... I would say. No, I disagree entirely on whom Cronkite was & was not the "father" of in this medium. And this after making myself watch a 2 hour program on Cronkite's most memorable years & moments, narrated by none other then Cronkite himself.
In my opinion the "father" of those such as Limbaugh & Hannitty (a clear attempt to allow me to find some reasonable middle ground on Cronkite's legacy) would be the likes of McLaughlin and Buchanan. Their argumentative, fast paced politically heavy editorial programs were, if anyone was, the precursors to conservative A.M. talk. And even then that's a tough stretch, for even if you loathe Limbaugh it was HE that pioneered a national political talk radio program. They simply did not exist prior to his success because talk radio dogma dictated "local, local, local", not to mention the "fairness" doctrine's implementation until the Reagan FCC reversed that position.
And more importantly be it Limbaugh, McLaughlin, Hannity et al, NONE of them ever purported to "report" the news or offer "unbiased" commentary. They have always maintained their equivalency to the editorial page, in other words there was no deception in the discussion, whereas Cronkite's entire presentation and long career was promoted as "down the middle" coverage, trustworthy reporting, just pick your favorite adjective. And in that 2 hours he even noted that he was quite worried at the time for adding his editorial at the end of that infamous broadcast your mother remembers. And his momentary worry further bothers me because it presumes that instance, and that instance alone, was his only example of bias.
And there we return to it - when did it become the industry STANDARD to insert an opinion into news reporting agencies that purport to be "straight news?" My contention remains that this occured during the Vietnam War era, with Cronkite as its biggest offender. NOT because he was the most biased or the only one, but because he was THE voice of the American news experience, the heir to Murrow, the most famous and watched reporter in perhaps the world. And once he allowed his feelings to be inserted into his news broadcasts he made that action permissible, indeed the standard, for all mainstream press to come ... and because of that we are all a little less informed.
Now let me opine briefly upon one other subject that stuck in my rather buff craw during that 2 hour tour through his career. He noted that more than any other action he received hate mail on broadcasting unfiltered images of the War, i.e. dead US soldiers, fire bombing, that infamous footage of an 18 year old Marine setting the thatch roof of a village's family home on fire with his Zippo, and so on. His commentary on that decision (and once CBS did it ala Cronkite every other agency felt they had the green light), was, "I don't regret it for one second. After all, if we are going to ask our young men to go to war, do we not owe it to them to witness the horrors for which we have committed them. They are after all representing us around the world, and if they misbehave, well ... we need to know that too."
Excuse me? Actually NO, we DO NOT need to broadcast the horrors of war for all to witness. In fact we send those young men into harms way so that the women, children & the elderly back home DO NOT have to witness those horrors reaching their own backyard. I can't fathom the devastating impact it would have had on the maturing of this nation into a world superpower were the horrors of Gettysburg, Antietam, Monte Cassino, Bastogne, North Africa, and on and on and on were broadcast in living color direct to the homes where each of these boys and their neighbors lived (albeit the Civil War brought that reality into many a home without the aide of TV). This also presumes that prior to "the Cronkites" & the advent of the television set that Americans in the 200 years prior NEVER properly shared in the horrors of her many wars. I'd say that every mother, father, son, daughter, brother and sister that had that military car pull up in front of their house, the flag presented or letter sent, "shared" and bore witness to the horrors of war. It is madness to insist that "seeing" the horror is necessary for a waring nation to properly judge the worth of the conflict. In fact perhaps even the opposite is true. And in that vein I certainly blame the White House & the DoD for dropping the previously strict rules of media access into theaters of operation. During a time that the television anchor & the broadcast news program was coming into its own, competing for ratings like any other show, surely it was inevitable that visceral images would eventually reach the nightly broadcast if access of the media was to be unlimited.
And let me close with this ... Cronkite, in this special (that had to be filmed in the 1990's I'm guessing), was rather amused about his various titles of "TV's best dressed", fans seeking autographs, being on celebrity magazines & in gossip columns, etc. And it occurred to me that he is also the father of the modern premadonna anchor, the "rock star" journalist ... and that evolution has been such a valuable informational tool for us all as well, hasn't it?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
On Cronkite...
Ryan's comments on Cronkite aren't without merit, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with him... at least not 100%, anyway.
I can't deny that it was Cronkite's comments on the war being "lost" that is now remembered as the end of popular support for the effort in Vietnam... even my mother has used his words in explananing why she couldn't support the effort anymore, and as recently as just a few years ago.
However, were I to attribute Cronkite as the father of modern media bias, I would also have to give him the nod for leading the way in what today we take for granted as a cornerstone in today's political understanding... the radio/TV commentator giving opinion and analysis.
I understand Ryan's frustration at the failure of our media industry to promote and maintain the examples set by such journalistic giants as Edward R. Murrow (who was every bit as popular as Cronkite... just not as long-lived)... but Cronkite's contributions shouldn't only be measured in the negative aspect of today's media industry. Especially if one thinks of him as a pioneer in the commentary-analysis of news and politics after his retirement from primeime news anchor... he then is the forefather of Limbaugh, Hannity, and all the rest.
I can't deny that it was Cronkite's comments on the war being "lost" that is now remembered as the end of popular support for the effort in Vietnam... even my mother has used his words in explananing why she couldn't support the effort anymore, and as recently as just a few years ago.
However, were I to attribute Cronkite as the father of modern media bias, I would also have to give him the nod for leading the way in what today we take for granted as a cornerstone in today's political understanding... the radio/TV commentator giving opinion and analysis.
I understand Ryan's frustration at the failure of our media industry to promote and maintain the examples set by such journalistic giants as Edward R. Murrow (who was every bit as popular as Cronkite... just not as long-lived)... but Cronkite's contributions shouldn't only be measured in the negative aspect of today's media industry. Especially if one thinks of him as a pioneer in the commentary-analysis of news and politics after his retirement from primeime news anchor... he then is the forefather of Limbaugh, Hannity, and all the rest.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Godfather of liberal media bias.
Let me say upfront that I was raised to admire the entire concept of the "Southern gentleman" - ready at an instance notice to pull out both a chair for a lady, and a weapon to defend my property ... you know the type. And as such I find it in poor taste to speak ill of the dead, with the reasonable exception of those whom are clearly "evil" - Hitler, Stalin, et al. And while I am not prepared to break that societal rule of thumb, I'm certainly about to bend it.
I am quite tired of those demanding I celebrate as "special", bordering on the immortal, peoples whom are the "first" at what they do. As an American, and avid news consumer, I was treated to non stop coverage of Michael Jackson upon his passing. He was "the first" to break all race barriers and touch every creed and color with his talent. He was the first black to have a #1 song X amount of weeks in a row, the first hit MTV video with Thriller, and so on. And even before that I was lectured nearly nightly in the news media that a lowly Illinois state Senator, of whom I had never heard, was the end all, save all for the preservation of the American dream. And he was so based solely on being "the first" black presidential candidate. Everything he does is the "first" this, the first that. And it continues with his choice for the highest court in our land, the "first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice." Now be it Micheal Jackson, or Barak Obama, or Sonia Sotomayor, I have no quarrel with my neighbor all the way down to my news broadcaster (and yes "all the way down" versus "up" was on purpose) pointing out that Mister or Misses "X" is the "first" to accomplish A, B or C. What DOES bother me tremendously is that I am ALSO told, as I bare witness to its practice all around me, that I am to have confidence in, believe in, assume the unquestionable ability of each of these people whom are the "first" simply BECAUSE they are the first. I ask you, does anyone contend that Jackie Robinson was the finest ball player in the history of sport simply because he was the first black man in pro baseball? See in sports, unlike politics, the judiciary, entertainers, news broadcasters, etc, you can't fudge being the "best." Your stats either put you in that category or they do not. And that leads me to the postmortem coverage of Mr. Walter Cronkite ...
I am inundated on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and on and on (I give CBS a pass for such coverage for obvious reasons), with the FACT, not guesswork, not opinion, not editorializing, but FACT that Walter Cronkite was the godfather of legitimate journalism, the most trusted man in America, the pinnacle of his profession. Godlike status has been imposed upon him, as if the entire American experience from the Boston Tea Party to the moon landing was all somehow existentially narrated by Cronkite, reminiscent of a Morgan Freeman documentary. And ALL because he was the first network television news anchor (a new innovation at his time) of any note.
So I ask, really? He was really that magnificent ay? To be near him was to be blinded by the awe inspiring omnipotent glory of his eternal rays of trail blazing sun huh?
Ok.
Here's another take.
He made legitimate the insertion of personal biases into mainstream journalism for all time and memorial, polluting the pool of all future TV anchors the nation over, introducing a journalistic stain no home remedy solution could ever remove. HE set the first, the best, most clear example of bias posing as reporting on television in the history of the invention. How's that?
Now I have no quarrel with his emotional reporting of the Kennedy assassination, nor his cheer leading the space program; but in what defined his career, Vietnam, he is responsible more than any other single individual for causing the tide of opinion in America to turn against the Vietnam War. Even today it would be considered breathtaking bias for a network anchor to flatly announce: "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of [insert conflict] is to end in a stalemate. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could...", which is how he (in)famously described the Vietnam War. In addition his reporting of the Tet Offensive stands as the beaming light, the Mecca of journalistic bias and misreporting that all anchors whom followed would go on a pilgrimage to worship at. "Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw." YES, the offensive caught the average American watching at home (and even our forces) off guard, but that precise instance is when we need straight reporting of the facts - to set misperceptions straight. Either he did know that it ended up a catastrophic loss (in both KIA numbers and territory gained) for the NVC and chose not to report it, or he didn't even bother to uncover what was blatantly obvious to Sr. US Military personnel by the Offensive's end, of whom he undoubtedly had preferential access to - either way what was arguably one of the biggest stories of his career (along with JFK & the Moon landing), one in which thousands of lives hung in the balance, he got it wrong, and it was due to a personal bias. He went on to describe Carter as the "smartest" man to ever hold the office of President. In retirement railed against Reagan's nuclear ambitions, Grenada, and Libya, knowing those comments would affect the coverage of his successors. And yet I was told non stop for 3 days that he is "THE" example of what a journalist should be. That HE is the beacon of integrity Columbia J' school freshman should seek to emulate. That HIS version of journalism is to be extolled as the untouchable example of trustworthiness.
I beg to differ.
See in the real world, where we don't look to celebrities for an example of heroism, where political correctness is not substituted for plain truth and common sense, we feel the following: Judge Sotomayor is a blatant racist. Our President is a civic novice hooked on a Pollyannic ideology so far out of his league that he is half laughable, half dangerous. Micheal Jackson's pants were more than likely always so short because they weren't his. And Walter Cronkite legitimized journalistic bias, enabling all of his professional offspring from Rather to Brokaw to wreak havoc across the network landscape, forever scrubbing the word "reporter" from their profession.
And THAT'S the way it is America . . . goodnight.
I am quite tired of those demanding I celebrate as "special", bordering on the immortal, peoples whom are the "first" at what they do. As an American, and avid news consumer, I was treated to non stop coverage of Michael Jackson upon his passing. He was "the first" to break all race barriers and touch every creed and color with his talent. He was the first black to have a #1 song X amount of weeks in a row, the first hit MTV video with Thriller, and so on. And even before that I was lectured nearly nightly in the news media that a lowly Illinois state Senator, of whom I had never heard, was the end all, save all for the preservation of the American dream. And he was so based solely on being "the first" black presidential candidate. Everything he does is the "first" this, the first that. And it continues with his choice for the highest court in our land, the "first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice." Now be it Micheal Jackson, or Barak Obama, or Sonia Sotomayor, I have no quarrel with my neighbor all the way down to my news broadcaster (and yes "all the way down" versus "up" was on purpose) pointing out that Mister or Misses "X" is the "first" to accomplish A, B or C. What DOES bother me tremendously is that I am ALSO told, as I bare witness to its practice all around me, that I am to have confidence in, believe in, assume the unquestionable ability of each of these people whom are the "first" simply BECAUSE they are the first. I ask you, does anyone contend that Jackie Robinson was the finest ball player in the history of sport simply because he was the first black man in pro baseball? See in sports, unlike politics, the judiciary, entertainers, news broadcasters, etc, you can't fudge being the "best." Your stats either put you in that category or they do not. And that leads me to the postmortem coverage of Mr. Walter Cronkite ...
I am inundated on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, and on and on (I give CBS a pass for such coverage for obvious reasons), with the FACT, not guesswork, not opinion, not editorializing, but FACT that Walter Cronkite was the godfather of legitimate journalism, the most trusted man in America, the pinnacle of his profession. Godlike status has been imposed upon him, as if the entire American experience from the Boston Tea Party to the moon landing was all somehow existentially narrated by Cronkite, reminiscent of a Morgan Freeman documentary. And ALL because he was the first network television news anchor (a new innovation at his time) of any note.
So I ask, really? He was really that magnificent ay? To be near him was to be blinded by the awe inspiring omnipotent glory of his eternal rays of trail blazing sun huh?
Ok.
Here's another take.
He made legitimate the insertion of personal biases into mainstream journalism for all time and memorial, polluting the pool of all future TV anchors the nation over, introducing a journalistic stain no home remedy solution could ever remove. HE set the first, the best, most clear example of bias posing as reporting on television in the history of the invention. How's that?
Now I have no quarrel with his emotional reporting of the Kennedy assassination, nor his cheer leading the space program; but in what defined his career, Vietnam, he is responsible more than any other single individual for causing the tide of opinion in America to turn against the Vietnam War. Even today it would be considered breathtaking bias for a network anchor to flatly announce: "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of [insert conflict] is to end in a stalemate. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could...", which is how he (in)famously described the Vietnam War. In addition his reporting of the Tet Offensive stands as the beaming light, the Mecca of journalistic bias and misreporting that all anchors whom followed would go on a pilgrimage to worship at. "Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw." YES, the offensive caught the average American watching at home (and even our forces) off guard, but that precise instance is when we need straight reporting of the facts - to set misperceptions straight. Either he did know that it ended up a catastrophic loss (in both KIA numbers and territory gained) for the NVC and chose not to report it, or he didn't even bother to uncover what was blatantly obvious to Sr. US Military personnel by the Offensive's end, of whom he undoubtedly had preferential access to - either way what was arguably one of the biggest stories of his career (along with JFK & the Moon landing), one in which thousands of lives hung in the balance, he got it wrong, and it was due to a personal bias. He went on to describe Carter as the "smartest" man to ever hold the office of President. In retirement railed against Reagan's nuclear ambitions, Grenada, and Libya, knowing those comments would affect the coverage of his successors. And yet I was told non stop for 3 days that he is "THE" example of what a journalist should be. That HE is the beacon of integrity Columbia J' school freshman should seek to emulate. That HIS version of journalism is to be extolled as the untouchable example of trustworthiness.
I beg to differ.
See in the real world, where we don't look to celebrities for an example of heroism, where political correctness is not substituted for plain truth and common sense, we feel the following: Judge Sotomayor is a blatant racist. Our President is a civic novice hooked on a Pollyannic ideology so far out of his league that he is half laughable, half dangerous. Micheal Jackson's pants were more than likely always so short because they weren't his. And Walter Cronkite legitimized journalistic bias, enabling all of his professional offspring from Rather to Brokaw to wreak havoc across the network landscape, forever scrubbing the word "reporter" from their profession.
And THAT'S the way it is America . . . goodnight.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
I'll try not to jump off the Stratosphere.
Well, have a great vacation, I'm sure it's much earned.
Yes, I am becoming convinced that the common sense inherent in the DNA of America (which apparently took a vacation itself last November) will shine through & push back against such things as cap & trade, socialized medicine, etc. My worry however is when? Before or after such things pass? You see, if the GOP recreates a 1994 "revolution", & a true conservative (as the Bund defines it) recaptures the White House, I am confident that this reckless barrage of unprecedented spending, programs & government interventionism can be rolled back, be it the bailouts, cap and trade and so on. However, if health care passes, public health care, especially the House version, I fear that although its failings may reward the GOP with electoral victory, that it will NEVER be repealed. It will become as untouchable as Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare.
The Heritage Foundation has estimated that in upwards of 113 million Americans will either voluntarily or involuntarily be compelled to sign up within the first 5 years (again, this is the House version, the only completed package to pass). And Investors Business Daily has uncovered that on page 16 current private policies are "grandfathered in", but in practice writing new private policies would become "illegal." This, in my opinion, is why Obama has oft repeated, "If you like your current health care, you can keep it." That is a much more narrow promise when seen in light of the "page 16 discovery."
This means that it's possible that an exceedingly large amount of those middle class, mainstream, common sense Americans we are depending on to defeat the Democrat Party & their policies will be dependent upon the continued sustaining of public health care. And every election cycle the opposition will hammer Republicans as a Party "wanting your kids to die of disease!"
The only remedy here, in my estimation, is for the GOP (while proposing their own "reforms") to make even the attempt to pass socialized medicine very costly for Democrats. I see shades of this occurring already as one "blue dog" Democrat after another discloses concern over the House bill. So yes Titus, they must propose their own reform, but they must also continue to dramatically point out just how sophomoric & unsustainable the economic policies being espoused by the White House are. The Gingrich model of doing both is a very apt historical lesson here. In fact, "Hillary-Care" and fiscal irresponsibility were both primary ignitors in that "revolution", and here we are again, the same issues. And like then the Democrats have left themselves ripe for a repeat of history, primed for a good shellacking ... so the only question is, whom will step up among the GOP, offering both stinging criticisms & private sector alternatives, & be the Gingrich of the 2010 congressional revolution?
Yes, I am becoming convinced that the common sense inherent in the DNA of America (which apparently took a vacation itself last November) will shine through & push back against such things as cap & trade, socialized medicine, etc. My worry however is when? Before or after such things pass? You see, if the GOP recreates a 1994 "revolution", & a true conservative (as the Bund defines it) recaptures the White House, I am confident that this reckless barrage of unprecedented spending, programs & government interventionism can be rolled back, be it the bailouts, cap and trade and so on. However, if health care passes, public health care, especially the House version, I fear that although its failings may reward the GOP with electoral victory, that it will NEVER be repealed. It will become as untouchable as Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare.
The Heritage Foundation has estimated that in upwards of 113 million Americans will either voluntarily or involuntarily be compelled to sign up within the first 5 years (again, this is the House version, the only completed package to pass). And Investors Business Daily has uncovered that on page 16 current private policies are "grandfathered in", but in practice writing new private policies would become "illegal." This, in my opinion, is why Obama has oft repeated, "If you like your current health care, you can keep it." That is a much more narrow promise when seen in light of the "page 16 discovery."
This means that it's possible that an exceedingly large amount of those middle class, mainstream, common sense Americans we are depending on to defeat the Democrat Party & their policies will be dependent upon the continued sustaining of public health care. And every election cycle the opposition will hammer Republicans as a Party "wanting your kids to die of disease!"
The only remedy here, in my estimation, is for the GOP (while proposing their own "reforms") to make even the attempt to pass socialized medicine very costly for Democrats. I see shades of this occurring already as one "blue dog" Democrat after another discloses concern over the House bill. So yes Titus, they must propose their own reform, but they must also continue to dramatically point out just how sophomoric & unsustainable the economic policies being espoused by the White House are. The Gingrich model of doing both is a very apt historical lesson here. In fact, "Hillary-Care" and fiscal irresponsibility were both primary ignitors in that "revolution", and here we are again, the same issues. And like then the Democrats have left themselves ripe for a repeat of history, primed for a good shellacking ... so the only question is, whom will step up among the GOP, offering both stinging criticisms & private sector alternatives, & be the Gingrich of the 2010 congressional revolution?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
My vacation
That's right, sports fans... tonight is my last scheduled night at work until July 28th... thank God!
Then, it's off to the Jersey Shore for a week in a house on the beach with Mick the Lib and his family. I'm really looking forward to this much time off... it's been too long.
I'll take the laptop with me, but I can't promise that Internet access will be plentiful, so my check-ins will be sporadic if this part of the shore isn't wifi-ready.
I'd love to be able to rant alongside our Ryan... his texts and emails are beginning to make me think he needs to be on a 24-hour suicide watch with each Obama speech he hears... but it is simply too depressing to always rant about the failings and mistakes we are watching unfold.
My advice to Ryan (who already has a mountain of drama in his life, and doesn't really need to look for more from the liberals out there in political America) is to trust that moderate, mainstream America will come to its senses very soon and work to correct the mistakes being made now.
We have catalogued the mistakes we all feel the GOP and the conservative movement have made over the last 20 years, and almost all of them are failings to inform America about what WILL work to fix the problems, and why these fixes haven't been implemented in the past. That is what the "silent revolution" did in '94... and we haven't seen it since, not in fifteen years of history. It's time to get back into the saddle... and some are... so that the SOLUTIONS to America's problems are the focus, rather than the FAILINGS of the Obama Administration.
If we only focus on the failings, then a perceived success makes "us" look like idiots, and any lame-o with a drop of skill can spin that in favor of the liberals. Sun Tzu called it reacting to the enemy, as opposed to making him react to you. In politics, the best offense is NEVER a good defense... because perception is 99% of the game.
We've all disussed our favorite pundits... and the list is large and varied... but I have to say that Dr. Bill Bennett is one of my favorites, and one of the most successful on my satellite radio. He presents his "solutions" and opinions in a positive manner that can be contrasted to the Administration's efforts in clear and measurable ways. Hannity, Wilkow, Beck, et al typically rant against the policies and actions of the President that can, very easily, be seen as whining, complaining and bitching... just as Obhermann did prior to the election. Both Bennett and Church (a less positive and slightly more juvenile presentation of conservative politics) use a VERY detailed historical perspective to advocate their views... which I think is the SUREST way to success and understanding.
Conservatism NEEDS proof of its validity in today's world, and discussion and debate are the best means to achieve this. THAT is why our site is as good as it is... and more people need to understand that.
When are people going to get this?
Then, it's off to the Jersey Shore for a week in a house on the beach with Mick the Lib and his family. I'm really looking forward to this much time off... it's been too long.
I'll take the laptop with me, but I can't promise that Internet access will be plentiful, so my check-ins will be sporadic if this part of the shore isn't wifi-ready.
I'd love to be able to rant alongside our Ryan... his texts and emails are beginning to make me think he needs to be on a 24-hour suicide watch with each Obama speech he hears... but it is simply too depressing to always rant about the failings and mistakes we are watching unfold.
My advice to Ryan (who already has a mountain of drama in his life, and doesn't really need to look for more from the liberals out there in political America) is to trust that moderate, mainstream America will come to its senses very soon and work to correct the mistakes being made now.
We have catalogued the mistakes we all feel the GOP and the conservative movement have made over the last 20 years, and almost all of them are failings to inform America about what WILL work to fix the problems, and why these fixes haven't been implemented in the past. That is what the "silent revolution" did in '94... and we haven't seen it since, not in fifteen years of history. It's time to get back into the saddle... and some are... so that the SOLUTIONS to America's problems are the focus, rather than the FAILINGS of the Obama Administration.
If we only focus on the failings, then a perceived success makes "us" look like idiots, and any lame-o with a drop of skill can spin that in favor of the liberals. Sun Tzu called it reacting to the enemy, as opposed to making him react to you. In politics, the best offense is NEVER a good defense... because perception is 99% of the game.
We've all disussed our favorite pundits... and the list is large and varied... but I have to say that Dr. Bill Bennett is one of my favorites, and one of the most successful on my satellite radio. He presents his "solutions" and opinions in a positive manner that can be contrasted to the Administration's efforts in clear and measurable ways. Hannity, Wilkow, Beck, et al typically rant against the policies and actions of the President that can, very easily, be seen as whining, complaining and bitching... just as Obhermann did prior to the election. Both Bennett and Church (a less positive and slightly more juvenile presentation of conservative politics) use a VERY detailed historical perspective to advocate their views... which I think is the SUREST way to success and understanding.
Conservatism NEEDS proof of its validity in today's world, and discussion and debate are the best means to achieve this. THAT is why our site is as good as it is... and more people need to understand that.
When are people going to get this?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Gut Instincts
Whether or not you know the name Scott Rasmussen, you've undoubtedly heard of the "Rasmussen Poll." He is non partisan, appearing as a guest on shows ranging from Oberhmann to Limbaugh. He does a myriad of polling, highly respected etc, etc.
Well, today I listened to him describe what my gut (read: brains guided by experience) led me to describe over a year & a half ago, if not longer, on this very site.
He noted that the most consistent polling numbers in the US break down along "self identification." Out of 4 possible: conservative or Republican & Democrat or liberal, he noted a clear & consistent majority (by plurality) of Americans are self identified "conservatives." Just over 40%. But more interesting in terms of electoral victory, when each side is given either their Party or their ideology as a choice that best describes them, on the "right" more individuals describe themselves as conservative rather then Republican, and its been that way, he says, for decades. But the converse is true on the left - more describe themselves as "Democrat" then do "liberal." Which means, he went on, that the GOP MUST appeal to conservatives while Democrats MUST appeal to moderates, in order to win. And if you think about the language Barak used - "tax cuts" (however targeted and flimsy), using the word "investment" rather than "spending", etc etc, he was clearly attempting to down play his own radical ideology, in favor of more moderate tones, i.e. he was doing exactly what he needed to do to garner the maximum amount of votes. Whereas McCain did exactly the wrong thing - attempting to play down a conservative ideology & play up his "moderate", big tent approach.
This is exactly the problem as was identified here - a Republican CAN NOT win being a "mushy moderate", a "them light." And according to Rasmussen a Democrat can not win being an open liberal. Now we know here that liberal is exactly what Obama was as a candidate, but to the occasional observer his rhetoric sounded rather reasonable - an easy goal to accomplish if you speak almost exclusively in platitudes.
Bottom line: this is a center-right nation. The GOP can not regain momentum less they REembrace their conservative roots, the numbers bare that out plainly. Yet what is the advice coming from the likes of Colin Powell? John McCain? Lindsey ("amnesty") Graham? To be more moderate, appeal more to the just left of center when it comes to spending, illegals, guns, judges, you name it.
The GOP would do well to listen less to those men & more to the F.Ryan's & the Rush Limbaugh's ... that is, if they want to cease being a Party of "also ran."
Well, today I listened to him describe what my gut (read: brains guided by experience) led me to describe over a year & a half ago, if not longer, on this very site.
He noted that the most consistent polling numbers in the US break down along "self identification." Out of 4 possible: conservative or Republican & Democrat or liberal, he noted a clear & consistent majority (by plurality) of Americans are self identified "conservatives." Just over 40%. But more interesting in terms of electoral victory, when each side is given either their Party or their ideology as a choice that best describes them, on the "right" more individuals describe themselves as conservative rather then Republican, and its been that way, he says, for decades. But the converse is true on the left - more describe themselves as "Democrat" then do "liberal." Which means, he went on, that the GOP MUST appeal to conservatives while Democrats MUST appeal to moderates, in order to win. And if you think about the language Barak used - "tax cuts" (however targeted and flimsy), using the word "investment" rather than "spending", etc etc, he was clearly attempting to down play his own radical ideology, in favor of more moderate tones, i.e. he was doing exactly what he needed to do to garner the maximum amount of votes. Whereas McCain did exactly the wrong thing - attempting to play down a conservative ideology & play up his "moderate", big tent approach.
This is exactly the problem as was identified here - a Republican CAN NOT win being a "mushy moderate", a "them light." And according to Rasmussen a Democrat can not win being an open liberal. Now we know here that liberal is exactly what Obama was as a candidate, but to the occasional observer his rhetoric sounded rather reasonable - an easy goal to accomplish if you speak almost exclusively in platitudes.
Bottom line: this is a center-right nation. The GOP can not regain momentum less they REembrace their conservative roots, the numbers bare that out plainly. Yet what is the advice coming from the likes of Colin Powell? John McCain? Lindsey ("amnesty") Graham? To be more moderate, appeal more to the just left of center when it comes to spending, illegals, guns, judges, you name it.
The GOP would do well to listen less to those men & more to the F.Ryan's & the Rush Limbaugh's ... that is, if they want to cease being a Party of "also ran."
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
"For when the people are fit for a master ...
... it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes."
The 33rd Czar now. The only question at this point is how long before we start with the official commissioning of Faberge eggs? This promises to be the most intrusive Czar of all, a "Health Insurance Choices" Czar. Uh huh ... I see. One thing is certain. Whenever a bureaucratic title is presented to the public, that public would do well to assume the inverse is true ... "employee free choice act" etc. Why we, as the shining example of the most effective form of democracy the world has ever known, would employ such a phrase as "Czar", which translates quite literally as "emperor", is beyond me. I assume it is just foreign enough not to raise the eyre the term "king" would with the voting public, but those voters should be aware that in practice there is very little to discern the two ... but I digress.
****
Sarah Palin ... I don't know. And if I don't know, how could a fence sitting voter? It occurs to me that all the media speculation on this move is too clever by half. I am no longer of the opinion that this is a political strategy. I first considered that going around on the speech circuit, writing a book, doing fundraisers for GOP candidates given her rock star status might be an understandable approach (it seemed to work for the Jr. senator from Illinois). And perhaps that is her plan, and perhaps she thought it a betrayal of her oath to attempt all that as governor. But if that's true, isn't that just the same old "politics as usual" of putting yourself before your duties? I happen to think this is much more personal. She got a taste of what national politics is like, especially for an attractive conservative female - i.e. ruthless, and she simply no longer wants to participate as a candidate. I know for Washington insiders NO ONE willingly gives up power or status, but I think she has done exactly that. And if I'm right that makes Titus's observation fair - that if she can't take the "heat" as governor how could she as president? But let me add to that observation. If my hypothesis is accurate our political system has become so visceral, so 24 hour guns blazing that a down to earth, honest, capable person, whom rose to success by the grace of her own talent, has been driven from public service. If that is to become the standard, we all lose.
****
Yes, yes, I am guilty of the much talked about "barrage of texts." At least Jambo has the occasional good manners to return them (ahem). The reason for them is quite simple. I sit there, typically alone as my (for the moment) other half has little to no interest in such things, and I listen to the most preposterous rendition of American history from none other then the President of the United States himself and I instantly text not in fear that the other Bund members may have missed that news cycle or speech but rather due to the overwhelming urge I have to confirm that I am not the only sane man on earth.
Our Commander-in-Chief has the unyielding ability to make my jaw drop at light speed. I am sincerely convinced that he can give no speech, no answer, no talk, no presentation on American exceptionalism without hearing the revisionist diatribe that was pumped into the air at any one of the various Jeremiah Wright sermons echoing in his ears. Truly I am of the opinion that he feels to extol the virtues of America is telling only half of the story and to do so would be to betray both his friends and mentors, as well as those that have ever suffered an injustice at the hands of the American experiment in self governance.
Now one may say, and accurately so, that there is in fact another side of the story - slavery, treatment of American Indians, Jim Crow, woman's suffrage, etc. And you'd be right. And being "historically aware" or informed on all aspects of American history is something I advocate. But the question is - is it the proper role of the President of the United States to continually go around our nation and to others reminding everyone whom will listen of those American inadequacies? Does that unite? Heal? Help? As a proud American I get the distinct impression of being scolded for that pride every time the president opens his mouth.
Let us put it another way. There was perhaps no more ruthless, oppressive, murderous regime in all of human history then that of Joseph Stalin's. But would it serve to further the cause of the Russian Federation if Vladimir Putin or Medvedev scurried around the world apologizing for the murders in the woods outside of Kiev? The work camps in the East? The political repression that existed from the Moscowvite Kings all the way down to Gorbachev? To know & acknowledge such things in historical settings is indeed a worthy endeavour, but the very thought of a Russian head of state doing so in a speech on foreign soil (let alone his own) is laughable on the face of it. Consider this excerpt: "Make no mistake this change [ending the Cold War] did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful." Not only is this breathtaking revisionism, but he can't even bring himself to mention BY NAME his own nation, despite our center role as a driving force. Mr. Obama further noted to the gathered Russians, "And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another. Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over." (Source: remarks, as prepared)
Really? To Russia you want to say this? And referring to America's past as that of empire? Why do I get the distinct impression that while Putin is playing chess our leader sees the world as checkers?
His entire focus when communicating domestically or to the world abroad is that America's day of reckoning has come. That all the patriotism, extolling of our great virtues, heoric efforts and singularly exceptional Constitution, that all of that will now be put into "context" as he first names, then corrects her many injustices. Reparations will now be made. Whether it be free health care, cap & trade, or a litany of other wealth draining devices he is determined to see America "pay" for her sins, for her great wealth, for her great power. In such a mindset life is a zero sum game. We could not of become so wealthy a nation but by taking it from others. Our wealthy citizens could not have become so, but on the backs of others. In this world the history of America is less one of unimaginable achievement and sacrifice, but rather one of unending hypocrisy promising liberty, equality & a fair shake on the one hand, while with the other is oppressing her people, robbing the world, and raping the environment.
D-Day holds a special significance to the course of world history, but if I may make it more personal, a special significance to the members Bund. We all fancy ourselves quasi WWII aficionados, or at least more than familiar with that epic struggle. That being noted consider the fact that our President, on the hallowed ground of Normandy, made a it a point to state that while our boys (and I paraphrase) in France scaled the cliffs to defend freedom, at home some of those same minority soldiers couldn't eat at the same counter as whites. Yes, they poured out of those Higgins boats into a hell of fire, BUT ... Yes, the boys from Pennsylvania ran up those rolling fields at Gettysburg, BUT ... Yes, the framers may have been genius in their unique inception at Philladelphia, BUT ...
This seems to be a theme on his outlook of America. He actually made the point in that Russia speech to note that while the founders penned a great document, at that time he wasn't even "considered a whole person." He walks around with this giant chip on his shoulder about the very nation that elected him to the highest office in our land. And to be honest I think THAT is what this is all about. Every social program, every intrusion of the public sector, every new power proclaimed by the government, every exclamation of the intrinsic worth of the collective over the individual is part of a mindset. Yes, it is socialist, yes influenced by leftist ideology of his past and present mentors, but that is merely the vehicle. In my opinion he alone sees himself as the one whom will finally, finally cause America to live up to what she espouses. Finally deliver on her promise of freedom and justice for all. True liberty, you see, is freedom from want; from need; from lack of healthcare. Free from war no matter how just; freedom from class. Freedom from responsibility, from choice. He has a version of freedom that he believes is the true promise of America, and he intends to deliver upon it.
"We've tried it their way." I can not get that phrase, that sentence of Barak Obama's out of my mind. For this is not to mean Bush or the GOP. He means Franklin. Washington. Jefferson. Adams. And every other signatory to our Constitution, nay the Constitution itself.
I listen, and I hear a man that isn't very impressed with his nation. Doesn't quite see the singularity of its existence. Finds that the pride of her history is only properly served when accompanied with a heaping side dish of shame.
"The happy union of these states is a wonder; their Constitution, a miracle; their example the hope of liberty throughout the world. Woe to the ambition that would mediate the destruction of either." -James Madison
So ask yourself . . . what is Barak H. Obama's ambition?
The 33rd Czar now. The only question at this point is how long before we start with the official commissioning of Faberge eggs? This promises to be the most intrusive Czar of all, a "Health Insurance Choices" Czar. Uh huh ... I see. One thing is certain. Whenever a bureaucratic title is presented to the public, that public would do well to assume the inverse is true ... "employee free choice act" etc. Why we, as the shining example of the most effective form of democracy the world has ever known, would employ such a phrase as "Czar", which translates quite literally as "emperor", is beyond me. I assume it is just foreign enough not to raise the eyre the term "king" would with the voting public, but those voters should be aware that in practice there is very little to discern the two ... but I digress.
****
Sarah Palin ... I don't know. And if I don't know, how could a fence sitting voter? It occurs to me that all the media speculation on this move is too clever by half. I am no longer of the opinion that this is a political strategy. I first considered that going around on the speech circuit, writing a book, doing fundraisers for GOP candidates given her rock star status might be an understandable approach (it seemed to work for the Jr. senator from Illinois). And perhaps that is her plan, and perhaps she thought it a betrayal of her oath to attempt all that as governor. But if that's true, isn't that just the same old "politics as usual" of putting yourself before your duties? I happen to think this is much more personal. She got a taste of what national politics is like, especially for an attractive conservative female - i.e. ruthless, and she simply no longer wants to participate as a candidate. I know for Washington insiders NO ONE willingly gives up power or status, but I think she has done exactly that. And if I'm right that makes Titus's observation fair - that if she can't take the "heat" as governor how could she as president? But let me add to that observation. If my hypothesis is accurate our political system has become so visceral, so 24 hour guns blazing that a down to earth, honest, capable person, whom rose to success by the grace of her own talent, has been driven from public service. If that is to become the standard, we all lose.
****
Yes, yes, I am guilty of the much talked about "barrage of texts." At least Jambo has the occasional good manners to return them (ahem). The reason for them is quite simple. I sit there, typically alone as my (for the moment) other half has little to no interest in such things, and I listen to the most preposterous rendition of American history from none other then the President of the United States himself and I instantly text not in fear that the other Bund members may have missed that news cycle or speech but rather due to the overwhelming urge I have to confirm that I am not the only sane man on earth.
Our Commander-in-Chief has the unyielding ability to make my jaw drop at light speed. I am sincerely convinced that he can give no speech, no answer, no talk, no presentation on American exceptionalism without hearing the revisionist diatribe that was pumped into the air at any one of the various Jeremiah Wright sermons echoing in his ears. Truly I am of the opinion that he feels to extol the virtues of America is telling only half of the story and to do so would be to betray both his friends and mentors, as well as those that have ever suffered an injustice at the hands of the American experiment in self governance.
Now one may say, and accurately so, that there is in fact another side of the story - slavery, treatment of American Indians, Jim Crow, woman's suffrage, etc. And you'd be right. And being "historically aware" or informed on all aspects of American history is something I advocate. But the question is - is it the proper role of the President of the United States to continually go around our nation and to others reminding everyone whom will listen of those American inadequacies? Does that unite? Heal? Help? As a proud American I get the distinct impression of being scolded for that pride every time the president opens his mouth.
Let us put it another way. There was perhaps no more ruthless, oppressive, murderous regime in all of human history then that of Joseph Stalin's. But would it serve to further the cause of the Russian Federation if Vladimir Putin or Medvedev scurried around the world apologizing for the murders in the woods outside of Kiev? The work camps in the East? The political repression that existed from the Moscowvite Kings all the way down to Gorbachev? To know & acknowledge such things in historical settings is indeed a worthy endeavour, but the very thought of a Russian head of state doing so in a speech on foreign soil (let alone his own) is laughable on the face of it. Consider this excerpt: "Make no mistake this change [ending the Cold War] did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful." Not only is this breathtaking revisionism, but he can't even bring himself to mention BY NAME his own nation, despite our center role as a driving force. Mr. Obama further noted to the gathered Russians, "And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another. Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over." (Source: remarks, as prepared)
Really? To Russia you want to say this? And referring to America's past as that of empire? Why do I get the distinct impression that while Putin is playing chess our leader sees the world as checkers?
His entire focus when communicating domestically or to the world abroad is that America's day of reckoning has come. That all the patriotism, extolling of our great virtues, heoric efforts and singularly exceptional Constitution, that all of that will now be put into "context" as he first names, then corrects her many injustices. Reparations will now be made. Whether it be free health care, cap & trade, or a litany of other wealth draining devices he is determined to see America "pay" for her sins, for her great wealth, for her great power. In such a mindset life is a zero sum game. We could not of become so wealthy a nation but by taking it from others. Our wealthy citizens could not have become so, but on the backs of others. In this world the history of America is less one of unimaginable achievement and sacrifice, but rather one of unending hypocrisy promising liberty, equality & a fair shake on the one hand, while with the other is oppressing her people, robbing the world, and raping the environment.
D-Day holds a special significance to the course of world history, but if I may make it more personal, a special significance to the members Bund. We all fancy ourselves quasi WWII aficionados, or at least more than familiar with that epic struggle. That being noted consider the fact that our President, on the hallowed ground of Normandy, made a it a point to state that while our boys (and I paraphrase) in France scaled the cliffs to defend freedom, at home some of those same minority soldiers couldn't eat at the same counter as whites. Yes, they poured out of those Higgins boats into a hell of fire, BUT ... Yes, the boys from Pennsylvania ran up those rolling fields at Gettysburg, BUT ... Yes, the framers may have been genius in their unique inception at Philladelphia, BUT ...
This seems to be a theme on his outlook of America. He actually made the point in that Russia speech to note that while the founders penned a great document, at that time he wasn't even "considered a whole person." He walks around with this giant chip on his shoulder about the very nation that elected him to the highest office in our land. And to be honest I think THAT is what this is all about. Every social program, every intrusion of the public sector, every new power proclaimed by the government, every exclamation of the intrinsic worth of the collective over the individual is part of a mindset. Yes, it is socialist, yes influenced by leftist ideology of his past and present mentors, but that is merely the vehicle. In my opinion he alone sees himself as the one whom will finally, finally cause America to live up to what she espouses. Finally deliver on her promise of freedom and justice for all. True liberty, you see, is freedom from want; from need; from lack of healthcare. Free from war no matter how just; freedom from class. Freedom from responsibility, from choice. He has a version of freedom that he believes is the true promise of America, and he intends to deliver upon it.
"We've tried it their way." I can not get that phrase, that sentence of Barak Obama's out of my mind. For this is not to mean Bush or the GOP. He means Franklin. Washington. Jefferson. Adams. And every other signatory to our Constitution, nay the Constitution itself.
I listen, and I hear a man that isn't very impressed with his nation. Doesn't quite see the singularity of its existence. Finds that the pride of her history is only properly served when accompanied with a heaping side dish of shame.
"The happy union of these states is a wonder; their Constitution, a miracle; their example the hope of liberty throughout the world. Woe to the ambition that would mediate the destruction of either." -James Madison
So ask yourself . . . what is Barak H. Obama's ambition?
Another flood...
... of text messages from Ryan have shown me that he is, again, cursing the very air our President breathes.
Obama has made another "apology" for American failings while visiting a foreign power, and he has (again) lowered the perception of American foreign policy to a level of mediocrity usually reserved for tyrannical regimes and fly-by-night dictators. This time, he did so while attending the signing of a "treaty" that reduces our position of strength while gaining us very little. We can now transport supplies and weapons across Russian-controlled air-space (not something we HAD to be able to do, obviously... we haven't NEEDED this for the last 7 years, have we?) while at the same time we are committed to reducing the numbers of our nuclear arsenal to less than 1,700.
Mind you, I'm not against the reduction of our nuclear arsenal. I think that 1,500+ devices averaging a delivery yield of 15-25 kilotons on a modern platform capable of targeting accurately an individual building from the other side of the planet is still a more-than-adequate deterrent to attack from rogue nations. I just hate to see our President signing away American advantages in defense and force projection capability with no measurable or commensurate concession from the other side of the table. I also fail to see how our ability to compromise American strengths for no measurable advantage gains us anything with places like China, Iran or North Korea.
Of course, Ryan ranted on about Palin's resignation and her possible bid for a spot on the 2012 ticket. I'm far less inclined to think this is going to happen than he is, though...
Her resignation comes at a time when it will now appear to most Americans that she couldn't take the heat of the ethics investigation and/or the press. Not a ringing endorsement for a Presidential bid, is it? She has an opportunity to make waves in the "conservative movement" however, and (with a little forethought and some advice from the likes of the Bund), she can certainly put her newly-aquired free time to good use. A book deal and a string of speaking engagements will keep her in funds and in the public's eye (but probably not the media's eye, which also might be a good thing). Liberals are going to see her as irrelevant, but moderates and conservatives might find what she has to say important... even topical and timely, with the right speech writers. She will have mountains of time to show America that family values mean something, and that the media's biased focus on her during the campaign was slanderous... at best.
The GOP and conservatives in general are suffering from a crisis of image, I think. Even today, the "icons" of contemporary conservative values are the likes of Limbaugh, Gingrich, DeLay, Bush and Cheney... white, rich, old and representative of the "old days". What better contrast to that sort of perception could be found than that we see in a bright, very energetic, successful woman who has shown a dedication to family values and support of traditional family life than in a 40-something mother of a Downs baby? She can have an impact... no question... but she'll have to play to the media far mroe than she has in the past, and she'll have to do it in a way that keeps her "relevant" to today, and not focused on 2012.
I say that because America doesn't like losers. Only Nixon can boast of having won a bid after losing a bid (at least in the modern era), and no Democrats have done so since the end of Reconstruction. Palin wasn't as strong in '08 as Nixon was (who was the encumbant VP at the time of his first bid for the White House), and she'll be far less so, now that she has resigned her Governorship 14 months early because of political pressure. Even if she does choose to run, she'll be without much GOP support, as the "old guard" will undoubtedly want to throw their support into a Jindal, or Jeb (shudder) or some other young, fresh, successful candidate with no baggage.
Obama has made another "apology" for American failings while visiting a foreign power, and he has (again) lowered the perception of American foreign policy to a level of mediocrity usually reserved for tyrannical regimes and fly-by-night dictators. This time, he did so while attending the signing of a "treaty" that reduces our position of strength while gaining us very little. We can now transport supplies and weapons across Russian-controlled air-space (not something we HAD to be able to do, obviously... we haven't NEEDED this for the last 7 years, have we?) while at the same time we are committed to reducing the numbers of our nuclear arsenal to less than 1,700.
Mind you, I'm not against the reduction of our nuclear arsenal. I think that 1,500+ devices averaging a delivery yield of 15-25 kilotons on a modern platform capable of targeting accurately an individual building from the other side of the planet is still a more-than-adequate deterrent to attack from rogue nations. I just hate to see our President signing away American advantages in defense and force projection capability with no measurable or commensurate concession from the other side of the table. I also fail to see how our ability to compromise American strengths for no measurable advantage gains us anything with places like China, Iran or North Korea.
Of course, Ryan ranted on about Palin's resignation and her possible bid for a spot on the 2012 ticket. I'm far less inclined to think this is going to happen than he is, though...
Her resignation comes at a time when it will now appear to most Americans that she couldn't take the heat of the ethics investigation and/or the press. Not a ringing endorsement for a Presidential bid, is it? She has an opportunity to make waves in the "conservative movement" however, and (with a little forethought and some advice from the likes of the Bund), she can certainly put her newly-aquired free time to good use. A book deal and a string of speaking engagements will keep her in funds and in the public's eye (but probably not the media's eye, which also might be a good thing). Liberals are going to see her as irrelevant, but moderates and conservatives might find what she has to say important... even topical and timely, with the right speech writers. She will have mountains of time to show America that family values mean something, and that the media's biased focus on her during the campaign was slanderous... at best.
The GOP and conservatives in general are suffering from a crisis of image, I think. Even today, the "icons" of contemporary conservative values are the likes of Limbaugh, Gingrich, DeLay, Bush and Cheney... white, rich, old and representative of the "old days". What better contrast to that sort of perception could be found than that we see in a bright, very energetic, successful woman who has shown a dedication to family values and support of traditional family life than in a 40-something mother of a Downs baby? She can have an impact... no question... but she'll have to play to the media far mroe than she has in the past, and she'll have to do it in a way that keeps her "relevant" to today, and not focused on 2012.
I say that because America doesn't like losers. Only Nixon can boast of having won a bid after losing a bid (at least in the modern era), and no Democrats have done so since the end of Reconstruction. Palin wasn't as strong in '08 as Nixon was (who was the encumbant VP at the time of his first bid for the White House), and she'll be far less so, now that she has resigned her Governorship 14 months early because of political pressure. Even if she does choose to run, she'll be without much GOP support, as the "old guard" will undoubtedly want to throw their support into a Jindal, or Jeb (shudder) or some other young, fresh, successful candidate with no baggage.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
"A Nation...
that gives up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will lose them both." Ben Franklin
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Speaking of Belleau Woods...
I feel it is encumbant upon me to mention (at the very least) that only last week we saw the 91st anniversary of Private Buckle's action at Belleau Woods (June 25th, 1918) while serving with the US Army's 2nd Division (the "Indian Head Division").
Imagine that... the man's only combat duty (as a soldier, mind you... he was captured by the Japanese in the Pacific while serving in the Merchant Marine services and did two years as a POW) was very nearly 91 YEARS ago exactly. He's been out of the Army longer than 96.44% of all Americans will ever live!
Imagine that... the man's only combat duty (as a soldier, mind you... he was captured by the Japanese in the Pacific while serving in the Merchant Marine services and did two years as a POW) was very nearly 91 YEARS ago exactly. He's been out of the Army longer than 96.44% of all Americans will ever live!
On the shoulders of giants...
... is a term I'd use to describe America today. We haven't seen enough of the greatness that seemed so prevalent in Philadelphia back in 1776 here in the US in far too long.
The liberal agenda rules the foreseeable future here in the US... not because it is the RIGHT answer to what ails the country, but because it has had no publicly seen counter point in nearly a decade.
Franken is seated as a US Senator from Minnesota. Palin resigns her office of Governor of Alaska with more than a year to go on her term. Other Governors and GOP members are embroiled in the media circus that always follows extra-marital affairs.
From '94 to '06, Congress saw a GOP majority (even if it wasn't always a "conservative" majority), and the Left spent every minute making the point that the "right" was killing Americans... at home and abroad. That same label was slapped on two terms of a GOP President, as well. Across the country, states are seeing the GOP removed from office in favor of more liberal politicians. Liberal attitudes and points-of-view rule the mainstream media and the country's largest news outlets. What was once "traditional values" are now called "intolerance and hatred" by children in our very schools.
I was off work last night (my only night off this week, by the way) and we attended our local fireworks display here in our quiet little northeastern Pennsylvania "burrough". Sometime during the event, I heard one of the seemingly hundreds of children that were associated with our little clique make the comment that our fireworks looked great and that it was "patriotism through superior firepower". Other kids picked up the comment and it was very close to becoming a topic of discussion amongst them. I did not participate, nor did I stop it. It did make me ponder, though...
I don't care for the comment. It strikes me as sarcastic and implies that what we were reminded of last night through the display of fireworks is all pomp and show, with no actual substance outside of the "oohs and ahhs" associated with the display. While I admit that the displays were breath-taking, the "patriotism" associated with the 4th of July celebrations is SUPPOSED to remind us of the price our freedoms carry. The very men that penned the words we associate so much with the 4th of July did so under the penalty of a very painful and ignominious death as traitors. Since that day, tens of millions of men and women have donned the uniform of our Armed Forces, ready to (and in many cases, ACTUALLY DOING SO) place themselves "between their loved home and war's desolation."
Ryan sent me a text about a man named Frank Buckles... the last living WWI combat veteran in the US. The man is of particular interest to the Bund because I have had the distinct honor and privilege to meet the man at my workplace. While speaking with him, he gave me a small anecdote about his experiences at the Battle of Belleau Woods. He told me that he could see the flash of German rifles from the treeline as his unit advanced from their trenches, and that he could actually see bullets passing beside him as he marched forward. Something in my face must have betrayed my thoughts that, since a bullet fired from a Mauser-type rifle is moving at thousands of feet per second, I thought this was patently impossible (although I said nothing), and he explained that what he was seeing were bullets that had passed through Marines advancing in front of him, slowing the projectile enough for him to both see and hear them pass by him.
When I see the fireworks that are set off each July 4th, I hope I ALWAYS think of these kinds of sacrifices and effort made by men and women over the last 233 years to ensure my continued freedom and liberty, as well as the freedom and liberty of millions upon millions of people across the globe. I hope I am never glib or facetious in my comments about America's role in the defense of human freedom, in the past, now or in the future. I hope MY children always know the difference between arguing the merits of political agendas voiced by conservatives and liberals... and the selfless sacrifice made by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fulfill their duty to protect this nation from "war's desolation".
I also pray that our "liberal" leadership also sees this fact for what it actually is... a founding and inherent principle in our national make-up.
The liberal agenda rules the foreseeable future here in the US... not because it is the RIGHT answer to what ails the country, but because it has had no publicly seen counter point in nearly a decade.
Franken is seated as a US Senator from Minnesota. Palin resigns her office of Governor of Alaska with more than a year to go on her term. Other Governors and GOP members are embroiled in the media circus that always follows extra-marital affairs.
From '94 to '06, Congress saw a GOP majority (even if it wasn't always a "conservative" majority), and the Left spent every minute making the point that the "right" was killing Americans... at home and abroad. That same label was slapped on two terms of a GOP President, as well. Across the country, states are seeing the GOP removed from office in favor of more liberal politicians. Liberal attitudes and points-of-view rule the mainstream media and the country's largest news outlets. What was once "traditional values" are now called "intolerance and hatred" by children in our very schools.
I was off work last night (my only night off this week, by the way) and we attended our local fireworks display here in our quiet little northeastern Pennsylvania "burrough". Sometime during the event, I heard one of the seemingly hundreds of children that were associated with our little clique make the comment that our fireworks looked great and that it was "patriotism through superior firepower". Other kids picked up the comment and it was very close to becoming a topic of discussion amongst them. I did not participate, nor did I stop it. It did make me ponder, though...
I don't care for the comment. It strikes me as sarcastic and implies that what we were reminded of last night through the display of fireworks is all pomp and show, with no actual substance outside of the "oohs and ahhs" associated with the display. While I admit that the displays were breath-taking, the "patriotism" associated with the 4th of July celebrations is SUPPOSED to remind us of the price our freedoms carry. The very men that penned the words we associate so much with the 4th of July did so under the penalty of a very painful and ignominious death as traitors. Since that day, tens of millions of men and women have donned the uniform of our Armed Forces, ready to (and in many cases, ACTUALLY DOING SO) place themselves "between their loved home and war's desolation."
Ryan sent me a text about a man named Frank Buckles... the last living WWI combat veteran in the US. The man is of particular interest to the Bund because I have had the distinct honor and privilege to meet the man at my workplace. While speaking with him, he gave me a small anecdote about his experiences at the Battle of Belleau Woods. He told me that he could see the flash of German rifles from the treeline as his unit advanced from their trenches, and that he could actually see bullets passing beside him as he marched forward. Something in my face must have betrayed my thoughts that, since a bullet fired from a Mauser-type rifle is moving at thousands of feet per second, I thought this was patently impossible (although I said nothing), and he explained that what he was seeing were bullets that had passed through Marines advancing in front of him, slowing the projectile enough for him to both see and hear them pass by him.
When I see the fireworks that are set off each July 4th, I hope I ALWAYS think of these kinds of sacrifices and effort made by men and women over the last 233 years to ensure my continued freedom and liberty, as well as the freedom and liberty of millions upon millions of people across the globe. I hope I am never glib or facetious in my comments about America's role in the defense of human freedom, in the past, now or in the future. I hope MY children always know the difference between arguing the merits of political agendas voiced by conservatives and liberals... and the selfless sacrifice made by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fulfill their duty to protect this nation from "war's desolation".
I also pray that our "liberal" leadership also sees this fact for what it actually is... a founding and inherent principle in our national make-up.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Holiday Weekend
It has been a long ass time since I've posted, and since I've seen Titus recant on his position of Iraq's position as numero uno in terms of national security threats from way back in 2003, I will have to stand and take my medicine publicly too.
I have been the champion of government spending, advocating government spending on infrastructure, alternative energy, education, all under the auspices of a New Deal like system that produced measurable, specific results. While I am NOT conceding by a long shot the historical success or failure of FDR's New Deal, I am acknowledging at this point in history the mistake this kind of federal spending is.
Ryan called it eighteen months ago. Now everyone, including the ENTIRE state of California, is using the term "Too big to fail." And what have these institutions done? Financial companies that took bailout money are on the hook to the Feds for everything from policy decisions to bonuses to you name it, EXCEPT loaning the money back into the economy. The auto companies filed bankruptcy, after billions of dollars were channeled to avoid just that.
Are we better than we were twelve months ago? Are we WORSE?
I have been the champion of government spending, advocating government spending on infrastructure, alternative energy, education, all under the auspices of a New Deal like system that produced measurable, specific results. While I am NOT conceding by a long shot the historical success or failure of FDR's New Deal, I am acknowledging at this point in history the mistake this kind of federal spending is.
Ryan called it eighteen months ago. Now everyone, including the ENTIRE state of California, is using the term "Too big to fail." And what have these institutions done? Financial companies that took bailout money are on the hook to the Feds for everything from policy decisions to bonuses to you name it, EXCEPT loaning the money back into the economy. The auto companies filed bankruptcy, after billions of dollars were channeled to avoid just that.
Are we better than we were twelve months ago? Are we WORSE?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Independence Day
Despite our President's relentless attempts at creating an American state of dependence, rather then maintain an independent State for all Americans, I thought it fitting that this July 4th we honor those whom make all of our bickering, ranting, and impassioned prose possible. I have 2 such examples.
The first ... 4,000 US Marines are descending upon Taliban strongholds as I type. Operation Khanjar kicked off at 1 a.m. local time Thursday morning. One of the commanding officers, a Citadel grad before he joined the Marine Corps, injured in Iraq with a whole in his side the size of a fist, addressed his troops before they mounted up.
July 1, 2009 · Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, addressed his troops in Afghanistan before the operation launched early Thursday against Taliban-occupied areas. Following are excerpts from his remarks at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province.
"Our job is to get in there and get it back [from the Taliban] ... We don't want to give the enemy one second to think about what he's going to do. Because we're going to be pushing so goddamn hard on the enemy. Our job is to go in there and make contact with the enemy — find the enemy, make contact with the enemy and then we'll hold on. This is an enemy that's used to having small-scale attacks and having the coalition pull back. There is no pullback. We will stay on him, and we will ride him until he's either dead or surrenders ...
Now, I'm concerned about the IEDs [roadside bombs] and I know you are, too. There's a hell of a lot of IEDs out there. As we get in there, we're going to get a better feel for who these people are who are putting them out. We're going to work the networks. And we're going to kill the guys that have a chance to go out there and lay them. But they are out there, and you need to know that ...
All too often, it is us who have to think about where we're going to go, where we're going to attack, what we're going to do. In this case, we're going to be so thick in his AO [area of operation] that he's going to have three choices: Stay and fight, which we hope he does; try to blend into the population and just pretend he's a local, in which case the Afghan army and police can sure as hell help identify that along with local leaders; and the third thing is run. And if he tries to run, we've got people waiting for him ...
You probably know the name of every little terrain feature in that AO. And that's good. Because you're going to need to. You're going to need to very quickly get into his turf and get comfortable and make him the guy on the run. Make him the guy who's going to have these decisions as to what he's going to do ...
We'll kill and capture a hell of a lot of enemy over these next couple of weeks, I'm confident of that. And I hope the enemy does try to go chest-to-chest with you. It would be a hell of a big mistake, and I don't think his last mistake. And I suspect we'll see some of that ...
We need to make sure we understand that the reason we're here is not necessarily the enemy. The reason we're here is the people. What won the war in al-Anbar province [Iraq] and what changed the war in al-Anbar was not that the enemy eventually got tired of fighting. It's that the people chose a side, and they chose us. We offer the one thing the enemy can never offer, and that's a future; that's hope. The people are looking to you ...
We'll surround that house and we'll wait. And here's the reason: If you drop that house and there's one woman, one child, one family in that house — you may have killed 20 Taliban, but by killing that woman or that child in that house, you have lost that community. You are dead to them. You are done. And when I talked to the governor [about this scenario], I said, 'Yeah, but governor, we will have killed 20 Taliban.' And he goes, 'Yeah, but you will have also killed the local family, and the people will always remember that.' The Taliban didn't kill that local family. You did. And as far as they're concerned, you killed locals and you're done. They will do anything they can at that point to help the Taliban and help the enemy against you ...
Fellas, it's hot. It's gonna get hotter. Your packs are heavy. They're gonna get heavier. Our resupply to you is going to be tough. We're focused on getting you water. We're focused on getting you ammo. Chow will come later. Anything else will come later. We'll get you all the water and ammo you can use, but a lot of it may be by air drop, because the roads to get to you may not be open. And like I said, there is no cavalry. There is no reserve. You're gonna fight. And you're gonna stay there, and you're gonna fight until you win ...
Bottom line, fellas, is that this is the moment. This is the moment you've trained for. This is the moment you came into the Marine Corps for. This is the moment that all of us have been waiting for for a hell of a long time. "
I'll add only that he did this impromptu speech with no prepared papers, and no teleprompter (*ahem*); and "Khanjar" translates to "strike of the sword."
****
The second ...
A Family's Valor, a Nation's Freedom
Why would a 61-year-old civilian surgeon volunteer for Iraq?
At a dinner last week in California, I was reminded of the debt we owe to those who have, for 233 years, sustained our freedom and independence. One remarkable family in particular exemplifies the best in the American spirit of courage and sacrifice.
Sitting at my table was a friend, Christine Krissoff, wife of Dr. Bill Krissoff and mother of Nathan and Austin Krissoff. One of her sons, Marine First Lt. Nathan Krissoff, was killed in Al Anbar Province in December 2006. A Williams College grad, athlete and musician, he'd left for Iraq on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was 25.
I met his parents and brother in Nevada in August 2007 while accompanying President George W. Bush to Reno, Nev. The president was there to address the American Legion before meeting with local families who'd lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. Mr. Bush has met with about 550 families in private visits like this. At those meetings, he would have a senior staff member close by in case there was something that needed to be followed up on, such as getting a flag to a family member.
We entered a small room in the back of the convention center to find the Krissoffs waiting -- the father in a black suit with his arms crossed and the mother in a plain dark outfit. Their dress contrasted with their son Austin's Marine dress uniform. Like his older brother, Austin had volunteered for service after college. He was to be deployed to Iraq in March 2008.
During my White House years, I saw few people with the quiet power, intelligence and poise of Chris Krissoff. She talked about her sons, the pain of her loss, her concern for her youngest when he went into harm's way, and the stakes in the War on Terror. The entire time, her husband was quiet.
When stories had been told, tears wept, and grief expressed, Mr. Bush asked if he could do anything. At that, Bill Krissoff spoke.
"Yes," he said. "I'm a pretty good orthopedic surgeon. When my younger son is deployed to Iraq next March, I would like to be working as a Navy medical officer, but they won't let me because I am 61 years old. Will you give me an age waiver, Mr. President?" Mr. Bush pointed to me. Dr. Krissoff and I exchanged business cards and he promised to fax me his application
I checked him out on the way back to Washington. His reputation was that of an outstanding trauma and sports medicine surgeon. He was also a marathon runner and a really fine person.
Two days later, I placed Bill's application on the president's desk before he met with Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I made sure Gen. Pace had the file when he left. He promised to get back soon with an answer. I told him that he would have to get back to someone else: The next day was my last day at the White House. One of the last things I did before turning in my badge was to write Bill Krissoff to wish him well.
A day later, I was in West Texas for the start of dove season. While waiting for the next flight of birds, I realized I hadn't written Mrs. Krissoff. So I sat down that night at the Gage Hotel in Marathon and did. She had already lost her oldest son. Her younger son was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Meanwhile, her husband wanted to give up their comfortable life, career and friends so he could honor their sons by joining the military at age 61. And she had given her full, heartfelt support.
A few weeks later, I received a note saying Bill had received his waiver and a chance to pass basic training. A few months later, I was invited to the commissioning ceremony for Lt. Commander William Krissoff, United States Navy Medical Reserve.
Bill emailed me this April about his duties as a combat surgeon in Iraq. He sent photos of himself with Austin, who is now on his second tour there. This is how father, mother and brother are honoring the sacrifice of Nathan. While sharing this story with the audience last week, I found myself unable to look at Christine until I finished and the crowd rose to applaud her.
Watching the smoke rise from the Battle of Bunker Hill, Abigail Adams wrote her husband John, who was away at the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. While she and others lived "in continual Expectation of Hostility," Abigail wrote, "like good Nehemiah, having made our prayer with God, and set the people with their Swords, their Spears, and their bows, we will say unto them, Be not affraid of them."
Christine Krissoff's husband and sons, wrapped in prayers and armed with swords and scalpels, have served our nation with valor. So has she. So long as our nation produces families like the Krissoffs, America will remain not only the greatest nation on earth, but also the most noble in history.
By Karl Rove
7/2/09
To all those whom serve to make each 4th of July, each day, possible ... THANK YOU.
The first ... 4,000 US Marines are descending upon Taliban strongholds as I type. Operation Khanjar kicked off at 1 a.m. local time Thursday morning. One of the commanding officers, a Citadel grad before he joined the Marine Corps, injured in Iraq with a whole in his side the size of a fist, addressed his troops before they mounted up.
July 1, 2009 · Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, addressed his troops in Afghanistan before the operation launched early Thursday against Taliban-occupied areas. Following are excerpts from his remarks at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province.
"Our job is to get in there and get it back [from the Taliban] ... We don't want to give the enemy one second to think about what he's going to do. Because we're going to be pushing so goddamn hard on the enemy. Our job is to go in there and make contact with the enemy — find the enemy, make contact with the enemy and then we'll hold on. This is an enemy that's used to having small-scale attacks and having the coalition pull back. There is no pullback. We will stay on him, and we will ride him until he's either dead or surrenders ...
Now, I'm concerned about the IEDs [roadside bombs] and I know you are, too. There's a hell of a lot of IEDs out there. As we get in there, we're going to get a better feel for who these people are who are putting them out. We're going to work the networks. And we're going to kill the guys that have a chance to go out there and lay them. But they are out there, and you need to know that ...
All too often, it is us who have to think about where we're going to go, where we're going to attack, what we're going to do. In this case, we're going to be so thick in his AO [area of operation] that he's going to have three choices: Stay and fight, which we hope he does; try to blend into the population and just pretend he's a local, in which case the Afghan army and police can sure as hell help identify that along with local leaders; and the third thing is run. And if he tries to run, we've got people waiting for him ...
You probably know the name of every little terrain feature in that AO. And that's good. Because you're going to need to. You're going to need to very quickly get into his turf and get comfortable and make him the guy on the run. Make him the guy who's going to have these decisions as to what he's going to do ...
We'll kill and capture a hell of a lot of enemy over these next couple of weeks, I'm confident of that. And I hope the enemy does try to go chest-to-chest with you. It would be a hell of a big mistake, and I don't think his last mistake. And I suspect we'll see some of that ...
We need to make sure we understand that the reason we're here is not necessarily the enemy. The reason we're here is the people. What won the war in al-Anbar province [Iraq] and what changed the war in al-Anbar was not that the enemy eventually got tired of fighting. It's that the people chose a side, and they chose us. We offer the one thing the enemy can never offer, and that's a future; that's hope. The people are looking to you ...
We'll surround that house and we'll wait. And here's the reason: If you drop that house and there's one woman, one child, one family in that house — you may have killed 20 Taliban, but by killing that woman or that child in that house, you have lost that community. You are dead to them. You are done. And when I talked to the governor [about this scenario], I said, 'Yeah, but governor, we will have killed 20 Taliban.' And he goes, 'Yeah, but you will have also killed the local family, and the people will always remember that.' The Taliban didn't kill that local family. You did. And as far as they're concerned, you killed locals and you're done. They will do anything they can at that point to help the Taliban and help the enemy against you ...
Fellas, it's hot. It's gonna get hotter. Your packs are heavy. They're gonna get heavier. Our resupply to you is going to be tough. We're focused on getting you water. We're focused on getting you ammo. Chow will come later. Anything else will come later. We'll get you all the water and ammo you can use, but a lot of it may be by air drop, because the roads to get to you may not be open. And like I said, there is no cavalry. There is no reserve. You're gonna fight. And you're gonna stay there, and you're gonna fight until you win ...
Bottom line, fellas, is that this is the moment. This is the moment you've trained for. This is the moment you came into the Marine Corps for. This is the moment that all of us have been waiting for for a hell of a long time. "
I'll add only that he did this impromptu speech with no prepared papers, and no teleprompter (*ahem*); and "Khanjar" translates to "strike of the sword."
****
The second ...
A Family's Valor, a Nation's Freedom
Why would a 61-year-old civilian surgeon volunteer for Iraq?
At a dinner last week in California, I was reminded of the debt we owe to those who have, for 233 years, sustained our freedom and independence. One remarkable family in particular exemplifies the best in the American spirit of courage and sacrifice.
Sitting at my table was a friend, Christine Krissoff, wife of Dr. Bill Krissoff and mother of Nathan and Austin Krissoff. One of her sons, Marine First Lt. Nathan Krissoff, was killed in Al Anbar Province in December 2006. A Williams College grad, athlete and musician, he'd left for Iraq on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was 25.
I met his parents and brother in Nevada in August 2007 while accompanying President George W. Bush to Reno, Nev. The president was there to address the American Legion before meeting with local families who'd lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. Mr. Bush has met with about 550 families in private visits like this. At those meetings, he would have a senior staff member close by in case there was something that needed to be followed up on, such as getting a flag to a family member.
We entered a small room in the back of the convention center to find the Krissoffs waiting -- the father in a black suit with his arms crossed and the mother in a plain dark outfit. Their dress contrasted with their son Austin's Marine dress uniform. Like his older brother, Austin had volunteered for service after college. He was to be deployed to Iraq in March 2008.
During my White House years, I saw few people with the quiet power, intelligence and poise of Chris Krissoff. She talked about her sons, the pain of her loss, her concern for her youngest when he went into harm's way, and the stakes in the War on Terror. The entire time, her husband was quiet.
When stories had been told, tears wept, and grief expressed, Mr. Bush asked if he could do anything. At that, Bill Krissoff spoke.
"Yes," he said. "I'm a pretty good orthopedic surgeon. When my younger son is deployed to Iraq next March, I would like to be working as a Navy medical officer, but they won't let me because I am 61 years old. Will you give me an age waiver, Mr. President?" Mr. Bush pointed to me. Dr. Krissoff and I exchanged business cards and he promised to fax me his application
I checked him out on the way back to Washington. His reputation was that of an outstanding trauma and sports medicine surgeon. He was also a marathon runner and a really fine person.
Two days later, I placed Bill's application on the president's desk before he met with Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I made sure Gen. Pace had the file when he left. He promised to get back soon with an answer. I told him that he would have to get back to someone else: The next day was my last day at the White House. One of the last things I did before turning in my badge was to write Bill Krissoff to wish him well.
A day later, I was in West Texas for the start of dove season. While waiting for the next flight of birds, I realized I hadn't written Mrs. Krissoff. So I sat down that night at the Gage Hotel in Marathon and did. She had already lost her oldest son. Her younger son was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Meanwhile, her husband wanted to give up their comfortable life, career and friends so he could honor their sons by joining the military at age 61. And she had given her full, heartfelt support.
A few weeks later, I received a note saying Bill had received his waiver and a chance to pass basic training. A few months later, I was invited to the commissioning ceremony for Lt. Commander William Krissoff, United States Navy Medical Reserve.
Bill emailed me this April about his duties as a combat surgeon in Iraq. He sent photos of himself with Austin, who is now on his second tour there. This is how father, mother and brother are honoring the sacrifice of Nathan. While sharing this story with the audience last week, I found myself unable to look at Christine until I finished and the crowd rose to applaud her.
Watching the smoke rise from the Battle of Bunker Hill, Abigail Adams wrote her husband John, who was away at the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. While she and others lived "in continual Expectation of Hostility," Abigail wrote, "like good Nehemiah, having made our prayer with God, and set the people with their Swords, their Spears, and their bows, we will say unto them, Be not affraid of them."
Christine Krissoff's husband and sons, wrapped in prayers and armed with swords and scalpels, have served our nation with valor. So has she. So long as our nation produces families like the Krissoffs, America will remain not only the greatest nation on earth, but also the most noble in history.
By Karl Rove
7/2/09
To all those whom serve to make each 4th of July, each day, possible ... THANK YOU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
