Much has been said and written in the last week about the death at age 82 of überconservative William F. Buckley.
My beef with Mr. Buckley is personal.
Buckley was my bane in the final days of my editing the editorial pages of the now defunct Jackson (Miss.) Daily News. He wrote 22-inch columns for which I was given a 12-inch “hole” on the page. The fact is his writing was so damn pompous and verbose I could hardly decipher his meaning, and I had the challenge of rewriting his columns to make them fit the available hole AND make sense.
Since I did this after deadline on my regular job as copy editor, the effort quite often prevented me from getting off on time. And, while trying to edit a columnist’s words, my lame news editor kept harping at me that I was spending too much time – “just cut the bottom,” he would say.
I tried to explain to this new boss - who had proclaimed to the copy desk, “I’m not a news editor. I’ll never be a news editor. I’m a sports guy.” - that you cannot just cut the end off a column as you would a news story, where the most important facts appear first.
Never mind that we shouldn’t be editing and cutting a columnist’s words in the first place.
Day after day for three years I labored over the words and protected their meaning. And so, Mr. Buckley, rest in peace. You really were a rarity - a mix of intelligence and conservatism - and you will not soon be forgotten.
“I See My Dreams” today: “Our fixation on fantasies”
3.03.2008
2.29.2008
Equal time for McCain
From Media Matters, 28 February 2008 (LINK):
Will MSNBC devote as much coverage to McCain's embrace of Hagee's support as it did to Obama's rejection of Farrakhan?
“On February 27, MSNBC devoted significant coverage to an exchange from the most recent Democratic presidential debate in which NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about praise he received from controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, whose statements Obama has denounced.
“The same day, Pastor John Hagee - who has made controversial comments about homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism and women - endorsed Sen. John McCain, who embraced Hagee's support. Hagee's endorsement and McCain's response to it raise the question of whether MSNBC will report on them as extensively as it did on Farrakhan's praise.”
Will be interesting to see if MSNBC’s pro-Obama, anti-Clinton stance shifts once the Democratic nominee is established. Stay tuned.
Will MSNBC devote as much coverage to McCain's embrace of Hagee's support as it did to Obama's rejection of Farrakhan?
“On February 27, MSNBC devoted significant coverage to an exchange from the most recent Democratic presidential debate in which NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about praise he received from controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, whose statements Obama has denounced.
“The same day, Pastor John Hagee - who has made controversial comments about homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism and women - endorsed Sen. John McCain, who embraced Hagee's support. Hagee's endorsement and McCain's response to it raise the question of whether MSNBC will report on them as extensively as it did on Farrakhan's praise.”
Will be interesting to see if MSNBC’s pro-Obama, anti-Clinton stance shifts once the Democratic nominee is established. Stay tuned.
9 a.m. update: MSNBC's Alex Witt interviewed Mike Huckabee about Hagee's endorsement of McCain. Huckabee said he was "shocked" because of McCain's record on matters of importance to evangelicals. Huckabee seemed disappointed he did not get Hagee's endorsement. There was NO mention of Hagee's past statements.
“I See My Dreams” today: “Quite a leap”
2.08.2008
Another MSNBC mea culpa
Lots of guffaws on Obama Broadcasting Company yesterday over Chelsea Clinton’s phone calls to the gals on “The View.”
David Schuster, whose reporting and objectivity are unassailable, issued a sincere apology on today’s edition of “Morning Joke” for having suggested Chelsea was being “pimped.” Schuster, without repeating the word said he used “jargon” and did not mean to offend anyone.
People are just getting fed up with this mean-spirited crap against all things Clinton.
Apparently, there was another public outcry such as the one against Chris Matthews’ sexist mouth.
What crossed my mind, when these folks were laughing it up over the videotape from “The View:” these people don’t want to meet Bill Clinton in a dark alley.
Next post: ‘Gushing pundits’ goof again
David Schuster, whose reporting and objectivity are unassailable, issued a sincere apology on today’s edition of “Morning Joke” for having suggested Chelsea was being “pimped.” Schuster, without repeating the word said he used “jargon” and did not mean to offend anyone.
People are just getting fed up with this mean-spirited crap against all things Clinton.
Apparently, there was another public outcry such as the one against Chris Matthews’ sexist mouth.
What crossed my mind, when these folks were laughing it up over the videotape from “The View:” these people don’t want to meet Bill Clinton in a dark alley.
Next post: ‘Gushing pundits’ goof again
2.06.2008
'Gushing pundits' goof again
From Craig Crawford's Trail Mix, Congressional Quarterly (LINK):
Media Gets It Wrong Again
By Craig Crawford February 6, 2008 12:45 AM
If I were Barack Obama I would tell my flaks in the news media to shut up in the final days before elections. The chattering crowd's frenzy for this man only raises expectations that he cannot meet.
As a result, what was otherwise not too shabby a night for Obama on Super Tuesday came across like a public relations defeat because so much more had been expected. Still, those who predicted a bigger night for Obama are invested in downplaying what actually happened, and will surely gin him up for the next contests.
Before Super Tuesday, gushing pundits predicted that the Kennedy family endorsements would, at a minimum, deliver Massachusetts. Didn’t happen. Feverish news reports of rising momentum for Obama led to hints that Obama could win New Jersey. Didn’t happen.
And, oh yeah, California’s returns were supposed to keep us up all night because the "force of nature" that is Obama had erased Clinton’s lead in the state. Oops, it turned out that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead was so substantial that the networks could call the state for her just after midnight.
The California surprise promoted a bit of mea culpa from former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who has actually been a voice of reason as so many of his colleagues have lost their minds for Obama.
“Once again,” Brokaw said on MSNBC as Clinton’s early California win was announced, “in all of our conventional and collective wisdom, we were wrong.” -END-
“I See My Dreams” today: Best rebuttal to Hillary-bashing
Media Gets It Wrong Again
By Craig Crawford February 6, 2008 12:45 AM
If I were Barack Obama I would tell my flaks in the news media to shut up in the final days before elections. The chattering crowd's frenzy for this man only raises expectations that he cannot meet.
As a result, what was otherwise not too shabby a night for Obama on Super Tuesday came across like a public relations defeat because so much more had been expected. Still, those who predicted a bigger night for Obama are invested in downplaying what actually happened, and will surely gin him up for the next contests.
Before Super Tuesday, gushing pundits predicted that the Kennedy family endorsements would, at a minimum, deliver Massachusetts. Didn’t happen. Feverish news reports of rising momentum for Obama led to hints that Obama could win New Jersey. Didn’t happen.
And, oh yeah, California’s returns were supposed to keep us up all night because the "force of nature" that is Obama had erased Clinton’s lead in the state. Oops, it turned out that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead was so substantial that the networks could call the state for her just after midnight.
The California surprise promoted a bit of mea culpa from former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, who has actually been a voice of reason as so many of his colleagues have lost their minds for Obama.
“Once again,” Brokaw said on MSNBC as Clinton’s early California win was announced, “in all of our conventional and collective wisdom, we were wrong.” -END-
“I See My Dreams” today: Best rebuttal to Hillary-bashing
1.23.2008
Tom Brokaw gets it
Kudos to Tom Brokaw for showing pseudo-journalist Joe Scarborough how an old pro does it.
On today’s edition of “Morning Joke,” MSNBC’s Scarborough was busy dissing the Clintons when Brokaw did what any good journalist would do – interject reason.
As Scarborough guffawed over his clever remarks about Bill Clinton on the campaign trail for Hillary, Brokaw in his calm voice said, “On the other hand,” and I paraphrase here, if the former president were sitting at home reading, people would claim he didn’t care about his wife’s candidacy.
Scarborough took another tack, saying Obama really got Hillary with his “Walmart remark” during the S.C. debate.
“What she should have said,” Brokaw calmly suggested (again paraphrasing) is the reason she was on the Walmart board of directors as first lady of Arkansas was that Walmart owner Sam Walton was the largest contributor to Bill Clinton’s successful overhaul of the state’s education system.
Ethical journalism. Ah, Tom, those were the days, my friend.
“I See My Dreams” today: “Dum de dum dum, driftwood!”
On today’s edition of “Morning Joke,” MSNBC’s Scarborough was busy dissing the Clintons when Brokaw did what any good journalist would do – interject reason.
As Scarborough guffawed over his clever remarks about Bill Clinton on the campaign trail for Hillary, Brokaw in his calm voice said, “On the other hand,” and I paraphrase here, if the former president were sitting at home reading, people would claim he didn’t care about his wife’s candidacy.
Scarborough took another tack, saying Obama really got Hillary with his “Walmart remark” during the S.C. debate.
“What she should have said,” Brokaw calmly suggested (again paraphrasing) is the reason she was on the Walmart board of directors as first lady of Arkansas was that Walmart owner Sam Walton was the largest contributor to Bill Clinton’s successful overhaul of the state’s education system.
Ethical journalism. Ah, Tom, those were the days, my friend.
“I See My Dreams” today: “Dum de dum dum, driftwood!”
1.18.2008
Chris Matthews' mea culpa
SOURCE: The Associated Press
Chris Matthews apologizes for comment on Hillary Clinton
January 17, 2008
By DAVID BAUDER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — With protests rumbling, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said today that he was wrong to say last week that the reason Hillary Clinton is a senator and a candidate for president "is that her husband messed around."
Matthews discussed those remarks at the opening of his show "Hardball" today, the same day feminist leader Gloria Steinem and the heads of four prominent women's groups complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
"Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No," Matthews said. "That's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say (and), in fact, like me."
He said that while he has not always taken the time to say things right or be appropriate, "I will try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, to full equality of respect and ambition."
Matthews made the remarks about Clinton on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program Jan. 9, the day after the New Hampshire primary. Clinton's surprise victory in the primary was ascribed, in small part, on women angry that the press corps seemed to write her off after losing in Iowa.
On the program, Matthews said: "Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is that her husband messed around."
He explained in a later interview with the Associated Press that it was a reference to New York Democrats asking her to run for Senate when she showed dignity in the face of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He called it an "unexceptional statement."
But now, Matthews said today, "I get it."
"If I'd said that the only reason John McCain has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnam and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity," he said. "Saying Sen. Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous and, I can see now, came across just as nasty, worse yet just as dismissive."
Besides Steinem, the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus was signed by Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women; Lulu Flores, president of the National Women's Political Caucus; Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center; and Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority.
Last week's Clinton comment was the trigger for their protest, but they said Matthews' comments over the years "demonstrate a larger pattern of overt sexism when discussing women."
Capus wasn't immediately available today, and a spokesman said NBC had not yet seen the letter.
Matthews was also in the crosshairs of the liberal media watchdog Media Matters, which wrote to Capus on Wednesday to express concerns about the fast-talking political analyst.
David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters, called Matthews' statement a step in the right direction.
"Matthews said going forward he will try to be more supportive of the right of women
to full equality and respect for their ambitions," Brock said. "That is a pledge MSNBC has a responsibility to hold him to in the weeks and months ahead. Media Matters certainly will."
“I See My Dreams today: The South Carolina GOP primary
Chris Matthews apologizes for comment on Hillary Clinton
January 17, 2008
By DAVID BAUDER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — With protests rumbling, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said today that he was wrong to say last week that the reason Hillary Clinton is a senator and a candidate for president "is that her husband messed around."
Matthews discussed those remarks at the opening of his show "Hardball" today, the same day feminist leader Gloria Steinem and the heads of four prominent women's groups complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
"Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No," Matthews said. "That's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say (and), in fact, like me."
He said that while he has not always taken the time to say things right or be appropriate, "I will try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women, of all people, to full equality of respect and ambition."
Matthews made the remarks about Clinton on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program Jan. 9, the day after the New Hampshire primary. Clinton's surprise victory in the primary was ascribed, in small part, on women angry that the press corps seemed to write her off after losing in Iowa.
On the program, Matthews said: "Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is that her husband messed around."
He explained in a later interview with the Associated Press that it was a reference to New York Democrats asking her to run for Senate when she showed dignity in the face of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He called it an "unexceptional statement."
But now, Matthews said today, "I get it."
"If I'd said that the only reason John McCain has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnam and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity," he said. "Saying Sen. Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous and, I can see now, came across just as nasty, worse yet just as dismissive."
Besides Steinem, the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus was signed by Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women; Lulu Flores, president of the National Women's Political Caucus; Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center; and Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority.
Last week's Clinton comment was the trigger for their protest, but they said Matthews' comments over the years "demonstrate a larger pattern of overt sexism when discussing women."
Capus wasn't immediately available today, and a spokesman said NBC had not yet seen the letter.
Matthews was also in the crosshairs of the liberal media watchdog Media Matters, which wrote to Capus on Wednesday to express concerns about the fast-talking political analyst.
David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters, called Matthews' statement a step in the right direction.
"Matthews said going forward he will try to be more supportive of the right of women
to full equality and respect for their ambitions," Brock said. "That is a pledge MSNBC has a responsibility to hold him to in the weeks and months ahead. Media Matters certainly will."
“I See My Dreams today: The South Carolina GOP primary
1.08.2008
Shallow facade of sincerity
Right now, and this is harsh, there are two people I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire: Tim Russert and John Edwards.
Russert started Hillary's downward spiral with that debate question (the one Obama answered with the same answer), and he has been on Morning Joke ever since absolutely ga-ga over Obama. (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with Obama; my problem is with blatant bias.) I am reminded of when he was on Imus hawking his book about his dad with syrupy anecdotes. Look what he did to Imus.
John Edwards is worth $54.7 million, and if I hear one more of his "I'm po’ folks like you" ads here in South Carolina, I am going to throw up! He made a dig at Hillary's emotional moment yesterday, then denied it was a dig on Morning Joke this morning. He knew he was lying, and they knew he was lying. As my mother used to say, "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him."
“I See My Dreams” today: “Brave New World”
Russert started Hillary's downward spiral with that debate question (the one Obama answered with the same answer), and he has been on Morning Joke ever since absolutely ga-ga over Obama. (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with Obama; my problem is with blatant bias.) I am reminded of when he was on Imus hawking his book about his dad with syrupy anecdotes. Look what he did to Imus.
John Edwards is worth $54.7 million, and if I hear one more of his "I'm po’ folks like you" ads here in South Carolina, I am going to throw up! He made a dig at Hillary's emotional moment yesterday, then denied it was a dig on Morning Joke this morning. He knew he was lying, and they knew he was lying. As my mother used to say, "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him."
“I See My Dreams” today: “Brave New World”
1.04.2008
The Iowa Caucus
Please visit my blog "I See My Dreams" for my take on last night's caucus. Thanks, BJ
1.02.2008
Believe it or not!
People, people, people! How in the name of St. Swithin can you pay attention to what’s going on and still believe the reporting on Fox News? Murdoch’s minions might be “unafraid,” but there’s nothing fair or balance or, for that matter, accurate in their reporting. This business is tantamount to a state-run propaganda machine.
MSNBC, in its lust for ratings, is running a close second in this game of “news from nowhere” and “creating reality.”
CNN aired an excellent program last night, hosted by Campbell Brown, on dirty political ads.
In this new year, never has it been more important to keep yourself abreast of the news – real news.
Don’t pass around emails with unattributed and undocumented claims about any candidate.
And, bookmark and take advantage of these sites:
Factcheck.org – a genuinely non-partisan site aimed at correcting false information.
Snopes.com – dispelling Internet myths and hoaxes.
Newshounds.org – “We watch FOX so you don’t have to.”
NewsBusters.org – Exposing liberal media bias.
MediaMatters.org – Exposing right-wing media bias.
MSNBC, in its lust for ratings, is running a close second in this game of “news from nowhere” and “creating reality.”
CNN aired an excellent program last night, hosted by Campbell Brown, on dirty political ads.
In this new year, never has it been more important to keep yourself abreast of the news – real news.
Don’t pass around emails with unattributed and undocumented claims about any candidate.
And, bookmark and take advantage of these sites:
Factcheck.org – a genuinely non-partisan site aimed at correcting false information.
Snopes.com – dispelling Internet myths and hoaxes.
Newshounds.org – “We watch FOX so you don’t have to.”
NewsBusters.org – Exposing liberal media bias.
MediaMatters.org – Exposing right-wing media bias.
12.28.2007
A love-hate thing
In the annual USA Today-Gallup poll released 26 December, the following were named as the men and women most admired by Americans:
MOST ADMIRED MAN
President George W. Bush – 10 percent
Former President Bill Clinton – 8 percent
Former Vice President Al Gore – 6 percent
Senator Barack Obama – 5 percent
MOST ADMIRED WOMAN
Senator Hillary Clinton – 18 percent
TV host Oprah Winfrey – 16 percent
First lady Laura Bush – 3 percent
Actress Angelina Jolie – 3 percent
So, let’s get this straight: the most-hated man in America, presumably, President Bush, making his 7th appearance atop the list, and the most hated woman in the country, former first lady and New York State Senator Clinton, topping the list for the 12th time, are also the most admired.
Tell me this is not a “house divided.”
More poll results.
MOST ADMIRED MAN
President George W. Bush – 10 percent
Former President Bill Clinton – 8 percent
Former Vice President Al Gore – 6 percent
Senator Barack Obama – 5 percent
MOST ADMIRED WOMAN
Senator Hillary Clinton – 18 percent
TV host Oprah Winfrey – 16 percent
First lady Laura Bush – 3 percent
Actress Angelina Jolie – 3 percent
So, let’s get this straight: the most-hated man in America, presumably, President Bush, making his 7th appearance atop the list, and the most hated woman in the country, former first lady and New York State Senator Clinton, topping the list for the 12th time, are also the most admired.
Tell me this is not a “house divided.”
More poll results.
12.26.2007
War on Christmas?
Settling in after Christmas dinner, one could relax by talking with friends and family, reading Luke Chapter 2, listening to Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” or enjoying yet another airing of “A Christmas Story” or “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
So, on the holiest of days for Christians around the world, what were Fox News viewers treated to?
An “O’Reilly Factor” marathon.
Like those old contests to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar, wonder how many times Bill mentioned “the war on Christmas” and his book “Culture Warrior” in his blatant attempts to fool his viewers, fortify his ratings and fatten his own coffers?
So, on the holiest of days for Christians around the world, what were Fox News viewers treated to?
An “O’Reilly Factor” marathon.
Like those old contests to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar, wonder how many times Bill mentioned “the war on Christmas” and his book “Culture Warrior” in his blatant attempts to fool his viewers, fortify his ratings and fatten his own coffers?
12.19.2007
'The Christmas Tree Regiment'
During WWII, Japanese-American citizens began to be moved from internment to relocation centers, entered the U.S. work force and just as quickly were fired when angry townspeople demanded it of employers.
“At the same time the number of Japanese-Americans serving in the U.S. Army continued to grow, reaching 33,000.
“‘I’ve never had more wholehearted, serious-minded cooperation from Army troops,’ Lt. Col. Faron Turner said of the all-Japanese 100th Infantry Battalion, which fought with great distinction in Italy and France.
“The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which also fought in Italy and France, was known as ‘The Christmas Tree Regiment,’ because it became the most decorated unit in the entire Army.
“In seven major campaigns, the combined 100th and 442nd suffered 9.486 casualties and won 18,143 medals for valor, including almost 10,000 Purple Hearts.
“In addition, almost 16,000 Nisei served in military intelligence in the Pacific, translating captured documents.
“At Topaz, Manzanar, Poston, Heart Mountain and other relocation camps, the parents of fallen heroes accepted the extraordinary honors on behalf of their sons. The color guard turned out as the medals of the dead were pinned on their mothers’ blouses
“The familiar sadness of the ceremony was multiplied by its setting: a tawdry, tarpapered barrack surrounded by strips of barbed wire, which denied the parents of the honored soldiers the very freedom for which their sons had died.”
- Doris Kearns Goodwin, “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the Home Front in WWII.”
~~~
In this season of faith, love and hope, let our prayer ever be,
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Luke 2:14
“At the same time the number of Japanese-Americans serving in the U.S. Army continued to grow, reaching 33,000.
“‘I’ve never had more wholehearted, serious-minded cooperation from Army troops,’ Lt. Col. Faron Turner said of the all-Japanese 100th Infantry Battalion, which fought with great distinction in Italy and France.
“The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which also fought in Italy and France, was known as ‘The Christmas Tree Regiment,’ because it became the most decorated unit in the entire Army.
“In seven major campaigns, the combined 100th and 442nd suffered 9.486 casualties and won 18,143 medals for valor, including almost 10,000 Purple Hearts.
“In addition, almost 16,000 Nisei served in military intelligence in the Pacific, translating captured documents.
“At Topaz, Manzanar, Poston, Heart Mountain and other relocation camps, the parents of fallen heroes accepted the extraordinary honors on behalf of their sons. The color guard turned out as the medals of the dead were pinned on their mothers’ blouses
“The familiar sadness of the ceremony was multiplied by its setting: a tawdry, tarpapered barrack surrounded by strips of barbed wire, which denied the parents of the honored soldiers the very freedom for which their sons had died.”
- Doris Kearns Goodwin, “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the Home Front in WWII.”
~~~
In this season of faith, love and hope, let our prayer ever be,
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Luke 2:14
12.16.2007
Crunch time!
Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent, if you are interested in the presidential campaign, I highly recommend you spend the 10 minutes to read this assessment of the field and the conclusions drawn by the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s statewide newspaper. After you have read the conclusions, I am certain you will want to share this with others.
We are all ready to take a holiday break, but in just two days after we ring in the new year, the important Iowa Caucuses will yield winners in both parties and will catapult each winner to the forefront of their party’s run for the White House.
For that reason, the following analyses and endorsements by Iowa’s leading newspaper cannot be underestimated:
The Register's caucus endorsements: McCain, Clinton
THE DES MOINES REGISTER • December 15, 2007
The Des Moines Register’s editorial board has endorsed Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
The Register, Iowa’s statewide newspaper, calls McCain and Clinton the candidates it believes are most competent and ready to lead.
THE ENDORSEMENTS:
Democratic endorsement editorial: Why Clinton
THE REGISTER'S EDITORIAL BOARD
A deep, talented field in the Democratic caucus race offers both good and difficult choices.
No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?
Or should the party place its trust in two senators, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who have served their nation with distinction for more than 30 years each? Or should it heed John Edwards’ clarion call to restore opportunity for all Americans?
Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.
The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.
Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.
Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.
Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.
In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.
Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)
Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.
The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.
***
Republican endorsement editorial: Why McCain
THE REGISTER’S EDITORIAL BOARD
The leading candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president present an intriguing mix of priorities, personalities and life stories.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani inspired the city and nation with his confident leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister from Arkansas, charms with homespun humor. Mitt Romney, the multimillionaire investment adviser from Massachusetts, exudes executive discipline. As governors, both worked across the party divide to improve education and health care in their states.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee brings an actor’s ease to his no-nonsense calls for a return to fiscal discipline.
Yet, for all their accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.
In an era of instant celebrity, we sometimes forget the real heroes in our midst. The defining chapter of McCain’s life came 40 years ago as a naval aviator, when he was shot down over Vietnam. The crash broke both arms and a leg. When first seeing him, a fellow prisoner recalls thinking he wouldn’t live the night. He was beaten and kept in solitary confinement, held 5 years. He could have talked. He did not. Son of a prominent Navy admiral, he could have gained early release. He refused.
The one-time playboy emerged from prison a changed, more serious man. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and the Senate in 1986, he has built an unconventional political career by taking stands based on principle, not party dogma, and frequently pursuing bipartisanship.
His first term was touched by scandal when the Senate rebuked him for meeting with savings-and-loan regulators on behalf of campaign donor Charles Keating Jr., who was later imprisoned. That ordeal steered him into championing government transparency and battling alongside Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold for the campaign-finance-reform bill that bears their names.
Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.
In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform — while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He’s also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America’s image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.
McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that’s not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a “long, hard and difficult” deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register’s board has called for withdrawal as soon as it’s safely possible.
But with McCain, Americans would know what they’re getting. He doesn’t parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness — of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.
The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.
CONCLUSION
“With dissension at home and distrust abroad, as American troops continue to fight wars on two fronts, the times call for two essential qualities in the next American president,” the Register’s editorial board concluded. “Those qualities became the paramount considerations in making endorsements for the Democratic and Republican nominees in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
“The times call for competence. Americans want their government to work again.
“The times call for readiness to lead. Americans want their country to do great things again. They’ll regain trust in their government when they see a president make that happen.”
Register editorial page editor Carol Hunter said the six editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process disregarded the candidates’ standing in Iowa or national polls.
“We believe our job as an editorial board is to arrive at the candidate in each party we think would be the best president, whether a person is leading the polls or garnering 1 percent support,” Hunter wrote in a column that accompanied the editorials. “It’s not to predict a winner.”
This year’s endorsements come less than three weeks before the caucuses, set for Jan. 3. The caucuses, held five days before the New Hampshire primaries, start the nation’s 2008 presidential election process.
The Register’s editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process were: Laura Hollingsworth, publisher; Carolyn Washburn, editor; Carol Hunter, editorial page editor; Linda Lantor Fandel, deputy editorial page editor; Rox Laird, editorial writer; and Andie Dominick, editorial writer.
SOURCE: Des Moines Register
We are all ready to take a holiday break, but in just two days after we ring in the new year, the important Iowa Caucuses will yield winners in both parties and will catapult each winner to the forefront of their party’s run for the White House.
For that reason, the following analyses and endorsements by Iowa’s leading newspaper cannot be underestimated:
The Register's caucus endorsements: McCain, Clinton
THE DES MOINES REGISTER • December 15, 2007
The Des Moines Register’s editorial board has endorsed Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
The Register, Iowa’s statewide newspaper, calls McCain and Clinton the candidates it believes are most competent and ready to lead.
THE ENDORSEMENTS:
Democratic endorsement editorial: Why Clinton
THE REGISTER'S EDITORIAL BOARD
A deep, talented field in the Democratic caucus race offers both good and difficult choices.
No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?
Or should the party place its trust in two senators, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who have served their nation with distinction for more than 30 years each? Or should it heed John Edwards’ clarion call to restore opportunity for all Americans?
Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.
The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.
Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.
Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.
Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.
In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.
Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)
Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.
The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.
***
Republican endorsement editorial: Why McCain
THE REGISTER’S EDITORIAL BOARD
The leading candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president present an intriguing mix of priorities, personalities and life stories.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani inspired the city and nation with his confident leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister from Arkansas, charms with homespun humor. Mitt Romney, the multimillionaire investment adviser from Massachusetts, exudes executive discipline. As governors, both worked across the party divide to improve education and health care in their states.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee brings an actor’s ease to his no-nonsense calls for a return to fiscal discipline.
Yet, for all their accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.
In an era of instant celebrity, we sometimes forget the real heroes in our midst. The defining chapter of McCain’s life came 40 years ago as a naval aviator, when he was shot down over Vietnam. The crash broke both arms and a leg. When first seeing him, a fellow prisoner recalls thinking he wouldn’t live the night. He was beaten and kept in solitary confinement, held 5 years. He could have talked. He did not. Son of a prominent Navy admiral, he could have gained early release. He refused.
The one-time playboy emerged from prison a changed, more serious man. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and the Senate in 1986, he has built an unconventional political career by taking stands based on principle, not party dogma, and frequently pursuing bipartisanship.
His first term was touched by scandal when the Senate rebuked him for meeting with savings-and-loan regulators on behalf of campaign donor Charles Keating Jr., who was later imprisoned. That ordeal steered him into championing government transparency and battling alongside Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold for the campaign-finance-reform bill that bears their names.
Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.
In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform — while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He’s also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America’s image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.
McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that’s not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a “long, hard and difficult” deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register’s board has called for withdrawal as soon as it’s safely possible.
But with McCain, Americans would know what they’re getting. He doesn’t parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness — of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.
The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.
CONCLUSION
“With dissension at home and distrust abroad, as American troops continue to fight wars on two fronts, the times call for two essential qualities in the next American president,” the Register’s editorial board concluded. “Those qualities became the paramount considerations in making endorsements for the Democratic and Republican nominees in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.
“The times call for competence. Americans want their government to work again.
“The times call for readiness to lead. Americans want their country to do great things again. They’ll regain trust in their government when they see a president make that happen.”
Register editorial page editor Carol Hunter said the six editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process disregarded the candidates’ standing in Iowa or national polls.
“We believe our job as an editorial board is to arrive at the candidate in each party we think would be the best president, whether a person is leading the polls or garnering 1 percent support,” Hunter wrote in a column that accompanied the editorials. “It’s not to predict a winner.”
This year’s endorsements come less than three weeks before the caucuses, set for Jan. 3. The caucuses, held five days before the New Hampshire primaries, start the nation’s 2008 presidential election process.
The Register’s editorial board members who participated in the endorsement process were: Laura Hollingsworth, publisher; Carolyn Washburn, editor; Carol Hunter, editorial page editor; Linda Lantor Fandel, deputy editorial page editor; Rox Laird, editorial writer; and Andie Dominick, editorial writer.
SOURCE: Des Moines Register
12.13.2007
Black eye
Currently listening to Doris Kearns Goodwin's "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in WWII."
On 20 June 1943, while the U.S. waged war on two fronts, a race riot broke out in Detroit, Michigan, leaving many blacks and whites dead or injured.
Ms. Goodwin reports: On 22 June 1943, the Jackson (Miss.) Daily News declared:
"It is blood on your hands, Mrs. Roosevelt. You have been personally proclaiming and practicing social equality at the White House and whereever you go, Mrs. Roosevelt. What followed is now history."
So, Detroit had the race riot, Eleanor got blamed, and Jackson, Miss., got the black eye.
What followed is now history.
On 20 June 1943, while the U.S. waged war on two fronts, a race riot broke out in Detroit, Michigan, leaving many blacks and whites dead or injured.
Ms. Goodwin reports: On 22 June 1943, the Jackson (Miss.) Daily News declared:
"It is blood on your hands, Mrs. Roosevelt. You have been personally proclaiming and practicing social equality at the White House and whereever you go, Mrs. Roosevelt. What followed is now history."
So, Detroit had the race riot, Eleanor got blamed, and Jackson, Miss., got the black eye.
What followed is now history.
12.12.2007
14th rock from the sun
Paraphrasing, but not much:
Last night, from the no-spin zone on whatever planet Bill O’Reilly exists, an EXPERT was brought on to defend waterboarding and torture. This, of course, was a nice RED HERRING to avoid discussing the matter of DESTROYING EVIDENCE.
The EXPERT claimed waterboarding had stopped a number of ATTACKS on the United States which saved THOUSAND OF LIVES.
O’Reilly then hammered his guests, drowning out REASON by constantly asking, “If you knew your GRANDMOTHER was going to be KILLED, wouldn’t you endorse waterboarding?”
Are you scared yet? Well, this journalist can’t think of anything scarier than the fact that “The O’Reilly Factor” is the No. 1 show on cable news networks.
And, that’s the memo.
Last night, from the no-spin zone on whatever planet Bill O’Reilly exists, an EXPERT was brought on to defend waterboarding and torture. This, of course, was a nice RED HERRING to avoid discussing the matter of DESTROYING EVIDENCE.
The EXPERT claimed waterboarding had stopped a number of ATTACKS on the United States which saved THOUSAND OF LIVES.
O’Reilly then hammered his guests, drowning out REASON by constantly asking, “If you knew your GRANDMOTHER was going to be KILLED, wouldn’t you endorse waterboarding?”
Are you scared yet? Well, this journalist can’t think of anything scarier than the fact that “The O’Reilly Factor” is the No. 1 show on cable news networks.
And, that’s the memo.
12.10.2007
Begala pegs Bush
Democratic strategist Paul Begala just on with Wolf Blitzer (CNN) said President Bush is polling lower than several forms of venereal disease. I love a man who speaks his mind. Jack Cafferty and I almost fell out of our chairs!
12.07.2007
Wrong numbers
A couple of months ago I gave up a toll-free number I’d had for 11 years. Last night my sister called to tell me she had accidentally punched the old number on her speed dial, and it’s now a phone-sex line. We got a good laugh out the thought that someone who hasn’t called in a while might think I’d figured out a get-rich-quick scheme!
Speaking of wrong numbers, CNN reports:
“Harried homeowners seeking mortgage relief from a new Bush administration hotline Thursday had to contend with a bit of temporary misdirection from the president himself.
“As he announced his plan to ease the mortgage crisis for consumers, Bush accidentally gave out the wrong phone number for the new ‘Hope Now Hotline’ set up by his administration.”
He gave it out TWICE.
The number – 1-800-995-HOPE – belongs to Freedom Christian Academy in Texas, a purveyor of home schooling materials.
Any chance some of those materials are the education software Ignite!, produced by Bush’s brother, Neil’s company?
***
I See My Dreams today: “Girdles and coffee”
Speaking of wrong numbers, CNN reports:
“Harried homeowners seeking mortgage relief from a new Bush administration hotline Thursday had to contend with a bit of temporary misdirection from the president himself.
“As he announced his plan to ease the mortgage crisis for consumers, Bush accidentally gave out the wrong phone number for the new ‘Hope Now Hotline’ set up by his administration.”
He gave it out TWICE.
The number – 1-800-995-HOPE – belongs to Freedom Christian Academy in Texas, a purveyor of home schooling materials.
Any chance some of those materials are the education software Ignite!, produced by Bush’s brother, Neil’s company?
***
I See My Dreams today: “Girdles and coffee”
12.06.2007
Untitled
Do you hear Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Huckabee, Mr. McCain and so forth?
No. You hear Senator Obama, former Senator Edwards, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Huckabee, Senator McCain.
So, why “Mrs. Clinton”?
She is Senator Clinton.
Let’s all raise hell about the treatment of women in Muslim countries, but sexism – personal or insinuated – is not-so-subtle here in our own country.
***
I See My Dreams today: “The poop on Lou Dobbs”
No. You hear Senator Obama, former Senator Edwards, Mayor Giuliani, Governor Huckabee, Senator McCain.
So, why “Mrs. Clinton”?
She is Senator Clinton.
Let’s all raise hell about the treatment of women in Muslim countries, but sexism – personal or insinuated – is not-so-subtle here in our own country.
***
I See My Dreams today: “The poop on Lou Dobbs”
12.05.2007
Confederacy of Dunces
A C-SPAN tidbit: George W. Bush currently is reading John Kennedy Toole’s “A Confederacy of Dunces.”
I read Toole’s novel this summer and imagine Bush is getting a real eye-opener about pre-Katrina New Orleans.
May I suggest a real-life “Confederacy of Dunces:”
“What percent of Republicans in the key caucus and primary states like President Bush? I think Democrats listening right now to Hardball will be shocked – 55 percent of Republicans in New Hampshire think Bush is doing a swell job. That’s 55 percent, New Hampshire. 72 percent of Republicans, more of them, in South Carolina think, well, they give him a thumbs up. And - are you ready? – 80 percent, four out of five Republicans in Iowa, are still solidly on the Bush bandwagon – 80, that’s the percent of Iowa Republicans who think the man in the White House is still peachy keen.”
- Chris Matthews, “Hardball,” MSNBC, 4 December 2007, transcribed from videotape.
See my related post on “I See My Dreams:” LINK
I read Toole’s novel this summer and imagine Bush is getting a real eye-opener about pre-Katrina New Orleans.
May I suggest a real-life “Confederacy of Dunces:”
“What percent of Republicans in the key caucus and primary states like President Bush? I think Democrats listening right now to Hardball will be shocked – 55 percent of Republicans in New Hampshire think Bush is doing a swell job. That’s 55 percent, New Hampshire. 72 percent of Republicans, more of them, in South Carolina think, well, they give him a thumbs up. And - are you ready? – 80 percent, four out of five Republicans in Iowa, are still solidly on the Bush bandwagon – 80, that’s the percent of Iowa Republicans who think the man in the White House is still peachy keen.”
- Chris Matthews, “Hardball,” MSNBC, 4 December 2007, transcribed from videotape.
See my related post on “I See My Dreams:” LINK
12.04.2007
One happy Imus fan
Don Imus returned to the air with apologetic remarks, then added, "Other than that, not much has changed. Dick Cheney is still a war criminal, Hillary Clinton is still Satan, I'm back on the radio and the coffee’s still good at B. J.’s house.”
OK, I added that last part, but it’s true!
Like the night my “Friends” exited the apartment door or finally tossing my favorite old houseshoes, the absence of Imus and his crew in the morning was unsettling.
I had grown accustomed to the craggy-faced curmudgeon and stepped right back into the comfortable morning routine.
I once heard David Letterman say he liked “Beavis and Butthead” because “they’re consistent.” And both Imus and his fans know that is crucial to the new show’s success.
The I-man promised the show his fans came to love “is not going to change,” a remark which drew loud applause from yesterday’s live audience.
RFD-TV, which will simulcast Imus’ WABC-AM show, says 30 million viewers will tune in. The channel hopes to add “20 million urban viewers.”
RFD, for you city slickers, stands for the postal designation, “rural free delivery.”
A friend who gets the channel via satellite told me the program is being bleeped. Well, they ain’t gonna add urban viewers that way.
I buzzed the blogosphere to get reaction to the broadcast, and that hasn’t changed, either – you love Imus or you hate him.
I ran across a blog by a Jewish woman who was complaining about “that bastard Imus” and his new black female sidekick, Karith Foster, a Texas gal educated at Missouri’s exclusive Stephens College and Oxford University in England.
The Jewish woman was raising hell because Foster had joked on her Web site, “I'm really a Jewish girl from Long Island trapped in this body, which technically makes me a JAAP - Jewish African-American Princess."
Sometimes you’re just damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And sometimes, you just want to scream, “SHUT UP!”
***
Read the Associate Press coverage of the first show: LINK
Listen to Imus “streaming live” at WABC-AM, 6 to 9 ET weekday mornings. Go HERE and click on "Listen Live."
TODAY'S QUOTE: In discussing the issue of illegal immigration with Imus, GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee said, "We should get down on our knees every night and thank God we live in a country people are trying to break into and not trying to break out of."
OK, I added that last part, but it’s true!
Like the night my “Friends” exited the apartment door or finally tossing my favorite old houseshoes, the absence of Imus and his crew in the morning was unsettling.
I had grown accustomed to the craggy-faced curmudgeon and stepped right back into the comfortable morning routine.
I once heard David Letterman say he liked “Beavis and Butthead” because “they’re consistent.” And both Imus and his fans know that is crucial to the new show’s success.
The I-man promised the show his fans came to love “is not going to change,” a remark which drew loud applause from yesterday’s live audience.
RFD-TV, which will simulcast Imus’ WABC-AM show, says 30 million viewers will tune in. The channel hopes to add “20 million urban viewers.”
RFD, for you city slickers, stands for the postal designation, “rural free delivery.”
A friend who gets the channel via satellite told me the program is being bleeped. Well, they ain’t gonna add urban viewers that way.
I buzzed the blogosphere to get reaction to the broadcast, and that hasn’t changed, either – you love Imus or you hate him.
I ran across a blog by a Jewish woman who was complaining about “that bastard Imus” and his new black female sidekick, Karith Foster, a Texas gal educated at Missouri’s exclusive Stephens College and Oxford University in England.
The Jewish woman was raising hell because Foster had joked on her Web site, “I'm really a Jewish girl from Long Island trapped in this body, which technically makes me a JAAP - Jewish African-American Princess."
Sometimes you’re just damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And sometimes, you just want to scream, “SHUT UP!”
***
Read the Associate Press coverage of the first show: LINK
Listen to Imus “streaming live” at WABC-AM, 6 to 9 ET weekday mornings. Go HERE and click on "Listen Live."
TODAY'S QUOTE: In discussing the issue of illegal immigration with Imus, GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee said, "We should get down on our knees every night and thank God we live in a country people are trying to break into and not trying to break out of."
12.02.2007
Welome back, I-man!
Listen to Don Imus, beginning Monday, 6 to 10 a.m. ET, on WABC-AM, New York, ABC radio affiliates, RFD-TV simulcast and STREAMING LIVE on your computer at: "Listen Live"
And, with apologies to Elton John, a message for Joe Scarborough:
Goodbye, “Morning Joke!” Your sarcasm burned out long before your program ever did.
And, with apologies to Elton John, a message for Joe Scarborough:
Goodbye, “Morning Joke!” Your sarcasm burned out long before your program ever did.
11.29.2007
Is this your America?
If you will allow me the “audacity of hope,” it is my hope that every voting-age American who did not watch the GOP debate last night will sit down and give it full attention when it re-airs on CNN Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.
Watch it, then remind yourself: one of these men might be the next president of the United States.
While the candidates themselves had no control over the questions, and CNN and YouTube vetted them, they were posed by Americans via YouTube video.
It is apparent that, contrary to what I had thought, “God, gays and guns” are still main concerns of those who will vote Republican.
So prevalent was the issue of “illegal immigration,” I found myself thinking of Charlton Heston, staring down at the Statue of Liberty protruding from the sand, and screaming, “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you!”
Other questions were primarily about God (“Do you read and believe the Holy Bible?” and “What would Jesus do?”), gays, the 2nd Amendment and guns, abortion, torture and 9/11 and the Islamic Jihadist threat to America.
They were about a mindset.
The loudest booing came when Ron Paul attempted to explain jihadists hate us because of our policies toward the Middle East for the last several decades, and when Rudy Giuliani dared to suggest some gun ownership must be regulated.
The one question on Iraq – shouldn’t the U.S. establish permanent bases and remain there indefinitely to protect the region? – created a verbal tap dance onstage.
At times, Ron Paul seemed the only voice of reason, then he had to go and say we have to get government out of our lives, while pointing out the necessity of things only a federal government can do – such as “rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.”
As one post-debate panelist said, “What you didn’t hear was the name George Bush. They are trying to distance themselves from him, yet, with the exception of Ron Paul, they agree with him on almost every issue.”
These issues did not come up: education, health care, energy, global warming, the economy, Iran.
During the post-debate coverage a group of “undecided Republicans” remained undecided, could not pick a debate winner and expressed interest in one overriding criterion: who can beat Hillary Clinton.
I don’t have a problem with that, as I support the one person I believe can defeat this less-than-illustrious field – and restore this nation’s soul.
Watch Saturday night. If you are conservative and Republican or liberal and Democrat, ask yourself if what you see represents your own ideals, your own hope for your country.
This might just be the most important two hours you will spend before Election 2008.
Watch it like your future depends on it.
Watch it, then remind yourself: one of these men might be the next president of the United States.
While the candidates themselves had no control over the questions, and CNN and YouTube vetted them, they were posed by Americans via YouTube video.
It is apparent that, contrary to what I had thought, “God, gays and guns” are still main concerns of those who will vote Republican.
So prevalent was the issue of “illegal immigration,” I found myself thinking of Charlton Heston, staring down at the Statue of Liberty protruding from the sand, and screaming, “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you!”
Other questions were primarily about God (“Do you read and believe the Holy Bible?” and “What would Jesus do?”), gays, the 2nd Amendment and guns, abortion, torture and 9/11 and the Islamic Jihadist threat to America.
They were about a mindset.
The loudest booing came when Ron Paul attempted to explain jihadists hate us because of our policies toward the Middle East for the last several decades, and when Rudy Giuliani dared to suggest some gun ownership must be regulated.
The one question on Iraq – shouldn’t the U.S. establish permanent bases and remain there indefinitely to protect the region? – created a verbal tap dance onstage.
At times, Ron Paul seemed the only voice of reason, then he had to go and say we have to get government out of our lives, while pointing out the necessity of things only a federal government can do – such as “rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.”
As one post-debate panelist said, “What you didn’t hear was the name George Bush. They are trying to distance themselves from him, yet, with the exception of Ron Paul, they agree with him on almost every issue.”
These issues did not come up: education, health care, energy, global warming, the economy, Iran.
During the post-debate coverage a group of “undecided Republicans” remained undecided, could not pick a debate winner and expressed interest in one overriding criterion: who can beat Hillary Clinton.
I don’t have a problem with that, as I support the one person I believe can defeat this less-than-illustrious field – and restore this nation’s soul.
Watch Saturday night. If you are conservative and Republican or liberal and Democrat, ask yourself if what you see represents your own ideals, your own hope for your country.
This might just be the most important two hours you will spend before Election 2008.
Watch it like your future depends on it.
11.28.2007
Rove-colored glasses
Presidential adviser. GOP guru. “Bush’s Brain.” “Turd Blossom.” A liar by any other name is still a liar.
Karl Rove, in a weekend interview with Charlie Rose, said, “Congress pushed Bush into war with Iraq prematurely.”
That’s right. That’s what he said. Would I lie?
For the best documented evidence that this is an outright lie, read the excellent coverage by Paul Abrams of The Huffington Post (LINK) and the Think Progress blog, which has excerpts from the interview as well as Congressional and Bush quotes from 2002 which refute Rove’s claims (LINK).
Next post: Hannity’s insanity
Karl Rove, in a weekend interview with Charlie Rose, said, “Congress pushed Bush into war with Iraq prematurely.”
That’s right. That’s what he said. Would I lie?
For the best documented evidence that this is an outright lie, read the excellent coverage by Paul Abrams of The Huffington Post (LINK) and the Think Progress blog, which has excerpts from the interview as well as Congressional and Bush quotes from 2002 which refute Rove’s claims (LINK).
Next post: Hannity’s insanity
Hannity's insanity
God, don’t you get tired of wingnuts spouting propaganda that flies in the face of facts?
Hop over to my other blog, “I See My Dreams,” and read today’s post, “An inconvenient distinction,” inspired by Sean Hannity’s insanity: LINK
Hop over to my other blog, “I See My Dreams,” and read today’s post, “An inconvenient distinction,” inspired by Sean Hannity’s insanity: LINK
11.27.2007
Whole Lott-a shakin' goin' on
Sen. Jack S. Phogbound is the archetypical Southern senator, telling the people of Dogpatch USA, “Yore gover-ment is spending $1 million just to blow yore homes off the face of the Earth, so show yore ap-pre-shee-A-shun!”
Like Al Capp’s senator in “Li’l Abner,” Southern senators are so appreciated by their constituents that they become ensconced on Capitol Hill for years and even decades.
So, when news broke on MSNBC yesterday morning at 6:13 ET of Sen. Trent Lott’s impending resignation, this former Mississippian almost fell out of her chair.
Contact with a number of Mississippians (and former Mississippians) throughout the day revealed that the resignation rocked the Republican Richter scale (don’t you love alliteration?).
One astute email friend – a retired Mississippi judge – theorizes that this is a move to make way for U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering, who recently announced his own retirement and “is the heir apparent” to Lott’s Senate seat. The judge tells me Pickering, son of Judge Charles Pickering, “is a good man who will be a good senator.”
Henry Barbour, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s son, was Chip Pickering’s campaign manager, so I would bet with the judge’s theory.
I once told a friend who wants nothing to do with such news, “No drama has ever been written that is as exciting as politics.” I meant it!
Next post: G’day for Aussies
Like Al Capp’s senator in “Li’l Abner,” Southern senators are so appreciated by their constituents that they become ensconced on Capitol Hill for years and even decades.
So, when news broke on MSNBC yesterday morning at 6:13 ET of Sen. Trent Lott’s impending resignation, this former Mississippian almost fell out of her chair.
Contact with a number of Mississippians (and former Mississippians) throughout the day revealed that the resignation rocked the Republican Richter scale (don’t you love alliteration?).
One astute email friend – a retired Mississippi judge – theorizes that this is a move to make way for U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering, who recently announced his own retirement and “is the heir apparent” to Lott’s Senate seat. The judge tells me Pickering, son of Judge Charles Pickering, “is a good man who will be a good senator.”
Henry Barbour, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s son, was Chip Pickering’s campaign manager, so I would bet with the judge’s theory.
I once told a friend who wants nothing to do with such news, “No drama has ever been written that is as exciting as politics.” I meant it!
Next post: G’day for Aussies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
