairness Doctrine does not go far enough) all come together to begin painting an alarming picture of how the left intends to deal with political dissent.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Bill Maher is a fraud
This has nothing to do with any current news he may or not have made, but I feel the overriding urge to make the following definitive statement: Bill Maher is a fraud.
As we get ever closer to what appears to be the unavoidable passage of the so-called health care reform bill, I cannot help but recall Maher’s comments back in August on the “Tonight Show” with Conan O’Brien. That evening he went on a rant about the discussion in the public about Senate Democrats pursuing 60 votes in their quest to move their agenda forward. Referring to President Barack Obama, Maher insisted “he needs to drag them to it because they’re stupid.”
Very simply, the notion that the public at large lacks the intelligence, wherewithal, or even the fundamental right to make basic choices for themselves (particularly on matters such as their own health care and whether or not they will seek related coverage) and we must allow ourselves to be dependent on so-called experts to “guide us” in making any such choices is the most politically correct notion floating around in our society.
And that is what’s truly fraudulent about Bill Maher. For years he has portrayed himself as a champion of all that is politically incorrect – hence the name of his former television program on ABC. Yet, now he is spewing-forth an endless stream of modern progressive dogma.
Adding to the case against him is the fact most of his comments over at least the last 10 years have fallen in-line with the rest of the Hollywood establishment. This is further highlighted by Maher’s far-left stance on gun control and endless mocking of anyone who openly practices Christianity.
The picking and choosing of easy, overdone targets doesn’t end with Christians. I distinctly remember watching an airing of “Politically Incorrect” during which Penn Jillette called him out for using phrases such as “white trash” and "trailer trash.” He reminded Maher that these euphemisms “are racist terms” just as much as any ethnic slur directed at a minority. In this situation, again Maher falls back on the easy jokes and commentary – this time at the expense of Southerners, people living in rural communities, and white people in lower income brackets – because they better enable him to curry favor with Hollywood’s elite.
The truth is such material, including making fun of patriotism, is the easy way to get laughs anymore. These types of jokes and comments were edgy 30 and 40 years ago. Today, in the 21st century, they are commonplace in American pop culture.
Now, if Maher wants to be truly edgy and politically incorrect he ought to work on material that calls into question leftward ideas such as climate change. If he is so eager to mock members of a religious congregation, targeting the worshipers of modern environmentalism would cut harder against the Hollywood grain than anything else in circulation.
Otherwise, he is basically like Gwyneth Paltrow with chest hair – or or more simply Janeane Garofalo.
Cheap and easy jokes can go both ways, I suppose.
As we get ever closer to what appears to be the unavoidable passage of the so-called health care reform bill, I cannot help but recall Maher’s comments back in August on the “Tonight Show” with Conan O’Brien. That evening he went on a rant about the discussion in the public about Senate Democrats pursuing 60 votes in their quest to move their agenda forward. Referring to President Barack Obama, Maher insisted “he needs to drag them to it because they’re stupid.”
Very simply, the notion that the public at large lacks the intelligence, wherewithal, or even the fundamental right to make basic choices for themselves (particularly on matters such as their own health care and whether or not they will seek related coverage) and we must allow ourselves to be dependent on so-called experts to “guide us” in making any such choices is the most politically correct notion floating around in our society.
And that is what’s truly fraudulent about Bill Maher. For years he has portrayed himself as a champion of all that is politically incorrect – hence the name of his former television program on ABC. Yet, now he is spewing-forth an endless stream of modern progressive dogma.
Adding to the case against him is the fact most of his comments over at least the last 10 years have fallen in-line with the rest of the Hollywood establishment. This is further highlighted by Maher’s far-left stance on gun control and endless mocking of anyone who openly practices Christianity.
The picking and choosing of easy, overdone targets doesn’t end with Christians. I distinctly remember watching an airing of “Politically Incorrect” during which Penn Jillette called him out for using phrases such as “white trash” and "trailer trash.” He reminded Maher that these euphemisms “are racist terms” just as much as any ethnic slur directed at a minority. In this situation, again Maher falls back on the easy jokes and commentary – this time at the expense of Southerners, people living in rural communities, and white people in lower income brackets – because they better enable him to curry favor with Hollywood’s elite.
The truth is such material, including making fun of patriotism, is the easy way to get laughs anymore. These types of jokes and comments were edgy 30 and 40 years ago. Today, in the 21st century, they are commonplace in American pop culture.
Now, if Maher wants to be truly edgy and politically incorrect he ought to work on material that calls into question leftward ideas such as climate change. If he is so eager to mock members of a religious congregation, targeting the worshipers of modern environmentalism would cut harder against the Hollywood grain than anything else in circulation.
Otherwise, he is basically like Gwyneth Paltrow with chest hair – or or more simply Janeane Garofalo.
Cheap and easy jokes can go both ways, I suppose.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Guantanamo debate reveals Obama policy, Geneva Convention shortcomings
As the dust settles over the decision by the White House (a course of action spearheaded by Attorney General Eric Holder) to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other Guantanamo Bay detainees, what I do not see the Obama Administration taking the lead on is working to establish a uniform approach toward future prosecution of terrorists.
There are three primary policy options to be considered on this issue of how the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay should be dealt with: prosecute them in a court of law; try them in military tribunals; or simply leave them at “Gitmo” indefinitely.
Each point has its ardent proponents who are as galvanized in their opposition to the other options as they are in their support of the one track which appeals most to them.
Several key principles stand at the heart of the respective arguments for those three approaches:
- Terrorists are criminals engaging in criminal activity and as such ought to be tried in a court of law in accordance with our Constitution;
- They are part of a larger, international collection of individuals who are at war with the United States and our allies and thus fall under the jurisdiction of a war crimes tribunal;
- They stand alone since their actions are of a military nature yet they are foreign nationals who operate in a manner which demonstrates they do not recognize the sovereignty of nations or their borders -- therefore they have no rights under either the United States Constitution or the Geneva Convention.
In each of these bullet points, however, the Geneva Convention is invoked in some way. This international treaty was drawn-up as a means to hold countries -- and in particular their government and military leaders -- accountable once peace is achieved for actions taken during times of war between them.
In the case of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, we are left with a quandary that needs to be sorted-out before we begin picking-and-choosing how to move forward with the terrorism suspects currently in custody as well as those we can expect will be detained in the future. The problem, though, is there are valid arguments to be made on all three opinions.
Former President George W. Bush’s failing on this issue was he opted for Door #3 as time went on (although to their credit they did quietly pursue new homelands to relocate GiTMO detainees who were deemed to not be a threat) and continued along this path without any apparent plan to formulate a uniform policy beyond that. The key national security players in his administration assumed the American public would unanimously adopt the attitude, “Well, they’re terrorists so just let ‘em sit there indefinitely.”
What they failed to anticipate is Americans would become increasingly uncomfortable with the approach of leaving them incarcerated without due process of some kind -- be it through a civil or military court. While to a certain extent it is petty (not to mention nauseating) to insist some semblance of rights be extended to terrorists in light of 9-11 and the horrors being inflicted upon American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must remember we are a nation founded on principles and ideals of liberty, rights, and justice -- that our system of justice stems from liberty and rights and not the other way around.
Where President Barack Obama is failing on this matter is his administration blindly insists that we showcase the American judicial system for the world to watch and admire. Just as Bush arbitrarily chose to not deal with the legality of the detainment of Mohammed (more popularly referred-to as KSM) and his cohorts, Obama now is missing the point that al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists being held at GiTMO present an unprecedented situation for the America:
-To merely hold them in captivity without any form of due process simply is un-American;
-Foreign terrorists are not American citizens and therefore not guaranteed the same rights we and legal immigrants to this country enjoy;
-They also are not combatants commissioned by a sovereign nation with which we are in conflict.
But, there is an important caveat to that last point: one of the key conclusions of the Congressional 9-11 Commission is that since its formation roughly 20 years ago al Qaeda has been in a state of war with the United States and our Western allies while we relatively ignored them throughout the 1990s.
So, we have a group who are at war with the U.S. but do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention -- yet because they are not American citizens they do not meet the same criteria for prosecution as in the cases of Timothy McVeigh and Jim Nichols.
Muddling the discussion even further is the fact most being held at GiTMO were captured on foreign soil by our military during combat. For most people, that last point seals the deal on the discussion: conduct military tribunals for these individuals and get it over with.
Standing in direct contrast, though (and keeping the argument going in an exhaustingly circular nature), is that we have come to accept the definition of terrorism as being criminal activity. Based on that, we are at the same time obligated to try them in a court of law.
All of these points and counterpoints bring us back to the fact Bush and Obama have gone astray with their respective policies on the matter. Their unifying mistakes are not researching and developing a new yet uniform manner and approach to bringing foreign al Qaeda operatives to justice; and then assuming their Presidential successors will simply follow their footsteps in dealing with them.
A hybrid approach of some kind needs to be established. Bush’s and Obama’s choices each have been the justice system equivalent of trying to ram a square peg through the round hole. But overcoming their blunders and preventing more of the same down the road will -- admittedly -- be a long process that would not just require but demand a completely open debate about how to resolve this issue.
The best and most trusted minds of American law need to be brought together with all views properly represented (meaning allowing neither the likes of Bill Clinton or John Ashcroft to hijack the process).
Whether we conduct military tribunals or continue with the efforts to try KSM in federal court, part of the reasoning is to adhere to the Geneva Convention. But since the Geneva Convention does not adequately address terrorists captured in the battlefield, we are left with the inevitable truth that Geneva needs to be updated under the same mindset to reflect this new reality. When I say “updated,” I mean amended not rewritten.
And, it goes without saying that adding such language to the Geneva Convention would inevitably be a time-consuming endeavor -- requiring delegates from a multitude of nations to agree upon its language. Then we have the time needed here in our country to hash-out a plan around which the people of the United States can unequivocally rally. Most importantly, it must not be a rush-job. To reiterate, to ensure it will be a solid policy the entire process must be public.
Related side notes:
With the trial of al Qaeda operatives -- KSM in particular -- the truly greatest concern is with the risk of compromising national security resulting from potential intelligence leaks during the process of disclosure. In order for the criminal trial to work all evidence must be made available to the defense counsel. I can’t see how this can take place without classified material exchanging hands.
Our nation already has had to deal with an attorney for one terrorist who passed along radical decrees and instructions for his client. What will we have to worry about taking place with this?
I would take time to ponder whether or not the Obama Administration has properly thought all this out. Instead I am going to give in to my bias and simply state the answer to that question is clear and easy to deduce: “No.”
Obama and Holder do not appear to be particularly concerned about protecting sensitive information tied to the capture of those facing trial. This is their Big Show for the world. As the Obama Administration’s approach to foreign policy continually comes under greater and harsher scrutiny, this President wants nothing more than to demonstrate to his critics and the public at large that his way is superior to his predecessor’s (not that it would be that significant of a challenge; but Obama thus far has actually managed to display less acumen for leading this nation on foreign policy than Bush). If it means selling out as much of our intelligence community and their sources in the field as possible, once again it is a sacrifice he is willing to make.
There are three primary policy options to be considered on this issue of how the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay should be dealt with: prosecute them in a court of law; try them in military tribunals; or simply leave them at “Gitmo” indefinitely.
Each point has its ardent proponents who are as galvanized in their opposition to the other options as they are in their support of the one track which appeals most to them.
Several key principles stand at the heart of the respective arguments for those three approaches:
- Terrorists are criminals engaging in criminal activity and as such ought to be tried in a court of law in accordance with our Constitution;
- They are part of a larger, international collection of individuals who are at war with the United States and our allies and thus fall under the jurisdiction of a war crimes tribunal;
- They stand alone since their actions are of a military nature yet they are foreign nationals who operate in a manner which demonstrates they do not recognize the sovereignty of nations or their borders -- therefore they have no rights under either the United States Constitution or the Geneva Convention.
In each of these bullet points, however, the Geneva Convention is invoked in some way. This international treaty was drawn-up as a means to hold countries -- and in particular their government and military leaders -- accountable once peace is achieved for actions taken during times of war between them.
In the case of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, we are left with a quandary that needs to be sorted-out before we begin picking-and-choosing how to move forward with the terrorism suspects currently in custody as well as those we can expect will be detained in the future. The problem, though, is there are valid arguments to be made on all three opinions.
Former President George W. Bush’s failing on this issue was he opted for Door #3 as time went on (although to their credit they did quietly pursue new homelands to relocate GiTMO detainees who were deemed to not be a threat) and continued along this path without any apparent plan to formulate a uniform policy beyond that. The key national security players in his administration assumed the American public would unanimously adopt the attitude, “Well, they’re terrorists so just let ‘em sit there indefinitely.”
What they failed to anticipate is Americans would become increasingly uncomfortable with the approach of leaving them incarcerated without due process of some kind -- be it through a civil or military court. While to a certain extent it is petty (not to mention nauseating) to insist some semblance of rights be extended to terrorists in light of 9-11 and the horrors being inflicted upon American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must remember we are a nation founded on principles and ideals of liberty, rights, and justice -- that our system of justice stems from liberty and rights and not the other way around.
Where President Barack Obama is failing on this matter is his administration blindly insists that we showcase the American judicial system for the world to watch and admire. Just as Bush arbitrarily chose to not deal with the legality of the detainment of Mohammed (more popularly referred-to as KSM) and his cohorts, Obama now is missing the point that al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists being held at GiTMO present an unprecedented situation for the America:
-To merely hold them in captivity without any form of due process simply is un-American;
-Foreign terrorists are not American citizens and therefore not guaranteed the same rights we and legal immigrants to this country enjoy;
-They also are not combatants commissioned by a sovereign nation with which we are in conflict.
But, there is an important caveat to that last point: one of the key conclusions of the Congressional 9-11 Commission is that since its formation roughly 20 years ago al Qaeda has been in a state of war with the United States and our Western allies while we relatively ignored them throughout the 1990s.
So, we have a group who are at war with the U.S. but do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention -- yet because they are not American citizens they do not meet the same criteria for prosecution as in the cases of Timothy McVeigh and Jim Nichols.
Muddling the discussion even further is the fact most being held at GiTMO were captured on foreign soil by our military during combat. For most people, that last point seals the deal on the discussion: conduct military tribunals for these individuals and get it over with.
Standing in direct contrast, though (and keeping the argument going in an exhaustingly circular nature), is that we have come to accept the definition of terrorism as being criminal activity. Based on that, we are at the same time obligated to try them in a court of law.
All of these points and counterpoints bring us back to the fact Bush and Obama have gone astray with their respective policies on the matter. Their unifying mistakes are not researching and developing a new yet uniform manner and approach to bringing foreign al Qaeda operatives to justice; and then assuming their Presidential successors will simply follow their footsteps in dealing with them.
A hybrid approach of some kind needs to be established. Bush’s and Obama’s choices each have been the justice system equivalent of trying to ram a square peg through the round hole. But overcoming their blunders and preventing more of the same down the road will -- admittedly -- be a long process that would not just require but demand a completely open debate about how to resolve this issue.
The best and most trusted minds of American law need to be brought together with all views properly represented (meaning allowing neither the likes of Bill Clinton or John Ashcroft to hijack the process).
Whether we conduct military tribunals or continue with the efforts to try KSM in federal court, part of the reasoning is to adhere to the Geneva Convention. But since the Geneva Convention does not adequately address terrorists captured in the battlefield, we are left with the inevitable truth that Geneva needs to be updated under the same mindset to reflect this new reality. When I say “updated,” I mean amended not rewritten.
And, it goes without saying that adding such language to the Geneva Convention would inevitably be a time-consuming endeavor -- requiring delegates from a multitude of nations to agree upon its language. Then we have the time needed here in our country to hash-out a plan around which the people of the United States can unequivocally rally. Most importantly, it must not be a rush-job. To reiterate, to ensure it will be a solid policy the entire process must be public.
Related side notes:
With the trial of al Qaeda operatives -- KSM in particular -- the truly greatest concern is with the risk of compromising national security resulting from potential intelligence leaks during the process of disclosure. In order for the criminal trial to work all evidence must be made available to the defense counsel. I can’t see how this can take place without classified material exchanging hands.
Our nation already has had to deal with an attorney for one terrorist who passed along radical decrees and instructions for his client. What will we have to worry about taking place with this?
I would take time to ponder whether or not the Obama Administration has properly thought all this out. Instead I am going to give in to my bias and simply state the answer to that question is clear and easy to deduce: “No.”
Obama and Holder do not appear to be particularly concerned about protecting sensitive information tied to the capture of those facing trial. This is their Big Show for the world. As the Obama Administration’s approach to foreign policy continually comes under greater and harsher scrutiny, this President wants nothing more than to demonstrate to his critics and the public at large that his way is superior to his predecessor’s (not that it would be that significant of a challenge; but Obama thus far has actually managed to display less acumen for leading this nation on foreign policy than Bush). If it means selling out as much of our intelligence community and their sources in the field as possible, once again it is a sacrifice he is willing to make.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Why does the Left hate Sarah Palin so?
As she returns to the national spotlight with the release of her new book, let us analyze this point: "Why does America's left establishment hate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin so much?"
You got me. I've thrown my main point out there really quick instead of building my way toward it as I usually do. But, this point needs to be driven home in an in-your-face manner.
The answer to the burning question above isn't too surprising when you take an honest look at the situation. The institutional left hates Palin with every fiber of their being because she is living proof a woman can achieve a high level of success in a predominantly male arena without having to compromise her values or guiding principles. And, she has done so as a member of the political party feminists have alleged for decades is responsible for continuing the oppression of women in our society.
Members of the Democratic Party despise the governor because her rise to national prominence has taken away something very precious to them. Since the Sexual Revolution took rise over 40 years ago, Democrats have laid claim to the notion (without saying in so many words) that gender equality is their baby and theirs alone. If you consider yourself to be a feminist to even the slightest extent, Democrats would have you believe they are the only political institution outside of the National Organization for Women that has your back.
By playing up mistrust and resent between the genders, they have worked hard to popularize the idea women who would aspire to reach greatness can only hope to do so if they vote Democrat.
And then along came Sarah Palin, governor of the State of Alaska and candidate for Vice President of the United States of America. There it was in the face of everyone, whether they knew it or not: the game of politics -- especially the role women play in it -- had changed dramatically.
Good luck convincing me that liberals, feminists, and all other Democrats did not rejoice at watching Palin's disastrous first national interviews. And when the news broke that her daughter Bristol had become pregnant at age 17, the moment must have been a nearly orgasmic one in the NBC Universal board room.
Now, during the resultant bashing of Palin's image leading up to the election, N.O.W. was conspicuously absent from the picture. Afterall, wouldn't an organization that claims to promote constitutional equality for women want to have one of their own to be a "heartbeat away from the presidency?"
The situation was quite reminiscent of their silent complicity with Former President Bill Clinton's infidelity during his administration. Undeniably, N.O.W. took a serious hit to their credibility since being unfaithful to one's wife is supposed to be one of the worst slaps to a woman's dignity a man could commit. The next domino fell on N.O.W. when Hillary Clinton announced they were reconciling and then in 2000 she ran for U.S. Senator in New York. Funny how opting not to leave a cheating husband can expedite one's own political aspirations.
Getting back on track (I do love my sidebars, being the right-wing Libertarian elitist I am)... There is a new nut in politics conservatives everywhere are trying to crack: in the months that followed the election and the Obama-Biden ticket won there remained so much focus on Gov. Palin. More than a year after the polls closed, liberal and alleged nonpartisan commentators continue to be relentless.
Virtually every time the dust has settled after a presidential election the losing running mate has faded quickly into obscurity in terms of the national scene. In 2008 and 2009, however, this particular former running mate continues to be thrust into the national public eye on a regular basis. Only once has she found herself there by her own choosing -- after speaking at a Republican event in Indiana.
Perhaps the Left's ire lies in this: in a turn of events that was unexpected for most people who watch political news coverage, Palin has retained a great deal of popularity among Republicans. Significant interest in her political career continues to remain high among conservatives, much to the chagrin of the liberal establishment. Once you finish perusing my blog, take a look at the Bumperstickers section of my MySpace profile. At the bottom of it you will see a Palin 2012 "button."
That is why the Olbermanns, Colberts, Lettermans, Fays, and O'Briens of our nation insist upon their continued chiseling at her public image.
The most newsworthy assault this past summer, however, backfired with interesting and entertaining results. David Letterman's recent flap -- joking about Palin's daughter getting "knocked-up" by New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez -- put her in a position where she was unequivocally compelled to speak out on her own behalf. Although it's not hard to figure out Letterman meant his joke to be about Bristol Palin, his lack of attention to details and fact-checking resulted in him appearing to be assailing the governor's 14-year-old daughter, Willow. That daughter was the one attending the Yankees game with her mother.
And given another opportunity in an NBC exclusive interview, Palin's eyes and the manner in which she spoke were as clear as many of us conservatives believed they ought to have been in 2008. Even as Matt Lauer tried press his point that she could be overreacting, the governor never relented and made her point succinctly.
The problem for the left in that particular situation is this: when someone makes an inappropriate remark about your loved ones, to not speak up and defend their honor would be equally as inappropriate. As a result of Letterman boneheadedly including (unintentionally or not) her underage child in his own campaign of character assassination, the door opened for her to step up and improve her image on her own.
Yet, in coverage of the story by broadcast and print media, Palin is again receiving zero support from women's organizations. If not for extensive digging through N.O.W.'s Web site, www.now.org, and finally finding comments about Letterman in their "Media Hall of Shame" section, it would appear they were completely silent on this matter. Their comments on the story, though, are very brief.
People on the left -- especially those who claim to be gender equality advocates -- should have been just as vocal in their outrage over Letterman's bad joke as their counterparts on the right. It boils down to the risk to their credibility.
A common course of action people take when weighing an idea or issue is taking the sources into consideration before looking at the meat of their arguments. The left knows this perfectly well -- for example, that's why claims of prejudice, radicalism, and corporate-induced bias are frequently directed at Tea Partiers. Instead of challenging the points their opponents raise on a subject, simply question the presenters' credibility. Liberals are fully aware how often this works.
By not either arguing in defense of Gov. Palin in light of such a tasteless joke or more aggressively expressing distaste for the derogatory implications about female teens the joke used, so-called women's rights champions are lending even more legitimacy to the right-wing assertion that such groups are not interested in equal rights but are using that platform to further a specific ideological agenda.
And countering this point with action -- as opposed to outraged denial -- ought to be a priority to groups such as N.O.W. Should the general public accept and embrace the right's argument above about organized feminism, the damage to the credibility of women's groups could be too much for them to overcome. Public scorn for using a cause such as equality (particularly being of such importance to women of all political leanings) as a front for another political agenda would be swift and decisive.
As it stands, plenty of people in America (mainly folks who only follow politics casually -- at best) still perceive those who champion equal rights for women as being focused narrowly on this goal. When that perception changes for enough people, the aforementioned scorn will be enough to motivate more and more legislators and other key political figures to distance themselves from these special interest groups.
Their silence on the Letterman/Palin story, coming on the heels of the conspicuous absence of support for the governor during last year's campaign while critics, commentators, and comedians were unashamedly portraying her as an airhead (a label traditionally directed at women), has established a tangible and specific pattern to which those of us on the right can point and use as a foundation for our arguments.
If women's rights advocates persist in being selectively heroic in their defense of female public figures, the American masses will pick up on it. If this trend with feminists continues, they will only make it easier for political analysts and bloggers to discredit them.
It's one thing when I blog about it or someone infinitely more notable such as Greg Gutfeld, Neal Bortz, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity discusses the subject; but when folks in the grocery stores, health clubs, and coffee shops begin to have this conversation, it'll be a whole new game for the left.
You got me. I've thrown my main point out there really quick instead of building my way toward it as I usually do. But, this point needs to be driven home in an in-your-face manner.
The answer to the burning question above isn't too surprising when you take an honest look at the situation. The institutional left hates Palin with every fiber of their being because she is living proof a woman can achieve a high level of success in a predominantly male arena without having to compromise her values or guiding principles. And, she has done so as a member of the political party feminists have alleged for decades is responsible for continuing the oppression of women in our society.
Members of the Democratic Party despise the governor because her rise to national prominence has taken away something very precious to them. Since the Sexual Revolution took rise over 40 years ago, Democrats have laid claim to the notion (without saying in so many words) that gender equality is their baby and theirs alone. If you consider yourself to be a feminist to even the slightest extent, Democrats would have you believe they are the only political institution outside of the National Organization for Women that has your back.
By playing up mistrust and resent between the genders, they have worked hard to popularize the idea women who would aspire to reach greatness can only hope to do so if they vote Democrat.
And then along came Sarah Palin, governor of the State of Alaska and candidate for Vice President of the United States of America. There it was in the face of everyone, whether they knew it or not: the game of politics -- especially the role women play in it -- had changed dramatically.
Good luck convincing me that liberals, feminists, and all other Democrats did not rejoice at watching Palin's disastrous first national interviews. And when the news broke that her daughter Bristol had become pregnant at age 17, the moment must have been a nearly orgasmic one in the NBC Universal board room.
Now, during the resultant bashing of Palin's image leading up to the election, N.O.W. was conspicuously absent from the picture. Afterall, wouldn't an organization that claims to promote constitutional equality for women want to have one of their own to be a "heartbeat away from the presidency?"
The situation was quite reminiscent of their silent complicity with Former President Bill Clinton's infidelity during his administration. Undeniably, N.O.W. took a serious hit to their credibility since being unfaithful to one's wife is supposed to be one of the worst slaps to a woman's dignity a man could commit. The next domino fell on N.O.W. when Hillary Clinton announced they were reconciling and then in 2000 she ran for U.S. Senator in New York. Funny how opting not to leave a cheating husband can expedite one's own political aspirations.
Getting back on track (I do love my sidebars, being the right-wing Libertarian elitist I am)... There is a new nut in politics conservatives everywhere are trying to crack: in the months that followed the election and the Obama-Biden ticket won there remained so much focus on Gov. Palin. More than a year after the polls closed, liberal and alleged nonpartisan commentators continue to be relentless.
Virtually every time the dust has settled after a presidential election the losing running mate has faded quickly into obscurity in terms of the national scene. In 2008 and 2009, however, this particular former running mate continues to be thrust into the national public eye on a regular basis. Only once has she found herself there by her own choosing -- after speaking at a Republican event in Indiana.
Perhaps the Left's ire lies in this: in a turn of events that was unexpected for most people who watch political news coverage, Palin has retained a great deal of popularity among Republicans. Significant interest in her political career continues to remain high among conservatives, much to the chagrin of the liberal establishment. Once you finish perusing my blog, take a look at the Bumperstickers section of my MySpace profile. At the bottom of it you will see a Palin 2012 "button."
That is why the Olbermanns, Colberts, Lettermans, Fays, and O'Briens of our nation insist upon their continued chiseling at her public image.
The most newsworthy assault this past summer, however, backfired with interesting and entertaining results. David Letterman's recent flap -- joking about Palin's daughter getting "knocked-up" by New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez -- put her in a position where she was unequivocally compelled to speak out on her own behalf. Although it's not hard to figure out Letterman meant his joke to be about Bristol Palin, his lack of attention to details and fact-checking resulted in him appearing to be assailing the governor's 14-year-old daughter, Willow. That daughter was the one attending the Yankees game with her mother.
And given another opportunity in an NBC exclusive interview, Palin's eyes and the manner in which she spoke were as clear as many of us conservatives believed they ought to have been in 2008. Even as Matt Lauer tried press his point that she could be overreacting, the governor never relented and made her point succinctly.
The problem for the left in that particular situation is this: when someone makes an inappropriate remark about your loved ones, to not speak up and defend their honor would be equally as inappropriate. As a result of Letterman boneheadedly including (unintentionally or not) her underage child in his own campaign of character assassination, the door opened for her to step up and improve her image on her own.
Yet, in coverage of the story by broadcast and print media, Palin is again receiving zero support from women's organizations. If not for extensive digging through N.O.W.'s Web site, www.now.org, and finally finding comments about Letterman in their "Media Hall of Shame" section, it would appear they were completely silent on this matter. Their comments on the story, though, are very brief.
People on the left -- especially those who claim to be gender equality advocates -- should have been just as vocal in their outrage over Letterman's bad joke as their counterparts on the right. It boils down to the risk to their credibility.
A common course of action people take when weighing an idea or issue is taking the sources into consideration before looking at the meat of their arguments. The left knows this perfectly well -- for example, that's why claims of prejudice, radicalism, and corporate-induced bias are frequently directed at Tea Partiers. Instead of challenging the points their opponents raise on a subject, simply question the presenters' credibility. Liberals are fully aware how often this works.
By not either arguing in defense of Gov. Palin in light of such a tasteless joke or more aggressively expressing distaste for the derogatory implications about female teens the joke used, so-called women's rights champions are lending even more legitimacy to the right-wing assertion that such groups are not interested in equal rights but are using that platform to further a specific ideological agenda.
And countering this point with action -- as opposed to outraged denial -- ought to be a priority to groups such as N.O.W. Should the general public accept and embrace the right's argument above about organized feminism, the damage to the credibility of women's groups could be too much for them to overcome. Public scorn for using a cause such as equality (particularly being of such importance to women of all political leanings) as a front for another political agenda would be swift and decisive.
As it stands, plenty of people in America (mainly folks who only follow politics casually -- at best) still perceive those who champion equal rights for women as being focused narrowly on this goal. When that perception changes for enough people, the aforementioned scorn will be enough to motivate more and more legislators and other key political figures to distance themselves from these special interest groups.
Their silence on the Letterman/Palin story, coming on the heels of the conspicuous absence of support for the governor during last year's campaign while critics, commentators, and comedians were unashamedly portraying her as an airhead (a label traditionally directed at women), has established a tangible and specific pattern to which those of us on the right can point and use as a foundation for our arguments.
If women's rights advocates persist in being selectively heroic in their defense of female public figures, the American masses will pick up on it. If this trend with feminists continues, they will only make it easier for political analysts and bloggers to discredit them.
It's one thing when I blog about it or someone infinitely more notable such as Greg Gutfeld, Neal Bortz, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity discusses the subject; but when folks in the grocery stores, health clubs, and coffee shops begin to have this conversation, it'll be a whole new game for the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
