Well, here we go. That which we dreaded has finally happened. BO has selected his (first) Supreme Court justice nominee, and she's everything we (who resisted and still do resist BO's allure) expected her to be, and more. More because the now emasculated Republican Party doesn't appear to have the slightest idea what to do with her. Even a whisper of criticism will be labeled racist. Not even logical, commonsensical criticism, like that presented here by Rich Lowry, would they dare to utter.
Will they stand up, present their arguments, make their case? Or will they slink away, flaccid tails between their wobbly knees? I don't recall the Democrats having any problem skewering Clarence Thomas, a black man...should not a Latina be given the same scrutiny? Are we not a color-blind society? Has not change come to America?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Well Dressed Emperor
One thing was said during our last email discussion (very civil, thanks) was that you thought I was wrong to refer to BO as "the emperor having no clothes." You said you thought my logic was flawed because people are now much more critical of him and will be more so as issues get scrutinized, etc.
As I said in response, I hope you're right, but evidently it's still pretty much of a love fest out there, at least according to GB, who reported on the "hilarious" correspondents' dinner (he was there). Here's how he saw things:
Me again: So for now at least, I think it's safe to say that, at least to those who voted for him and are rooting for him, people still see in him what they want to see and not what many of us who haven't been bitten by the Obama bug clearly do see...
It's disturbing to me (and should be to all of us, regardless of party affiliation)...the media are supposed to be the watchdogs, holding government accountable. Right now, though, for the most part, the "mainstream" media still appears to be tongue-tied and deferential. That's why I go directly to my own media sources after reading the papers (we get three, actually).Yes, I know...the LA Times has written editorials that are critical, they have a weekly conservative columnist (Jonah Goldberg), sometimes the letters represent "my" side, etc.
All well and good. But sometimes, balance and objectivity is more than op-eds. It's the news that doesn't get told. For instance, I learned recently that Obama invited the families of the USS Cole to the White House because they were starting to publicly question his decision release prisoners from Guantanamo and he wanted to quell the ruckus. Here's an op-ed (link below) written by one of the family members who was in attendance at that meeting. Her name is Debra Burlingame. It's a good example of what I'm talking about...the press reports one thing ("touching and powerful meeting") but the reality is quite another (she concludes, "We've been had," and one of the families has even said they regret having voted for him). The naked emperor in all his glory....?
I saw nothing of this in our papers. I learned about it through Bauer's daily report, and then went and searched out Burlingame's op-ed myself...who does this besides me? Not very many, I'll wager. And if papers go under (or worse, if the federal government offers to "help" them out), well, so much for a free and independent and responsible press...is this really what we (Americans) want?
Obama and the 9/11 Families
As I said in response, I hope you're right, but evidently it's still pretty much of a love fest out there, at least according to GB, who reported on the "hilarious" correspondents' dinner (he was there). Here's how he saw things:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said his fellow reporters acted like schoolgirls in the presence of a rock star. It’s fortunate no one fainted. There was a moment that really stood out for me. The president looked out at the crowd of panting journalists and said, “Most of you covered me (during the election) and all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox [News] table.” Without any shame, the room erupted into one of the loudest rounds of applause of the night. Barack was their man in November and he is their man now. Objective journalism is dead.
Me again: So for now at least, I think it's safe to say that, at least to those who voted for him and are rooting for him, people still see in him what they want to see and not what many of us who haven't been bitten by the Obama bug clearly do see...
It's disturbing to me (and should be to all of us, regardless of party affiliation)...the media are supposed to be the watchdogs, holding government accountable. Right now, though, for the most part, the "mainstream" media still appears to be tongue-tied and deferential. That's why I go directly to my own media sources after reading the papers (we get three, actually).Yes, I know...the LA Times has written editorials that are critical, they have a weekly conservative columnist (Jonah Goldberg), sometimes the letters represent "my" side, etc.
All well and good. But sometimes, balance and objectivity is more than op-eds. It's the news that doesn't get told. For instance, I learned recently that Obama invited the families of the USS Cole to the White House because they were starting to publicly question his decision release prisoners from Guantanamo and he wanted to quell the ruckus. Here's an op-ed (link below) written by one of the family members who was in attendance at that meeting. Her name is Debra Burlingame. It's a good example of what I'm talking about...the press reports one thing ("touching and powerful meeting") but the reality is quite another (she concludes, "We've been had," and one of the families has even said they regret having voted for him). The naked emperor in all his glory....?
I saw nothing of this in our papers. I learned about it through Bauer's daily report, and then went and searched out Burlingame's op-ed myself...who does this besides me? Not very many, I'll wager. And if papers go under (or worse, if the federal government offers to "help" them out), well, so much for a free and independent and responsible press...is this really what we (Americans) want?
Obama and the 9/11 Families
Friday, May 8, 2009
Post Election Musings
Excerpts from a letter to a relative:
Rereading your original note, I realize I skimmed your last sentence, the one about your analogy of a 6th grade kid running for class president promising soda fountains, even though he knows he can't keep the promise. But the 6th grade kid gets elected anyway because, as you say, voters tend to believe what they want to believe.
There was a point during the campaigning that I naively believed voters would listen to the candidates, the debates, the promises, would examine the facts, and would ultimately figure out that it was McCain who would be better equipped to lead our country during these terrible times. And they'd vote for the right man for the job.
The first time I realized this might not happen was in the immediate aftermath of the first presidential debate. (My husband Perry) and I watched it from start to finish (as we did all the debates). This one was on foreign policy, where many analysts believed McCain was the stronger candidate. I remember being so impressed with him--his eloquence, his comprehension of the issues, his experience, his knowledge. I distinctly remember commenting to Perry at one point (about McCain), "I want him to be my president" and another time saying (about Obama), "He comes across as the junior senator that he is." When it ended I dubbed it "The President and the Professor," and predicted the pundits would give this one to McCain, 1-0.
However, immediately the post-debate analysis began, and to my amazement, the pundits were saying how presidential Obama came across, how knowledgeable, how he proved to the American people that he could lead in foreign policy, and that yes, Obama had clearly won the debate. Perry and I looked at each other as if to say, Did they watch the same debate I did? And that's when I started to think something was going on here, something that transcended mere politics. You could hear the the Twilight Zone theme in the background...
I'm beginning to think that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality--whether it's soda fountains or strong foreign policy experience. Worse, when the soda fountains don't materialize and the promise-maker says, "Gosh, unfortunately, they never will materialize at all," the voters who elected him, rather than challenge him on why he didn't research the facts before making the claims, are remarkably indifferent. "He just didn't know at the time that he was making promises he couldn't keep," they say. "And isn't it just so brave of him to admit it."
This is going to sound odd to you, but to me, there's something almost beyond "politics as usual" going on here. I can't put my finger on it. It borders on the "mystical." There's a verse in the Bible about how God sends "a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." This is in reference to the time of the anti-Christ (for the record, I don't think Barack Obama is the anti-christ), and that one phrase about powerful delusions rings true to me. It puts the whole election, as well as that post-debate "what the heck?" moment, into perspective. For the first time I could see how it actually could happen, how people actually could fall under the spell of the actual anti-christ, because he will be attractive and seductive and will make promises and people will want him to keep his promises.
I realized too how difficult it is to try and convince people otherwise if they are blinded by what they want to see. Deception is a powerful thing. It's like that old fairy tale, the Emperor Has No Clothes. Everyone sees the emperor all dressed up in his fancy regalia, but the little boy sees him naked and can't figure out what everyone is cheering about. The guy's not wearing any clothes, he says. But the people can't see it.
I know what you mean about voting for "your" guy....that's what's sad about what's going on in politics today. Substance doesn't matter as much as party loyalty. Woe to you if you vote for the other guy, right? Was I blinded by Bush's charisma? I don't know, but with Bush, it was more about there was no other option. No way, Gore, no way Kerry. With McCain and Obama, on the other hand, I truly believe McCain was a viable alternative for Democrats, if only they could have gotten beyond their unreasonable hatred of Bush (which Obama skillfully exploited). McCain has a long track record of working across the aisle with Democrats, has strong foreign policy credentials, has a long and documented Senate voting record, and would have been much more likely to heal the partisan divide than any of the other Republican or Democrat candidates. The Maverick moniker got old and eventually was mocked, but there's something to it in the sense that McCain really wasn't an old guard Republican. He really was more of an independent at heart.
Obama's triumph over McCain, though inevitable, was one of symbolism over substance, of theater over truth, probably because the contrasts were just so stark: young vs. old, black vs. white, handsome vs. craggy, politically shrewd vs. politically inept, and, of course, the biggie: New and Fresh vs. No More Bush (untrue and unfair to McCain, but hey, whatever wins elections).
Rereading your original note, I realize I skimmed your last sentence, the one about your analogy of a 6th grade kid running for class president promising soda fountains, even though he knows he can't keep the promise. But the 6th grade kid gets elected anyway because, as you say, voters tend to believe what they want to believe.
There was a point during the campaigning that I naively believed voters would listen to the candidates, the debates, the promises, would examine the facts, and would ultimately figure out that it was McCain who would be better equipped to lead our country during these terrible times. And they'd vote for the right man for the job.
The first time I realized this might not happen was in the immediate aftermath of the first presidential debate. (My husband Perry) and I watched it from start to finish (as we did all the debates). This one was on foreign policy, where many analysts believed McCain was the stronger candidate. I remember being so impressed with him--his eloquence, his comprehension of the issues, his experience, his knowledge. I distinctly remember commenting to Perry at one point (about McCain), "I want him to be my president" and another time saying (about Obama), "He comes across as the junior senator that he is." When it ended I dubbed it "The President and the Professor," and predicted the pundits would give this one to McCain, 1-0.
However, immediately the post-debate analysis began, and to my amazement, the pundits were saying how presidential Obama came across, how knowledgeable, how he proved to the American people that he could lead in foreign policy, and that yes, Obama had clearly won the debate. Perry and I looked at each other as if to say, Did they watch the same debate I did? And that's when I started to think something was going on here, something that transcended mere politics. You could hear the the Twilight Zone theme in the background...
I'm beginning to think that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of reality--whether it's soda fountains or strong foreign policy experience. Worse, when the soda fountains don't materialize and the promise-maker says, "Gosh, unfortunately, they never will materialize at all," the voters who elected him, rather than challenge him on why he didn't research the facts before making the claims, are remarkably indifferent. "He just didn't know at the time that he was making promises he couldn't keep," they say. "And isn't it just so brave of him to admit it."
This is going to sound odd to you, but to me, there's something almost beyond "politics as usual" going on here. I can't put my finger on it. It borders on the "mystical." There's a verse in the Bible about how God sends "a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." This is in reference to the time of the anti-Christ (for the record, I don't think Barack Obama is the anti-christ), and that one phrase about powerful delusions rings true to me. It puts the whole election, as well as that post-debate "what the heck?" moment, into perspective. For the first time I could see how it actually could happen, how people actually could fall under the spell of the actual anti-christ, because he will be attractive and seductive and will make promises and people will want him to keep his promises.
I realized too how difficult it is to try and convince people otherwise if they are blinded by what they want to see. Deception is a powerful thing. It's like that old fairy tale, the Emperor Has No Clothes. Everyone sees the emperor all dressed up in his fancy regalia, but the little boy sees him naked and can't figure out what everyone is cheering about. The guy's not wearing any clothes, he says. But the people can't see it.
I know what you mean about voting for "your" guy....that's what's sad about what's going on in politics today. Substance doesn't matter as much as party loyalty. Woe to you if you vote for the other guy, right? Was I blinded by Bush's charisma? I don't know, but with Bush, it was more about there was no other option. No way, Gore, no way Kerry. With McCain and Obama, on the other hand, I truly believe McCain was a viable alternative for Democrats, if only they could have gotten beyond their unreasonable hatred of Bush (which Obama skillfully exploited). McCain has a long track record of working across the aisle with Democrats, has strong foreign policy credentials, has a long and documented Senate voting record, and would have been much more likely to heal the partisan divide than any of the other Republican or Democrat candidates. The Maverick moniker got old and eventually was mocked, but there's something to it in the sense that McCain really wasn't an old guard Republican. He really was more of an independent at heart.
Obama's triumph over McCain, though inevitable, was one of symbolism over substance, of theater over truth, probably because the contrasts were just so stark: young vs. old, black vs. white, handsome vs. craggy, politically shrewd vs. politically inept, and, of course, the biggie: New and Fresh vs. No More Bush (untrue and unfair to McCain, but hey, whatever wins elections).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)