Bush 43 White House: More Like "The Office."

I have been saying for years that tales of the Bush 43 White House, written upon his retirement from office by his former staff, are going to make your hair curl. Scott McClellan got the ball rolling with his book, What Happened.

Now comes a book by former speech writer, Matt Latimer, Speech Less: Tales of a White House Survivor. In an article I saw this morning, he writes, “In 2007, I finally made it to the Bush White House as a presidential speechwriter. But it was not at all what I envisioned. It was less like Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing and more The Office.”

I have to get this book.

On the other hand, I know already I will not enjoy reading it. I know it will make me sick to learn more of the incompetence of the Bush 43 White House and of the damage Bush/Cheney did to the republic. I think I will buy it and put it on a shelf to read a few years from now.

Throw a Shoe!

First it was the right-wingers who got so upset when they heard President Obama was about to deliver a speech to their children on the first day of school. They warned of a brainwashing experience…and they wouldn’t let it go.

Then it was the left-wingers who really got riled when that crazy Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, “You lie!,” at President Obama during his speech to the joint session of Congress…and they wouldn’t let it go.

What’s the matter with people? Can’t we cool it just a little bit. We’re about to get this thing completely off the rails. Are there any grown-ups in the room?

I like the idea of throwing shoes at the person we disagree with and letting it go at that. It’s far more civil and certainly makes the point clearly and unambiguously.

Who of us didn’t smile as we watched the Iraqi reporter throw both of his shoes at GW Bush last year in disgust. That said it all, didn’t it?

How much better would it be – and how quickly the issue resolved – if we all just threw a shoe – two shoes if we felt strongly – at the person making the statement we didn’t like.

For example, teachers could throw worn out shoes with a big hole in each sole at TV’s Glenn Beck for trying to convince us President Obama was trying to brainwash our kids. Most of his opinions have holes clean through them, don't they?

South Carolina reporters could throw a high heeled shoe at Governor Sanford the next time he brings up his Argentina mistress.

When former VP Dick Cheney brings up how great everything was during the Bush/Cheney administration, reporters could throw a pair of rubber galoshes at him.

Even Congressman Joe Wilson could have thrown one of his Gucci loafers at Obama if he really thought the President was misleading America on health care reform. Wilson wouldn’t have hit him because Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia would have jumped up, caught them, and walked out with them so he could compare expensive loafers with the health insurance industry lobbyists waiting in the hall.

Don’t you think we should cool off this altogether too hot attempt at public discourse today?

Just throw a shoe!

Urgent Obama Alert

Please take immediate action and help save our children from President Obama’s first indoctrination speech. I understand President Obama will address the nation’s school children Tuesday and tell them to…uh, do their best. Can you imagine? The very idea. We must protect our children!

I also understand he is going to tell them to…uh, stay away from drugs. What!? There he goes again, messing with our health care. Sounds communistic to me!

It’s great that the right wing of the Republican national political party is on the case and alerting the nation to this terrible danger.

This just in: The Bulloch County Georgia board of education has decided, as a first step, to tape the speech on Tuesday and review it carefully for any evidence of brainwashing. Whew! Thank Goodness for their alertness. Maybe we’ll save a few of the children.

This message brought to you by the “Palin for President 2013 Committee.”

Emotion...or Power

A friend asked me today if the current health care debate was the most emotional issue since the civil rights debate of the 1960s.

I told him this debate has nothing to do with emotion; it has everything to do with power. For the people, it is an emotional issue. For the country's elected leaders, it is ONLY about power.

For the Republicans, it is about their very existence. If they lose their all out battle to defeat ANY health care reform, they believe viscerally that the people will like what the government gives them (just as they like Medicare today, "don't you mess with my Medicare"), and they believe the people will not be inclined to replace Dems with Repubs at that point. That means Rs lose power big time and will likely be relegated to minority status for a long, long time.

They are rolling the dice on this one. If they can defeat Obama, they know they have a chance to regain control of the Congress and soon thereafter, the White House. If they lose this fight, they lose whatever small amount of power they have left....and must be content to be the powerless naysayers in the corner for a long time. That is why the battle is so bloody, and why the Rs are attempting to make it the most emotional you have ever seen ("don't want no death panel telling me when I can die," "don't want my country to become another Russia," "don't want no socialized medicine in America.")

The right wing is fomenting much of the irrational comment AND behavior. The racists and the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. This is going to be a tough fall.

I don't know if the Dems in Congress have the spine to stick with what is right for America. Nearly everyone agrees we need to rein in private insurance companies and get premiums under control; we need to accept all applicants for healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions; we need to guarantee a minimum package of benefits for everyone. Frankly, I can find no one on Capitol Hill who disagrees on two basic elements of reform: the need to reform of health insurance markets, and the need to expand healthcare coverage, with federal subsidies for some. Even Repubs recognize consensus can be reached in these areas...........BUT, right now, they are fighting all -- I repeat -- ALL efforts at reform, because they fear risking the lost of that true mother's milk of politics -- POWER.

Dick Cheney speaks the truth, if you will...

What is Dick Cheney’s intent when he so frequently uses the term, “if you will,” under tough questioning by a reporter?

By now most of us have figured out that the former Vice President is attempting to make his firmly stated response seem like a bona fide truth that should be accepted because it is so obvious to him and now should be to you. At the very least, it is pretentious use of our good language. The phrase is insulting, sounds downright phony and is just plain irritating to the ear.

What does he really mean when he says, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will, during the 8 years of the Bush 43 administration.” He is really saying, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will permit me to lie to you again…“

The next time you hear Dick Cheney use “if you will” during any public discussion, silently add “…permit me to lie” after he says the phrase and you will quickly see the true meaning of “Cheneyspeak.” Example: “The Constitution was held sacrosanct, if you will (permit me to lie) during the Bush Administration.”

Surely we had early clues to his true intent when we heard him say, “The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will…” Or, “…the dark side, if you will.”

One rarely sees “if you will” in print. It is almost always reserved for conversation and generally when the person is attempting to refute some point that otherwise would be open to question.

When Dick Cheney uses the line, it’s as if he expects the listener already believes him to be a liar, and so he throws it in to deflect the listener from the truth: He IS lying.

It’s also like saying, “With all due respect to the Constitution, we ignored it.”

((Will anyone…ANYONE…please lead him off the stage!?))

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

I am ready to support an effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to our nation’s airwaves.

During the decade of the 1960s, when I worked in broadcasting, I was an ardent opponent of the FCC rule (established in 1949) to require the broadcasters to air all sides of issues. It sure felt constricting to me. But if I had known the hell its abolition would unleash on the general populous in our 21^st century totally wired world, I would have worked just as hard to hold it fast.

For the most part, it has given right wing broadcasters with their general opposition to all things progressive a very loud political megaphone from which to preach their my-way-is-the-only-way gospel, and in the process, it has enabled media owners to regularly ignore opposing views. I understand: that means the entertaining stuff gets on the air, the intelligent (boring) stuff does not.

I’m sorry to say it but an imbalance exists that threatens our republic.

I remember well the debate in 1978 over whether or not the Senate should approve the Panama Canal Treaties. I was there, reading the mail of one US Senator and listening to broadcast “discussions” of the merits of the treaties. The official mail to Senators was generally 100 to one against approval of the treaties. “We built it, we own it, it’s ours” was the rallying call. There was little or no interest in understanding the broader foreign policy implications of disapproving the treaties. I bring up the 1978 vote on the Panama Canal Treaties as a reminder that we elect our representatives to the legislative chambers of this republic, not to bend to the fickle weathervane of public opinion but to use their heads (when we have lost ours) to vote what is right for America, not what will get them re-elected next year.

Let's cool the rhetoric and let them do their jobs without threats. There clearly exists an imbalance on talk radio and talk TV. Rush Limburger, Bill O’Reilly, and the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin ought not to be allowed to unduly influence public opinion. But they are allowed…and they do influence public opinion and actions of governments. Witness their followers at the August town hall meetings creating chaos, not intelligent discussion of the merits of health care reform. Broadcasters ought to be working to inform the public, not inflame them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired…just tired of what I am hearing and viewing. It does not help our country, it undermines the best efforts of honorable men and women.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would not solve all problems on the airwaves but it would bring back some semblance of sanity to the airwaves, sanity and fairness that would help the listener/viewer avoid exposure to the current extremes of broadcast abuse.

America WILL survive!

There is good news in a new poll released from Daily Kos/Research 2000 but the good news is hidden near the end of the results.

When people were asked which news sources they watch, the answers were as follows:

• Conservatives watch Fox News and little else
• Independents watch little news at all
• Democrats split their dial between CNN and MSNBC
• 18-29 year olds don’t watch much cable news, but they particularly shun Fox.

The really good news is in that last finding.

If the next generation – 18 to 29 year olds – in 2009 are refusing to watch the fiction that is peddled as fact on Fox, there is hope, indeed, for America’s future.

Youth – you gotta love ‘em!