Who Has Clarity?
All politics is definitely not local as evidenced by today’s Virginia Senate Seat debate between George All and Jim Webb. The closest the debate came to discussing the state of affairs and general health of Virginia was to clarify whether Southern Virginians understand if Senator Allen’s ‘macaca’ comment was harmful. However, I thought that Mr. Russert concentrated, rightly, on the serious part of the comment, something that other journalists didn’t address too much, understandable since they are still trying to get past the initial gaffe.
Mr. Allen said, “Welcome to Virginia, welcome to the real America.” When asked what he meant by that Senator Allen stumbled in his answer even though he had sufficient time to reflect on it since the time he said it. He could have brushed it off easily by saying something to the effect of, “By saying that, I meant that these people standing here are the majority. They believe in what I believe in.” That’s even suspect, just coming off the top of my head, but the fact remains is that Senator Allen had plenty of time to clarify and he could not. Second fact, I’m not for Senate.
Also, the senator was inherently at a disadvantage before the debate began because of the aforementioned macaca and his voting record on Iraq policy; he has a lot to answer for.
With this in mind, Mr. Russert tried to put the screws to Former Secretary Webb about his attitudes toward women in combat. The damn thing is that very few politicians can fully say he or she is sorry or that they regret a comment – never a full concession. Mr. Webb regretted some language but not all – typical.
However, I will say this – agree with him or not, Jim Webb seems a lot more sure of where he stands on things and that you have to respect. Allen couldn’t (wouldn’t) answer the ‘yes or no’ question about being disloyal to the President if he voted against the Iraq war. Speaking of relative respect, how much more do you have for Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham? That indicates Allen is a follower in the Senate, maybe not as Governor was he a follow, but in the United State Senate – he is. Then Senator Allen in the debate said he was still anti-establishment (Mr. Russert shot in, “but you were the Governor”). If you believe that… I don’t know… Maybe there’s medication for you.
I also realize that I beat up on the Republicans more in this column, but frankly it’s been on their dominant watch that things have gotten screwed up. In the context of this debate discussion, I’m not giving Mr. Webb a pass, not at all. But these days that we’re living right now require clarity of thinking, purpose, and policy. We can no longer afford political answers to real questions - questions where the answers determine the number of dead on the ground.
That group of three senators I had mentioned earlier – I don’t agree with them on a lot of issues, but on the issue of interrogation they are right and that you have to, at least, respect.
The first 40 minutes of the hour were devoted to the questions of Iraq. Who has more clarity to answer those difficult questions – the winner of the debate, the man who has a son in the military, the man who was on the front line and behind the curtain – Jim Webb.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
September 10, 2006: This Ain't No Thumbsucker
September 10, 2006
The football season is definitely upon us with Tim Russert geared up for some smash-mouth politics. This was the case today in his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. As Mr. Russert knows, any good football relentlessly pounds the ball on the ground to establish territory – gutty and in the trenches. Finally, Mr. Russert was successful in taking one from the Vice President. So many times, had Mr. Cheney been interviewed on Meet The Press and every time out he had established his ground and kept pounding away, but not quite so this time. All winning streaks come to an end and today Mr. Cheney had no ground game and his quarterbacking was definitely called into question.
I anticipated Mr. Russert indeed asking a tough question, but he usually doesn’t follow up and keep the pressure on – at least that was the line before the interview. Many topics weren’t discussed during the full-show interview, such as real domestic issues. The leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was as close as they got, but it is quite clear that domestic policy isn’t something Mr. Cheney puts at the top of his agenda.
On the eve of the 5-year anniversary of downed planes, human sacrifice, and numbing introspection, the question of catching Osama Bin Laden still hangs over the doorway of American war rooms in this fight against terrorism and the discuss of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and his whereabouts at the forefront. Cheney has a gift for explaining things away. At noted by Russert, opium production is up 60% and the narco-state that is Afghanistan is growing again. Cheney swept it away saying that the country has been and seemingly always will be in this condition, a feeble attempt at an explanation.
Mr. Russert turned the conversation to Iraq and Cheney could only shuffle his feet. What I’ve noticed from watching all Cheney’s interviews on Meet The Press is that when he sits at the MTP table, his head gets lower in relation to the line of his shoulders when he’s lying. It’s unmistakable. Pressed by Russert on the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Cheney lowered his head and cited two suspect pieces of intelligence. A 70% probability that it was Mohammed Atta pictured in a photograph – that’s our rationale for war?
At one point in the questioning, Russert interjected North Korea and its nuclear capability and the fact that we’ve let that situation fester – “you took your eye off North Korea to focus on Iraq.” At which point, Cheney smirked as if to say – “if only we were on the hunting range…” He proceeded to take the conversation back to the ‘beginning’ – September 11.
I could go on and on with examples of how Mr. Cheney tried unsuccessfully to avoid Russert’s rush attack but the Vice President that this contest was over by the first half. It was good to see someone hold Mr. Cheney’s feet to the proverbial fire, but it was more important that it was Tim Russert who did it. There are many politic talk shows, but Meet The Press is the political interview of record as far as I am concerned.
Throughout the broadcast, Mr. Russert seemed incredulous with regard to Cheney’s answers. He felt duped I suppose by the answers given in previous interviews and it was evident that he felt he needed to make himself righteous again.
Cheney knew it and his defense was weak. He referred to newspaper articles that he doesn’t like as thumb suckers. By that rationale, this interview was a thumb sucker. “That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.” This quote is actually in reference to the Scooter Libby case, as much of domestic policy as they were going to discuss, but this was really the theme throughout – pleading the fifth or blaming other people – George Tenet for example. “George said it was a slam-dunk.” So then if he was wrong, why was he given the highest civilian award this country could bestow on an individual?
As Mr. Cheney would say throughout the interview, “hmmm…”
It’s the beginning of the season and you can tell Dick Cheney doesn’t like football, that was his former boss, Richard Nixon’s game, he didn’t bring his helmet for this hour of knocking heads, and his sport of choice requires a gun. By the way, duck hunting isn’t a sport – the ducks don’t have guns.
With that said, the study of linguistic pragmatics becomes essential in deciphering the final exchange.
MR. RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn’t bring your shotgun in today?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re not in season.
[Read: You should be because this is probably your last interview with me. And now you are in season.]
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, I hope I never am.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: All right.
[Read: I have some buckshot with your name it.]
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you for sharing your views.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Thank you, Tim.
[Read: Congressional expletive.]
So with the season opener in the books, it’s Russert 24, Cheney 3. You go Buffalo!
The football season is definitely upon us with Tim Russert geared up for some smash-mouth politics. This was the case today in his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. As Mr. Russert knows, any good football relentlessly pounds the ball on the ground to establish territory – gutty and in the trenches. Finally, Mr. Russert was successful in taking one from the Vice President. So many times, had Mr. Cheney been interviewed on Meet The Press and every time out he had established his ground and kept pounding away, but not quite so this time. All winning streaks come to an end and today Mr. Cheney had no ground game and his quarterbacking was definitely called into question.
I anticipated Mr. Russert indeed asking a tough question, but he usually doesn’t follow up and keep the pressure on – at least that was the line before the interview. Many topics weren’t discussed during the full-show interview, such as real domestic issues. The leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was as close as they got, but it is quite clear that domestic policy isn’t something Mr. Cheney puts at the top of his agenda.
On the eve of the 5-year anniversary of downed planes, human sacrifice, and numbing introspection, the question of catching Osama Bin Laden still hangs over the doorway of American war rooms in this fight against terrorism and the discuss of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and his whereabouts at the forefront. Cheney has a gift for explaining things away. At noted by Russert, opium production is up 60% and the narco-state that is Afghanistan is growing again. Cheney swept it away saying that the country has been and seemingly always will be in this condition, a feeble attempt at an explanation.
Mr. Russert turned the conversation to Iraq and Cheney could only shuffle his feet. What I’ve noticed from watching all Cheney’s interviews on Meet The Press is that when he sits at the MTP table, his head gets lower in relation to the line of his shoulders when he’s lying. It’s unmistakable. Pressed by Russert on the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Cheney lowered his head and cited two suspect pieces of intelligence. A 70% probability that it was Mohammed Atta pictured in a photograph – that’s our rationale for war?
At one point in the questioning, Russert interjected North Korea and its nuclear capability and the fact that we’ve let that situation fester – “you took your eye off North Korea to focus on Iraq.” At which point, Cheney smirked as if to say – “if only we were on the hunting range…” He proceeded to take the conversation back to the ‘beginning’ – September 11.
I could go on and on with examples of how Mr. Cheney tried unsuccessfully to avoid Russert’s rush attack but the Vice President that this contest was over by the first half. It was good to see someone hold Mr. Cheney’s feet to the proverbial fire, but it was more important that it was Tim Russert who did it. There are many politic talk shows, but Meet The Press is the political interview of record as far as I am concerned.
Throughout the broadcast, Mr. Russert seemed incredulous with regard to Cheney’s answers. He felt duped I suppose by the answers given in previous interviews and it was evident that he felt he needed to make himself righteous again.
Cheney knew it and his defense was weak. He referred to newspaper articles that he doesn’t like as thumb suckers. By that rationale, this interview was a thumb sucker. “That’s all I’m going to say on the subject.” This quote is actually in reference to the Scooter Libby case, as much of domestic policy as they were going to discuss, but this was really the theme throughout – pleading the fifth or blaming other people – George Tenet for example. “George said it was a slam-dunk.” So then if he was wrong, why was he given the highest civilian award this country could bestow on an individual?
As Mr. Cheney would say throughout the interview, “hmmm…”
It’s the beginning of the season and you can tell Dick Cheney doesn’t like football, that was his former boss, Richard Nixon’s game, he didn’t bring his helmet for this hour of knocking heads, and his sport of choice requires a gun. By the way, duck hunting isn’t a sport – the ducks don’t have guns.
With that said, the study of linguistic pragmatics becomes essential in deciphering the final exchange.
MR. RUSSERT: Should I be relieved you didn’t bring your shotgun in today?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re not in season.
[Read: You should be because this is probably your last interview with me. And now you are in season.]
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, I hope I never am.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: All right.
[Read: I have some buckshot with your name it.]
MR. RUSSERT: Thank you for sharing your views.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Thank you, Tim.
[Read: Congressional expletive.]
So with the season opener in the books, it’s Russert 24, Cheney 3. You go Buffalo!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
July 16, 2006
We're getting there as far as more consist posts, I promise. Today's program was quite significant on both fronts - foreign and domestic and with regard to the former, I feel that it would be helpful if the programming of the show got back to interviewing more international diplomats and leaders of state - perhaps even leaving Dodge City and traveling to them. Are the producers or NBC News reticent to go and interview an Iranian official - is there something unpatriotic about that. Hear what an official from Iran has to say and then the American people, who I believe the show ultimately and always serves, can gain some perspective. I want to hear it from the originators - put a name and face and voice together.
There's always a little segment in the Week - How They See Us - and even though you have to consider the editorial platform of the magazine and how it edits the piece, the segment does exist. Meet The Press should consider this perspective a bit more.
The first segment was distressing and also ultimately even sadder than the second, but by no means the fault of Mr. Russert. Joe Biden, the supposed voice of reason for the Democratic Party and the former Speaker of the House and neo-con Newt Gingrich were invited to share their 'insights' into how the United States should proceed internationally. I found both perspectives from these two seasoned politicians to be dim.
One the one hand, Mr. Gingrich is spouting on about WWIII, and on the other side Biden is in denial about how shreud the United States' opponents are. There is no way one can co-sign Mr. Gingrich's policy of militarilly taking out missles whereever and whenever we want. It isn't a world war - the war is between the United States and dictatorships around the world with the help of proxy terrorist organizations. Militarily, we don’t have the support from other nations to warrant the call for WWIII. And note the word 'organization': These people have their act together more than we think.
[Since 9/11, we've gone about it all wrong and maybe one night when life doesn't get in the way I will post what
how we should have gone about it. Whatever....]
To the right of Mr. Gingrich sat Senator Joe Biden of Delaware who tries to employ this voice of reason as many senior Democrats do, but at this point (and Biden illustrated it clearly here) it's all too vague. More diplomacy and the status quo in Iraq is his basic message, but Gingrich is right. Other countries aren't taking us seriously right now. However, it's the neo-cons who initiated the erosion of our credibility in the first place. Hmmm....
Joe Biden and the Democrats [a polka band from Waukesha, Wisconsin whose tunes no one wants to listens to] have to start proposing solid concrete, tangible solutions to the problems that this country faces. I know the strategy is to play foil to all the Republican screw-ups, and eventually letting them fall on their collective face, but sit back attitude should end NOW.
And on many little nuances with regard to details about larger policy, they tend agree, saying things like "With that point, I agree with...," playing diplomat with each other - ridiculous. Also, to Mr. Russert's credit, he tries to always break up any potential love-fests on an issue and right he should. There is a distinctly divided constituency out across the land.
As I write this, I am waiting for the transcript to be posted because there was a comment Senator Biden made as they faded, which was quite telling... stay tuned... here we go: Mr. Gingrich outlines what kind of diplomacy we should employ with North Korea and what does Mr. Biden say? "You should tell them that." Ugh. Them? The North Koreans or the Neo-cons? It doesn't really matter because neither would listen, but additionally there are two problems with that. One, there's Sen. Biden passing the buck - he's a candidate for President. Two, in what Mr. Gingrich said, earlier Sen. Biden didn't necessarily agree and now he let's it go.
Now onto the poster child for journalistic patheticness (let it stand), Robert Novak. He described how he would interview senior officials on couches, no tape recorder, no pen just having conversations. He also repeated that he would rather be the interviewer, commentator, or analyst than the interviewee. This is a person so set in his Republican views and closely aligned with the Administration, he had probably felt like he had carte blanche around The White House, thinking he was untouchable. He doesn't save face with this interview, he's simply a bird who got smashed in the beak and fell off his perch. Now he discloses that he DID give grand jury testimony back in 2004 and didn't fight the subpoena. Excuse me, that sounds like, "Run for cover and save your ass."
If Meet The Press has Robert Novak on as an analyst again, the program will definitely lose some credibility with this humble observer.
There's always a little segment in the Week - How They See Us - and even though you have to consider the editorial platform of the magazine and how it edits the piece, the segment does exist. Meet The Press should consider this perspective a bit more.
The first segment was distressing and also ultimately even sadder than the second, but by no means the fault of Mr. Russert. Joe Biden, the supposed voice of reason for the Democratic Party and the former Speaker of the House and neo-con Newt Gingrich were invited to share their 'insights' into how the United States should proceed internationally. I found both perspectives from these two seasoned politicians to be dim.
One the one hand, Mr. Gingrich is spouting on about WWIII, and on the other side Biden is in denial about how shreud the United States' opponents are. There is no way one can co-sign Mr. Gingrich's policy of militarilly taking out missles whereever and whenever we want. It isn't a world war - the war is between the United States and dictatorships around the world with the help of proxy terrorist organizations. Militarily, we don’t have the support from other nations to warrant the call for WWIII. And note the word 'organization': These people have their act together more than we think.
[Since 9/11, we've gone about it all wrong and maybe one night when life doesn't get in the way I will post what
how we should have gone about it. Whatever....]
To the right of Mr. Gingrich sat Senator Joe Biden of Delaware who tries to employ this voice of reason as many senior Democrats do, but at this point (and Biden illustrated it clearly here) it's all too vague. More diplomacy and the status quo in Iraq is his basic message, but Gingrich is right. Other countries aren't taking us seriously right now. However, it's the neo-cons who initiated the erosion of our credibility in the first place. Hmmm....
Joe Biden and the Democrats [a polka band from Waukesha, Wisconsin whose tunes no one wants to listens to] have to start proposing solid concrete, tangible solutions to the problems that this country faces. I know the strategy is to play foil to all the Republican screw-ups, and eventually letting them fall on their collective face, but sit back attitude should end NOW.
And on many little nuances with regard to details about larger policy, they tend agree, saying things like "With that point, I agree with...," playing diplomat with each other - ridiculous. Also, to Mr. Russert's credit, he tries to always break up any potential love-fests on an issue and right he should. There is a distinctly divided constituency out across the land.
As I write this, I am waiting for the transcript to be posted because there was a comment Senator Biden made as they faded, which was quite telling... stay tuned... here we go: Mr. Gingrich outlines what kind of diplomacy we should employ with North Korea and what does Mr. Biden say? "You should tell them that." Ugh. Them? The North Koreans or the Neo-cons? It doesn't really matter because neither would listen, but additionally there are two problems with that. One, there's Sen. Biden passing the buck - he's a candidate for President. Two, in what Mr. Gingrich said, earlier Sen. Biden didn't necessarily agree and now he let's it go.
Now onto the poster child for journalistic patheticness (let it stand), Robert Novak. He described how he would interview senior officials on couches, no tape recorder, no pen just having conversations. He also repeated that he would rather be the interviewer, commentator, or analyst than the interviewee. This is a person so set in his Republican views and closely aligned with the Administration, he had probably felt like he had carte blanche around The White House, thinking he was untouchable. He doesn't save face with this interview, he's simply a bird who got smashed in the beak and fell off his perch. Now he discloses that he DID give grand jury testimony back in 2004 and didn't fight the subpoena. Excuse me, that sounds like, "Run for cover and save your ass."
If Meet The Press has Robert Novak on as an analyst again, the program will definitely lose some credibility with this humble observer.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
April 23rd, 2006
Unbelievable we're back for the first post since November '04, and it hasn't been for lacking of watching in the slightest, but life gets in the way of blogging so one of the editorial decisions of these posts will be brevity. You're welcome.
So today was classic MTP; one that would reactivate a blog, and I owe it to the presence of three things - Ted Kennedy in 1962, and his presence in the studio); David Broder, the Dean of Editorial Page Biters of Sound, and Lord Stanley's Cup.
"The Administration is cutting and running," which is not exactly true, but is a provocative phrase - without a doubt. The reason it isn't exactly true is that the Administration is actually 'maintaining.' They are waiting out the policy they have in place until the Iraqi's can get their shit together, frankly, and then by that time their eight years will be over. Are the 'cutting and running' mentally and trying to bring the American public along with them by botching other things more closer to home? Well...you fill in the rest.
Ted Kennedy can be very good in the common sense role, but really for any politician opposed to this administration's agenda it's quite easy. But to his credit, he did not vote for the war and yes, he has been consistent with his view. But perhaps, most importantly, he addresses the middle class often as he did today. Republicans in all honesty, have lost complete sight of that, at least rhetorically.
So classic MTP is when you have a guest with the following criteria: a long history with the show, a 'senior official' status, and, of course, you've been making some headlines - i.e. Senator Kennedy's book and his co-sponsorship of the Immigration bill with Sen. John McCain.
But what was best about his appearance was when Tim (my apologies for first name basis - no respect, it's written because he is brought into my home and consciousness often - last time mentioned) went back to a clip from 1962, Kennedy's first appearance, and then asked about corruption, I think Tim was expecting a somewhat of a reminisce from the Senator but he articulated his defense of the position and remained consistent on something for 44 years. At least he has that.
The other part of a classic is the roundtable and the presence of David Broder. It isn't a classic roundtable if he's not there - simply put. Partially due to his personality and a lot to do with the fact that he always speaks common sense, he never has to raise his voice to make a point.
And classic Broder today was the way he completely shutdown Tony Blankley of the Washington Times - his local verbal jousting partner - and Tony knew it. Also, Broder always gets asked the first question - I wonder if they have a contract? Tony was talking about CIA discipline and this was a problem. Well, David calmly but firmly retorted that if the Administration would exercise some itself then there wouldn't be the compulsion for such leaks and as Blankley would describe it - subversion. Ah, the Dean... Blankley tried to recover about all he had was off balance bullshit rebuttal.
Ron Brownstein aspires to be the Dean - sitting next to Broder and echoing many of his points so Blankley has no chance - it's gang mentality. And why not, Blankley is a columnist for a newspaper and I have no problem that he states an opinion that I disagree with - it's just that he still uses the word 'we' as in my Republican colleagues and I think... That's towing the anchor a bit too much.
Aside: Bill Bennett was quoted that journalists should go to jail for publishing such sensitive information - about leaks and such. Hasn't this commentator discredited himself enough already? Judith Miller's motivations can absolutely be put to question so to put forth such a notion is simple posturing - counterproductive.
And then you have a former Press Secretary - Dee Dee Meyers who worked for President Clinton. Everyone you talk to nowadays who has heard a former Clinton official speak marvels at how much common sense they all seem to have. Then you automatically think why can't this country be that sensible. If only Clinton could keep his thing in his pants and only if the Republicans would be so sexually repressed - maybe to this day would we still be better off.
Lastly, the presence of Lord Stanley's Cup - the oldest professional trophy in sports on the oldest television program, my humble kudos to the synergy. Being a big hockey fan myself, as soon as I saw it, I knew that Tim was going to relish in last night's 3-2 Buffalo win over my Flyers. Isn't politics sporting?
So today was classic MTP; one that would reactivate a blog, and I owe it to the presence of three things - Ted Kennedy in 1962, and his presence in the studio); David Broder, the Dean of Editorial Page Biters of Sound, and Lord Stanley's Cup.
"The Administration is cutting and running," which is not exactly true, but is a provocative phrase - without a doubt. The reason it isn't exactly true is that the Administration is actually 'maintaining.' They are waiting out the policy they have in place until the Iraqi's can get their shit together, frankly, and then by that time their eight years will be over. Are the 'cutting and running' mentally and trying to bring the American public along with them by botching other things more closer to home? Well...you fill in the rest.
Ted Kennedy can be very good in the common sense role, but really for any politician opposed to this administration's agenda it's quite easy. But to his credit, he did not vote for the war and yes, he has been consistent with his view. But perhaps, most importantly, he addresses the middle class often as he did today. Republicans in all honesty, have lost complete sight of that, at least rhetorically.
So classic MTP is when you have a guest with the following criteria: a long history with the show, a 'senior official' status, and, of course, you've been making some headlines - i.e. Senator Kennedy's book and his co-sponsorship of the Immigration bill with Sen. John McCain.
But what was best about his appearance was when Tim (my apologies for first name basis - no respect, it's written because he is brought into my home and consciousness often - last time mentioned) went back to a clip from 1962, Kennedy's first appearance, and then asked about corruption, I think Tim was expecting a somewhat of a reminisce from the Senator but he articulated his defense of the position and remained consistent on something for 44 years. At least he has that.
The other part of a classic is the roundtable and the presence of David Broder. It isn't a classic roundtable if he's not there - simply put. Partially due to his personality and a lot to do with the fact that he always speaks common sense, he never has to raise his voice to make a point.
And classic Broder today was the way he completely shutdown Tony Blankley of the Washington Times - his local verbal jousting partner - and Tony knew it. Also, Broder always gets asked the first question - I wonder if they have a contract? Tony was talking about CIA discipline and this was a problem. Well, David calmly but firmly retorted that if the Administration would exercise some itself then there wouldn't be the compulsion for such leaks and as Blankley would describe it - subversion. Ah, the Dean... Blankley tried to recover about all he had was off balance bullshit rebuttal.
Ron Brownstein aspires to be the Dean - sitting next to Broder and echoing many of his points so Blankley has no chance - it's gang mentality. And why not, Blankley is a columnist for a newspaper and I have no problem that he states an opinion that I disagree with - it's just that he still uses the word 'we' as in my Republican colleagues and I think... That's towing the anchor a bit too much.
Aside: Bill Bennett was quoted that journalists should go to jail for publishing such sensitive information - about leaks and such. Hasn't this commentator discredited himself enough already? Judith Miller's motivations can absolutely be put to question so to put forth such a notion is simple posturing - counterproductive.
And then you have a former Press Secretary - Dee Dee Meyers who worked for President Clinton. Everyone you talk to nowadays who has heard a former Clinton official speak marvels at how much common sense they all seem to have. Then you automatically think why can't this country be that sensible. If only Clinton could keep his thing in his pants and only if the Republicans would be so sexually repressed - maybe to this day would we still be better off.
Lastly, the presence of Lord Stanley's Cup - the oldest professional trophy in sports on the oldest television program, my humble kudos to the synergy. Being a big hockey fan myself, as soon as I saw it, I knew that Tim was going to relish in last night's 3-2 Buffalo win over my Flyers. Isn't politics sporting?
Monday, November 29, 2004
The Right to Smugness
November 28, 2004
Guests:
Former Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ), Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission
Rev. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition
Rev. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network
Rev. Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine
Subjects:
9/11 Commission Overhaul, Two Key Republicans are blocking the bill.
The Role Moral Issues play in American politics
Meet The Press trumped out the Executive Branch of the 9/11 Commission as a bill consisting of the body's recommendations soon goes up for vote. Two Republican representatives, including Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who serves on the judiciary committee - are trying to block its adoption because of a single provision that involves licensing drivers. Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton appeared on this week's program to basically shame these two representatives for obstructing legislation that everyone and his mother apparently want passed.
I realize that in the last column I said that there is no such thing as non-partisan and here we are the very next week with members of a bi-partisan commission. However, these distinguished men aren't active in gritty day-to-day politics anymore and can now serve on policy commissions that are above the fray, political divinity if you will. This leads me to say that these men both show a confidence about their recommendations that would suggest that they are beyond reproach. So why shouldn't they be smug?
So Mr. Sensenbrenner and the other representative, who incidentally was so important that no one each mention him by name, should give it up and stand down. And driver's licenses? Forget that, I have a few questions about the notion of a top intelligence post. First of all, who is going to occupy that spot? Mr. Porter Goss's name was the only one that practically came out of the Bush Administration's group-speak so now there will be someone thrown between the two? I don't think so. This top post would make certain that information would flow fluidly between the various intelligence agencies, but is this just the information that each agency chooses to give this office? The logical answer of course, is 'no,' but don't be so certain, these types of incidences will occur; it seems so typical. Hence, does this new post simply become an intelligence trafficking center for the President?
So the bill isn't perfect but it should be passed. Are indirect endorsements out of bounds? Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton were given time to say their collective peace, but how about Sensenbrenner and the other guy? Do they get time to explain themselves? Who has the patience for equal time anyway?
Meanwhile in the next segment…
Did you hear the joke about how the journalist kept four reverends from poking each other in the throat? Of course you didn't because it was on Meet the Press. It's a sad state of affairs that Mr. Russert had to repeat the word “peace” over and over again in the presence of four reverends.
I almost don't know where to begin here with this group. Four Christian men could barely contain their contempt for one another. I will hand it to the producers this week, it made for good television, but it was very productive as far as an overall discourse was concerned with regard morals playing a role in American politics.
There were a few aspects of the conversation that did stick out with me. First, I have to say that the middle trust does suck. No one wanted to listen to Rev. Wallis, the only one of the group who showed no signs of smugness and he was a total bore, making way too much sense. “The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of values from our public life,” he says. Please.
Dr. Richard Land said that once there is a fetus in the womb, it is no longer the woman's body. That notion isn't anywhere near American mainstream political thinking, no to mention that it is simply an inaccurate statement. This leads me to trouble in taking seriously anything this man says going forward. I agree with Rev. Sharpton when he says that we shouldn't legislate women's bodies, or anybody's body for that matter.
And Rev. Falwell doesn't stand on a pedestal that God made. When asked why it was a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush, this is what he said. “Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.”
First of all, that answer doesn't make any sense. Mr. Falwell a Democrat? Like I said: good television. I agree that Kerry met none of those criteria, but he's a Democrat, at least that how the ballot went. Jerry Falwell votes Christian: pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and pro-death penalty. I know, I threw that last one in there, but since the endorsement was ringing so loudly, and Mr. Bush is a fan of that last one, I thought I would throw it in there. Also, not for anything, but he wanted us to know that he prayed in the shower. So now that I have that mental image, where am I left in the aftermath of that?
The United States is all about Liberty, and you can use your set of morals as a guide on how you vote, but this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to fall in line… or be damned for eternity.
Guests:
Former Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ), Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission
Rev. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition
Rev. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network
Rev. Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine
Subjects:
9/11 Commission Overhaul, Two Key Republicans are blocking the bill.
The Role Moral Issues play in American politics
Meet The Press trumped out the Executive Branch of the 9/11 Commission as a bill consisting of the body's recommendations soon goes up for vote. Two Republican representatives, including Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who serves on the judiciary committee - are trying to block its adoption because of a single provision that involves licensing drivers. Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton appeared on this week's program to basically shame these two representatives for obstructing legislation that everyone and his mother apparently want passed.
I realize that in the last column I said that there is no such thing as non-partisan and here we are the very next week with members of a bi-partisan commission. However, these distinguished men aren't active in gritty day-to-day politics anymore and can now serve on policy commissions that are above the fray, political divinity if you will. This leads me to say that these men both show a confidence about their recommendations that would suggest that they are beyond reproach. So why shouldn't they be smug?
So Mr. Sensenbrenner and the other representative, who incidentally was so important that no one each mention him by name, should give it up and stand down. And driver's licenses? Forget that, I have a few questions about the notion of a top intelligence post. First of all, who is going to occupy that spot? Mr. Porter Goss's name was the only one that practically came out of the Bush Administration's group-speak so now there will be someone thrown between the two? I don't think so. This top post would make certain that information would flow fluidly between the various intelligence agencies, but is this just the information that each agency chooses to give this office? The logical answer of course, is 'no,' but don't be so certain, these types of incidences will occur; it seems so typical. Hence, does this new post simply become an intelligence trafficking center for the President?
So the bill isn't perfect but it should be passed. Are indirect endorsements out of bounds? Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton were given time to say their collective peace, but how about Sensenbrenner and the other guy? Do they get time to explain themselves? Who has the patience for equal time anyway?
Meanwhile in the next segment…
Did you hear the joke about how the journalist kept four reverends from poking each other in the throat? Of course you didn't because it was on Meet the Press. It's a sad state of affairs that Mr. Russert had to repeat the word “peace” over and over again in the presence of four reverends.
I almost don't know where to begin here with this group. Four Christian men could barely contain their contempt for one another. I will hand it to the producers this week, it made for good television, but it was very productive as far as an overall discourse was concerned with regard morals playing a role in American politics.
There were a few aspects of the conversation that did stick out with me. First, I have to say that the middle trust does suck. No one wanted to listen to Rev. Wallis, the only one of the group who showed no signs of smugness and he was a total bore, making way too much sense. “The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of values from our public life,” he says. Please.
Dr. Richard Land said that once there is a fetus in the womb, it is no longer the woman's body. That notion isn't anywhere near American mainstream political thinking, no to mention that it is simply an inaccurate statement. This leads me to trouble in taking seriously anything this man says going forward. I agree with Rev. Sharpton when he says that we shouldn't legislate women's bodies, or anybody's body for that matter.
And Rev. Falwell doesn't stand on a pedestal that God made. When asked why it was a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush, this is what he said. “Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.”
First of all, that answer doesn't make any sense. Mr. Falwell a Democrat? Like I said: good television. I agree that Kerry met none of those criteria, but he's a Democrat, at least that how the ballot went. Jerry Falwell votes Christian: pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and pro-death penalty. I know, I threw that last one in there, but since the endorsement was ringing so loudly, and Mr. Bush is a fan of that last one, I thought I would throw it in there. Also, not for anything, but he wanted us to know that he prayed in the shower. So now that I have that mental image, where am I left in the aftermath of that?
The United States is all about Liberty, and you can use your set of morals as a guide on how you vote, but this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to fall in line… or be damned for eternity.
No Champagne Brunch
Sunday November 21, 2004
Guests:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: Member of the Armed Services Committee
Michael Sheuer: Former CIA Analyst, Author of “Imperial Hubris”
Subjects:
Iraq, Iran, and The War on Terror
Given the guests on the show, one could be optimistic that some straight answers were going to be given in regard to Iraq and al-Qaida. Mr. McCain has a solid reputation of being a straight talker and one who is not afraid to disagree with his party when he sees things differently. In regard to the second guest, I recently found out that Mr. Sheuer was the author of “Imperial Hubris” and wanted to hear what someone inside the classified circle of information had to say about what is being done and what will be done in regard to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Mr. Russert began his interview with Mr. McCain with questions about Iran. If any part of the sections about Iran from Richard Clarke's “Against All Enemies” is to be believed, our decisions and policies toward Iran are of the gravest of importance. Mr. Russert asked the Senator if we were close to military action with this country. Absolutely a question that needs to be asked, but to think that we are even remotely considering entering into another conflict is reckless and short sited.
As the conversation carried on, Mr. Russert asked, “What is our timetable? How much time do we have for Iran to stand down?” First of all, do we actually think that Iran is going to stand down because of some threat from the U.S.? He made it sound like military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is inevitable by the way he phrased the question. Secondly, at this time, it would be the most profound military error the United States has ever made. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to create a sense of security there, even with the massive redeployment of U.S. troops throughout the world so how would we fare with Iran? You can see where I am going with this.
Another frightening prospect that was brought up was the potential a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. McCain's answer fit his style - logical and responsibly hawkish - and he said that “…from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult,” due to the fact that the facilities are spread all over Tehran. He also said that we want to avoid such a conflict at all costs, and I believe Mr. McCain. However, that this prospect is on the table is just plain scary and I don't trust that someone like Paul Wolfewitz to make a decision that avoids war. I could carry on about Iran for pages, but I will try to stay with a simple critique of the show.
In discussing Iraq and troops, Mr. McCain was straightforward in saying that we need more there, simple. It's unfortunate, but he's right. We need more troops. One thing with Mr. Russert, when he strongly disagrees with something, he won't let it go and follow up questions come firing from him. From seeing him do so many interviews, I rend to feel that he agrees when he moves on.
We could go point by point through the interview, but if you're reading this, then you've probably already have seen the show. It must be said that the notions of “will of the people” and “non-partisan” really don't exist in the United States anymore. Let's face, the will of the people is really the will of the politicians that the people have elected. As for 'non-partisan,' whether it be politicians or journalists, everyone today leans one way or the other. John McCain, I feel, is one of the few politicians left who considers the will of the people at all. And Tim Russert, refreshingly, peppers Democrats and Republicans alike about their views. For example, anyone who viewed the South Carolina Senate debate series and then voted for Jim DeMint is just an idiot. That's the way I see it.
This week's second guest was Michael Sheuer, a former CIA analyst who worked in the Osama bin Laden unit. First, I think the CIA encouraged Mr. Sheuer to get out there and start speaking up. I think the agency resents for the most part that they now have to tow a company line and it's not their own, it's Mr. Bushes. The author of “Imperial Hubris” is now out from behind the wall of anonymity and answering questions and here he is on Meet The Press.
First, when I see interviews with people like this, my sense is that these people give honest answers that we don't want to hear. They have objectified the subjects for which they gather intelligence and then deal with their targets with cold hard pragmatism. With this said, Mr. Sheuer's statements were downright sobering…this was no Sunday brunch.
Mr. Russert started off the interview with a requisite excerpt of Mr. Sheuer's book, which said that we were losing the war on terror. Mr. Sheuer affirmed this and went on to explain that our enemies feel like Americans are out to destroy their religion. Well, unless that perception is changed, which I don't see happening anytime soon, we will be at endless war.
Mr. Sheuer touches on this:
His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply
wants us our of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle
East…. My point here is that America has a choice between war
and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden.
This reflects what people like Tom Friedman have suggested which to do, which is address the poverty and lack of education and HOPE that Muslims have. Frankly, we don't care about the Muslim community's lack of hope, and unless Mr. Bush pays more than lip service to their plight, we're at endless war. The war on terror is this generation's Cold War. And this climate of fear is going to be nurtured within the American public. Control of information is our government's goal so that political agenda can be run through without meaningful opposition.
Out of habit of interviewing politicians, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Sheuer about what someone said in regard to the analyst ranting about not being able to be heard, suggesting some kind of political agenda at work. This line of questioning was an error in judgment on the part of Mr. Russert. This should be a discussion devoid of politics, but he felt the need to bring it into the equation unnecessarily. However, what makes Mr. Russert one of the top commentators in politics is that he question the words of the people he is interviewing, which he did here with Mr. Sheuer's appearance on Hardball.
I found it interesting that Mr. Sheuer, thoughout the interview, addressed Mr. Russert as 'sir.' This said to me that this man isn't used to being in front of a camera answering questions and hence, his answers aren't indirect answers to questions like most politicians.
“There's a great deal of killing to be done,” says Michael Sheuer. There is nothing to gain politically in this statement; it's hard and cold… and true.
Guests:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: Member of the Armed Services Committee
Michael Sheuer: Former CIA Analyst, Author of “Imperial Hubris”
Subjects:
Iraq, Iran, and The War on Terror
Given the guests on the show, one could be optimistic that some straight answers were going to be given in regard to Iraq and al-Qaida. Mr. McCain has a solid reputation of being a straight talker and one who is not afraid to disagree with his party when he sees things differently. In regard to the second guest, I recently found out that Mr. Sheuer was the author of “Imperial Hubris” and wanted to hear what someone inside the classified circle of information had to say about what is being done and what will be done in regard to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Mr. Russert began his interview with Mr. McCain with questions about Iran. If any part of the sections about Iran from Richard Clarke's “Against All Enemies” is to be believed, our decisions and policies toward Iran are of the gravest of importance. Mr. Russert asked the Senator if we were close to military action with this country. Absolutely a question that needs to be asked, but to think that we are even remotely considering entering into another conflict is reckless and short sited.
As the conversation carried on, Mr. Russert asked, “What is our timetable? How much time do we have for Iran to stand down?” First of all, do we actually think that Iran is going to stand down because of some threat from the U.S.? He made it sound like military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is inevitable by the way he phrased the question. Secondly, at this time, it would be the most profound military error the United States has ever made. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to create a sense of security there, even with the massive redeployment of U.S. troops throughout the world so how would we fare with Iran? You can see where I am going with this.
Another frightening prospect that was brought up was the potential a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. McCain's answer fit his style - logical and responsibly hawkish - and he said that “…from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult,” due to the fact that the facilities are spread all over Tehran. He also said that we want to avoid such a conflict at all costs, and I believe Mr. McCain. However, that this prospect is on the table is just plain scary and I don't trust that someone like Paul Wolfewitz to make a decision that avoids war. I could carry on about Iran for pages, but I will try to stay with a simple critique of the show.
In discussing Iraq and troops, Mr. McCain was straightforward in saying that we need more there, simple. It's unfortunate, but he's right. We need more troops. One thing with Mr. Russert, when he strongly disagrees with something, he won't let it go and follow up questions come firing from him. From seeing him do so many interviews, I rend to feel that he agrees when he moves on.
We could go point by point through the interview, but if you're reading this, then you've probably already have seen the show. It must be said that the notions of “will of the people” and “non-partisan” really don't exist in the United States anymore. Let's face, the will of the people is really the will of the politicians that the people have elected. As for 'non-partisan,' whether it be politicians or journalists, everyone today leans one way or the other. John McCain, I feel, is one of the few politicians left who considers the will of the people at all. And Tim Russert, refreshingly, peppers Democrats and Republicans alike about their views. For example, anyone who viewed the South Carolina Senate debate series and then voted for Jim DeMint is just an idiot. That's the way I see it.
This week's second guest was Michael Sheuer, a former CIA analyst who worked in the Osama bin Laden unit. First, I think the CIA encouraged Mr. Sheuer to get out there and start speaking up. I think the agency resents for the most part that they now have to tow a company line and it's not their own, it's Mr. Bushes. The author of “Imperial Hubris” is now out from behind the wall of anonymity and answering questions and here he is on Meet The Press.
First, when I see interviews with people like this, my sense is that these people give honest answers that we don't want to hear. They have objectified the subjects for which they gather intelligence and then deal with their targets with cold hard pragmatism. With this said, Mr. Sheuer's statements were downright sobering…this was no Sunday brunch.
Mr. Russert started off the interview with a requisite excerpt of Mr. Sheuer's book, which said that we were losing the war on terror. Mr. Sheuer affirmed this and went on to explain that our enemies feel like Americans are out to destroy their religion. Well, unless that perception is changed, which I don't see happening anytime soon, we will be at endless war.
Mr. Sheuer touches on this:
His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply
wants us our of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle
East…. My point here is that America has a choice between war
and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden.
This reflects what people like Tom Friedman have suggested which to do, which is address the poverty and lack of education and HOPE that Muslims have. Frankly, we don't care about the Muslim community's lack of hope, and unless Mr. Bush pays more than lip service to their plight, we're at endless war. The war on terror is this generation's Cold War. And this climate of fear is going to be nurtured within the American public. Control of information is our government's goal so that political agenda can be run through without meaningful opposition.
Out of habit of interviewing politicians, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Sheuer about what someone said in regard to the analyst ranting about not being able to be heard, suggesting some kind of political agenda at work. This line of questioning was an error in judgment on the part of Mr. Russert. This should be a discussion devoid of politics, but he felt the need to bring it into the equation unnecessarily. However, what makes Mr. Russert one of the top commentators in politics is that he question the words of the people he is interviewing, which he did here with Mr. Sheuer's appearance on Hardball.
I found it interesting that Mr. Sheuer, thoughout the interview, addressed Mr. Russert as 'sir.' This said to me that this man isn't used to being in front of a camera answering questions and hence, his answers aren't indirect answers to questions like most politicians.
“There's a great deal of killing to be done,” says Michael Sheuer. There is nothing to gain politically in this statement; it's hard and cold… and true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)