Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, scream the Fox News commentators! In a recent caricature of actual news, the FOX network chose Garry Trudeau for particular derision in its ongoing attempts to stoke "us versus them" mentality with its viewers. The comic, published on Sunday, October 12th(1), is Trudeau's attempt to take conservative "family values" punditry to task for what he sees as its hypocrisy regarding unmarried sex and pregnancy, working mothers, and divorce as they pertain to the current Republican nominees. FOX however, shamelessly turned the tables on Mr. Trudeau. Failing to show the introductory frame of the cartoon where radio commentator Mark Slackmeyer says "Have you been wondering why Republicans have suddenly stopped talking about 'family values'?", the network recast the cartoon as an attack by liberals (or THEM) on the very values that THEY have claimed when refusing to condemn unmarried mothers, working mom's, or Bill Clinton. As always, the network cleverly uses the language of propaganda in the story; morphing the cartoon's single author into the faceless "THEY" of the collective liberal monster. And rather than address the question of hypocrisy within the Republican party that was raised by the cartoon, FOX instead concludes that liberal values now "lie in ashes" and then finishes by imploring justifiably outraged viewers to get out the vote in response. Funny or f*^ked up? Your call.
(1) http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20081012/cx_db_uc/db20081012;_ylt=Ara4_o9MoOrv3Rt6bT1g877V.i8C
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
A Climate of Violence
Recently, there has been much discussion about the virulent anger directed at Senator Obama surfacing at Senator McCain and Governor Palin's campaign events. Senator McCain's response to the justifiable concerns raised by such outbursts has been conflicted. While he has received due praise for countering the most outrageous statements of two participants at a recent town hall style rally, he did this while Governor Palin and his political advertising campaign simultaneously accuse Senator Obama of acting treacherously out of "blind ambition" by putting "political ambitions in front of doing what's right for our troops" and "palling around with terrorists" and lying about it. These are inflammatory attacks, and cannot reasonably be considered "legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record".
There is a huge amount of anger in the base of the Republican Party, fomented for years by incendiary rhetoric from pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. To these rabble rousers, people who disagree with them are un-American, socialists, criminals, or even traitors. The McCain campaign has given this type of rhetoric a mainstream foothold, and it is no coincidence that McCain followers are expressing fear of Obama and connecting him with terrorism and Islam. When a luminary such as Rep. John Lewis decries the climate of violence that he perceives to be growing in our country, all American citizens regardless of their political affiliations should be concerned. It is real and dangerous, as Rep. Lewis knows firsthand.
There is a huge amount of anger in the base of the Republican Party, fomented for years by incendiary rhetoric from pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. To these rabble rousers, people who disagree with them are un-American, socialists, criminals, or even traitors. The McCain campaign has given this type of rhetoric a mainstream foothold, and it is no coincidence that McCain followers are expressing fear of Obama and connecting him with terrorism and Islam. When a luminary such as Rep. John Lewis decries the climate of violence that he perceives to be growing in our country, all American citizens regardless of their political affiliations should be concerned. It is real and dangerous, as Rep. Lewis knows firsthand.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Does Sarah Palin Believe Iraqi Politicians Can't Read?
On Friday, the Alaska legislative panel released it's report concluding that Governor Palin abused her power and that claims made to law enforcement officials of fearing for her family's well being due to her former brother-in-law, “were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation”(1) The second conclusion is likely the most damaging since the Palin's central defense has always been they were just trying to protect their family.
Governor Palin's response? To cry partisanship and to resort to sensationalized revisionist history. Her new claim, for which she “pray[s] to God that people have enough time to let this register with them and start again, connecting the dots, and understand the contrast between the tickets”(2) is an accusation that Senator Obama somehow “put political ambitions in front of doing what's right for our troops”!(2) How did Senator Obama commit such a heinous act you ask? Apparently by holding discussions with Iraqi politicians regarding a very popularly held belief within Congress and the American people that a Status of Force agreement impacts Congressional legislative power regarding scope and duration of military conflicts. As a member of the Senate, Mr. Obama has been public and clear on his belief that Congress must be involved in such an agreement regarding our soldiers in Iraq.
And this happened four months ago during one of the most publicized foreign trips by a politician in history. Where was Senator McCain's, or frankly anybody's outrage then? They didn't miss anything or make new campaign ads because Senator Obama was acting responsibly within his stature as a United States Senator. And politicians in Iraq, having access to newspapers, would have been quite aware of Senator Obama's position before ever speaking with him.
It is pure unabashed political theater for Governor Palin to remake this non-story into a brazen attack and raw meat for her committed followers. It is sensationalized revisionist history, and a transparent strategy.
(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate;_ylt=Aia7Hug2ET71btuDSHK.54ys0NUE
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=werecommend
Governor Palin's response? To cry partisanship and to resort to sensationalized revisionist history. Her new claim, for which she “pray[s] to God that people have enough time to let this register with them and start again, connecting the dots, and understand the contrast between the tickets”(2) is an accusation that Senator Obama somehow “put political ambitions in front of doing what's right for our troops”!(2) How did Senator Obama commit such a heinous act you ask? Apparently by holding discussions with Iraqi politicians regarding a very popularly held belief within Congress and the American people that a Status of Force agreement impacts Congressional legislative power regarding scope and duration of military conflicts. As a member of the Senate, Mr. Obama has been public and clear on his belief that Congress must be involved in such an agreement regarding our soldiers in Iraq.
And this happened four months ago during one of the most publicized foreign trips by a politician in history. Where was Senator McCain's, or frankly anybody's outrage then? They didn't miss anything or make new campaign ads because Senator Obama was acting responsibly within his stature as a United States Senator. And politicians in Iraq, having access to newspapers, would have been quite aware of Senator Obama's position before ever speaking with him.
It is pure unabashed political theater for Governor Palin to remake this non-story into a brazen attack and raw meat for her committed followers. It is sensationalized revisionist history, and a transparent strategy.
(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate;_ylt=Aia7Hug2ET71btuDSHK.54ys0NUE
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=werecommend
Friday, October 10, 2008
You Can't Have it Both Ways
Conservative pundits continue to place the blame for our economic meltdown on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to their logic, it was the Democrats failure(1) to regulate them that caused this crisis. So, by this logic, it was a failure of regulation that caused the crisis. But these are the same people that continue to argue that deregulation is the answer! How can you argue to remove regulation on one hand and place blame on too little regulation on the other? You can't have it both ways.
(1) Note that the Republican caucus was in control of both houses of Congress for 12 of the last 15-years
(1) Note that the Republican caucus was in control of both houses of Congress for 12 of the last 15-years
Thursday, October 9, 2008
You Can't Fix What You Want Broken
In the recent vice-presidential debate, Governor Sarah Palin criticized the Federal Government, saying "unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds". With this statement, Gov. Palin parroted a common conservative mantra that the government is the problem not the solution, while asking the public for the opportunity to lead that same institution. This creates an inherent paradox. How can you fix something you don't believe in?
During the Clinton presidency, while there were legitimate debates about government policies, few would argue that the government was working admirably by historical standards. This was largely due to the Clinton era National Partnership for Reinventing Government. This program, focused on "transforming the culture in major agencies with the most public contact to be more results-oriented, performance-based, and customer-focused"(1) resulted in a plethora of improvements in government function. During this time, government appointments were more likely to rely upon professional qualifications and merit rather than political patronage. Even candidate George W. Bush during his 2000 run for president famously complimented FEMA under James Lee Witt, "James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis". Of course, Mr. Witt was a career emergency management professional appointed due to merit not patronage.
While anti-government rhetoric gained its most populist foothold during the "Reagan Revolution", in the years of the Bush Administration, the anti-government ideology espoused by Grover Norquist has found purchase in the highest levels of the Federal Government. Regulatory agencies have been compromised by political appointments selected from the industries that the agencies regulate, with obvious conflict of interest ramifications. Staffing decisions regarding the rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been made based upon political affiliations. Even the justice department has been compromised by political considerations. In short, the years of Republican dominance have left a federal government with a track record of poor performance that draws references to the HMS Titanic or the Hindenburg. The conservative revolution has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So the question is, who would you choose to fix an ailing government and financial system? Somebody whose political future depends on the failure of the very institutions they are asking to lead? I hope not.
(1) History of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/appendixf.html
During the Clinton presidency, while there were legitimate debates about government policies, few would argue that the government was working admirably by historical standards. This was largely due to the Clinton era National Partnership for Reinventing Government. This program, focused on "transforming the culture in major agencies with the most public contact to be more results-oriented, performance-based, and customer-focused"(1) resulted in a plethora of improvements in government function. During this time, government appointments were more likely to rely upon professional qualifications and merit rather than political patronage. Even candidate George W. Bush during his 2000 run for president famously complimented FEMA under James Lee Witt, "James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis". Of course, Mr. Witt was a career emergency management professional appointed due to merit not patronage.
While anti-government rhetoric gained its most populist foothold during the "Reagan Revolution", in the years of the Bush Administration, the anti-government ideology espoused by Grover Norquist has found purchase in the highest levels of the Federal Government. Regulatory agencies have been compromised by political appointments selected from the industries that the agencies regulate, with obvious conflict of interest ramifications. Staffing decisions regarding the rebuilding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been made based upon political affiliations. Even the justice department has been compromised by political considerations. In short, the years of Republican dominance have left a federal government with a track record of poor performance that draws references to the HMS Titanic or the Hindenburg. The conservative revolution has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So the question is, who would you choose to fix an ailing government and financial system? Somebody whose political future depends on the failure of the very institutions they are asking to lead? I hope not.
(1) History of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/appendixf.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
