Within the past couple of hours, Governor Rod Blagojevich was ousted from office by the Illinois state senate. I’ve been a fan of Blago ever since his scandal hit the national airways. I’m also a major fan of MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow. So it was with great anticipation that I tuned in last Tuesday night to watch Rachel interview Blago.
The interview had a mixture of toughness and sympathy. Blago behaved as though he had found an open minded journalist with whom to make his case. Overall, I was impressed by the interview. I felt that while Rachel asked some hard questions, she also reacted empathetically toward some of Blago’s responses.
Then the segment went off the rails. When the interview concluded Rachel gleefully asked her audience whether or not Blago further incriminated himself with some of his answers. She then went the next step and interviewed a former federal prosecutor (who had once prosecuted Timothy McVeigh) to see if he agreed that Blago had made matters worse with the interview.
It’s one thing for a journalist to enjoy a scoop. It’s another thing for her to lull her subject into a sense of security and then exploit his candor (or BS depending on your perspective) for a huge gotcha finale. Rachel seemed to revel in the possibility that her interview might be entered into evidence in the criminal trial that is on the horizon. Quite frankly, I was creeped out by the pleasure she took in this man’s misfortune.
My feelings were only compounded after I watched Barbara Walters interview Blago on ABC’s The View. With Barbara, there was no pretense of sympathy. With an almost mocking smile, she demanded that Blago come clean and she basically told him he was wasting everyone’s time with his evasive answers. If Barbara had then turned around and interviewed a prosecutor about Blago’s responses, I would not have been surprised. Blago knew at the end of the Walters interview that it did not go well (ok … maybe he didn’t, he is a bit delusional after all). But with Rachel Maddow it was another story. Blago left that interview thinking he had a chance to state his case and then Maddow turned around and stabbed him in the back.
All I want from journalists is consistency. I’m from the Mike Wallace school of journalism where if the goal of the interview is to eviscerate the subject, then the process is clear and unambiguous. When Mike has finished with you, your guts are spilled all over the floor. Rachel’s mistake, from my perspective is that she turned a non-gotcha interview into a gotcha interview after the fact when the subject was no longer there to defend himself. Perhaps I’m also bothered that Rachel wanted to be part of the story. That is a phenomenon that is happening way too often lately, where news reporters and commentators want to BE the news instead of report on it.
Despite Rachel’s efforts and those of the Illinois senate, we haven’t heard the last of B-Rod. He will continue to entertain us right up until they put him behind bars.
“I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” -Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S. (1809-1865)
In his first weekly video address since his inauguration, President Obama discusses the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. Probably the most interesting piece came at the end when he stated that in the name of transparency, Americans will be able to track the progress of this plan at a web site dedicated to it, recovery.gov.
Interestingly, the President did not discuss some of the immediate steps he has taken within the past week, from freezing the pay of his senior White House staff, to new strict rules concerning lobbyists to the closing of Guantanamo Bay within the next year. In his typically conciliatory mode, he talked about the bipartisan support that the recovery plan is getting but Obama has an uphill climb on this. Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner reacted to the plan with the words, “Oh … my …. God”. It looks like the recovery plan will be the first big test of Obama’s ability to build consensus.
And now, the President of the United States of America:
Lots of folks are up in arms because a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was released to Saudi Arabia is back on the streets leading the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda. This development is being used for opposition to President Obama’s executive order to close the prison within one year.
I’d like to remind my readers of a simple word. Recidivism. I don’t know the statistics but I would bet a healthy sum that most felons after they are released from prison go on to commit more crimes. Sadly, our penal system usually punishes but does not rehabilitate. So, the idea that a Gitmo detainee might return to his old ways if released is not rocket science.
I think the problem lies in this so called “war on terror”. I’m sorry gang but we are not at war with anyone. No country has declared war on us. No religious group has declared war on us. (No, Al Qaeda does not equal Islam.) Terrorists are nothing more than common criminals who hide behind ideology to wreak havoc on innocents. I have always maintained that they should be treated like criminals. Don’t go after them with our armies. Go after them with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Once you’ve got them, prosecute them like the criminals they are. Once convicted, they should be incarcerated like any other common criminal. When the Fed goes after the Mob, we don’t throw mobsters in jail forever for fear that when they get released they’ll return to a life of crime. As a nation with rules, we have put in place guidelines for how long a person should be imprisoned for certain crimes. When that term is up, they get released. If they commit crimes again, they get arrested again and the whole process begins anew.
So why are we applying different standards to so called terrorists? Why are certain Governors saying “I don’t want them in my prisons”? I’ll tell you, if a Governor told me he didn’t want a particular criminal in his prison, I’d be worried about the felons he currently has in his prisons. He can’t handle them?
The bottom line is that the worst of the worst at Gitmo are not comic book villains with secret super powers. The worst of the worst are common thugs who need to be tried in a real courtroom and tossed in the nearest legitimate prison.
The time to close Guantanamo Bay has come. Let’s stop making excuses and get it done.
Black men and women of my generation and older witnessed something today that we never dreamed we would see in our lifetimes. A black man took the oath of office as President of the United States of America. As the day progressed past the conclusion of his inaugural address, much was written about his domestic statements and there was some jubilation from the right concerning his tough stance against our enemies.
There was one subtle point in his address that I have not seen discussed and which moved me greatly:
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
Even though the President was addressing “leaders around the globe” he was really bypassing them and talking straight to the citizens of their countries. In this one sentence, President Obama took his rightful place as leader of the free world. He was basically saying, “Afghans, Iraqis, Israelis, Palestinians, North Koreans, I know you are decent people who want to live in peace and I will not judge you by your leaders. On the contrary, I will tell your leaders that they must do right by you because you do not want your progress hijacked by leaders with a negative agenda.” Obama believes to his core that all people of the world are fundamentally decent. He knows that for the people of the world to live in peace, their governments must be reasoned with, partnered with and pressured to create the environment of peace that their citizens so desire.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Again, Obama speaks to the people of the world and expands his theme of domestic individual responsibility to a global scale. It is the responsibility of every wealthy nation to help those less fortunate, just as it is the responsibility of every wealthy individual to help those less fortunate. Perhaps one day this will be called the Obama Doctrine and my what a nice change that is from the Bush Doctrine that was centered around violent response to terror.
Even when Obama addresses terror he does not use the “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. Even in his defense of his country he invokes our spirit.
… and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
“You cannot outlast us.” This says more than simply we will kick your ass. It says that we are more than our twin towers. We are a country full of will, and spirit and optimism and no foe can take that away from us. You see Obama understands that the aim of the terrorist is not to kill people or destroy buildings. The aim of the terrorist is to kill the will, the spirit of a people. Imagine the satisfaction that Osama Bin Laden has gotten from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture and rendition. Over the past seven years, terrorism has successfully changed our country. As of today, no more:
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
Today, the new leader of the free world, Barack Hussein Obama announced to the citizens of the world that America is back. A new day has dawned here. America will once again lead by example, with compassion, responsibility and truth.
Since I only became politically aware within the last two or so years, I’m always hesitant to use the phrase, “I’ve never seen …” but I’ve never seen an administration leave Washington with as much retroactive public relations as that of the Bush administration. It’s even been named by the media as the Bush Legacy Project Tour. We’ve seen the President, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and even the elusive Vice President, Dick Cheney on multiple talk shows proudly proclaiming the victories of the Bush administration. The latest example of this was the President’s final televised address to the nation.
As I watched him, I could see how he could be the target of both sympathy and utter disdain simultaneously. When George Bush says that he always had our country’s best interests at heart, I believe him. I have no reason to doubt that. He comes from a family that has given decades of service to this country. With the exception of relatively minor acts of terrorism (World Trade Center of 2/23/93, and Oklahoma City) our country had not sustained a direct attack from an enemy since Pearl Harbor and then September 11 came. Bush was faced with an unprecedented loss of life on our shores, lives taken not from a warring country but from a nebulous network of international thugs. Conservatives are right when they say that most Americans in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have given Bush carte blanche to make sure this never happened again.
Was the appropriate way to end WWII and avenge Pearl Harbor to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 and bring an horrific end to the lives of many innocent civilians? President Harry Truman did what he thought best for his country. He stands much higher in history then he did immediately upon leaving office. Bush made terrible choices in response to 9/11 but he did so to protect his country. This is where I do feel a sympathy for him. I find his exit from the world stage a sad one. I’m annoyed by folks who say they want to prosecute him for war crimes. I feel he should just be left alone.
But then I listen to some of what Bush says in his farewell address and the disdain starts to creep in. Not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a “disappointment” to Bush. On MSNBC’s “Hardball”, Chris Matthews gave a brilliant analogy. When a cop sees a man reaching for his wallet and shoots and kills him because he thought the man was reaching for a gun, he doesn’t say “I’m disappointed that the man didn’t have a gun.” He says that he’s sorry he made a terrible mistake in judgement. Instead of regretting his decision based on faulty intelligence, Bush only regrets that the intelligence didn’t justify his decision. He’s happy with the decision and unhappy that he can’t justify it. When you hear this kind of logic you just want to slap the guy.
Bush angrily told a reporter at his last press conference that the government response to Katrina was not slow. He pointed to thousands of people being rescued from rooftops by “chopper drivers” (apparently George forgot the word “pilot”) as evidence of the government’s effective response, as support of his original assessment of “Good job Brownie”. His regrets about Katrina seem limited to whether or not he availed himself of a photo-op during the crisis. He seems oblivious to the fact that thousands were stranded without clean water and care in the immediate aftermath of the flood and that to this day many are still displaced. You watch Bush talk about this stuff and you say “the man just doesn’t get it.” You want to shake him and wake him up.
It is hard to look at the Bush presidency and come away with any sort of success story. To some extent, his administration was a victim of circumstance but sometimes it is not what happens to you but how you react to it that shapes public and historical opinion. I don’t blame Bush for 9/11 even though it happened on his watch. I do blame him for attacking the wrong country. I don’t blame him for Katrina. I do blame him for not taking the role of an empathetic leader at the time and not mobilizing his government to take proper action.
I believe the final assessment of George W. Bush is that he was a man not ready to be President, faced with challenges even the greatest of Presidents would have found daunting. He did his best but within his limitations, his best was no where good enough. Just as he wishes Barack Obama well, I wish him well. I hope he has a peaceful retirement and finds a way to use the role of ex-President to help the world in much the same way that Jimmy Carter, George-41, and Bill Clinton have.
I think given the choice between sympathy and disdain, I fall on the side of sympathy. I think we should let George W. Bush return quietly to citizen Bush and allow history to judge him in good time. That will be more than enough punishment for his sins.
This weekend’s video address is Barack Obama’s last before he becomes President of the United States. He reminds us of how special these next few days are. We are one of only few nations that observe an orderly, violence-free change of leadership on a regular predetermined basis. I’m also pretty thrilled at the way he is conducting himself this weekend, particularly the tip of the hat to Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln’s train trip from Illinois to Washington D.C. Of course much has changed since 1861. Lincoln had to make the final leg of the trip to Washington under cover of night and in disguise in response to several assassination threats. The central issue of the day was the enslavement of African-Americans. Kinda hard to even call them African-Americans at the time since they shared none of the rights of true Americans. On Tuesday, January 20, the son of an African man who voluntarily came to this country in search of opportunity, will become the 44th President. Only someone with a heart of stone and a total ignorance of history could not be moved by this event.
In 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote a satirical essay called A Modest Proposal. I begin this post with my apologies to Mr. Swift for swiping his title.
Israel once again finds itself at the center of a crisis. There is much written about whether Israel’s latest attack on the Gaza strip is appropriate or over the line. I would like to see more written on how to permanently solve the Arab-Israeli conflict that has gone on for decades.
Now I am no world historian but I attribute the existence of Israel (established in 1948 ) to two factors. Simply put, many Jews consider it their God given homeland. Secondly, it serves as a safe haven after the atrocities of World War II. Does Israel, in its current form, satisfy either of these factors? No.
1. Anyone who argues about what is ordained by God will be arguing forever. Non-Jewish Palestinians and Israelis are never going to come to terms with this. That is one major disadvantage of religion. Everyone thinks they’ve got THE answer.
2. Israel is surrounded by countries that don’t particularly like her. So Israel is anything but a safe haven for Jews seeking protection from persecution.
I propose the following solution that would end the conflict once and for all. Since we are the leader of the free world it behooves us to step in and make real change in the region. On a personal level, if no one in my neighborhood likes me and in fact they threaten me at every turn, I pick my family up and we move to a new neighborhood. What should Israel do? Move! Who can help them move? We can!
I have two alternatives that can be done either as an act of charity or as a great commercial endeavor. We give or sell to Israel either New Jersey or Alaska. Charity would be the more Christian approach but considering the state of our economy I think I’d place a price tag on it.
In the case of New Jersey, the land mass is slightly less than that of Israel (7417 square miles compared to Israel’s 8550) but the sale would put a stop to all the embarrassing New Jersey jokes we have to contend with and Israelis would have access to some of the best pizza I’ve ever tasted. Now I don’t have an answer for the sticky question of what we do with all the current residents of New Jersey. Additionally, it would kinda put a kink in our usual reference to the 48 contiguous states.
Therefore, my preferred solution is Alaska. First, as far as I know, Canadians have no gripe against Israel so Israel would immediately have a friendly neighbor. Second, think about all that land and not a single Alaskan would have to relocate! Plus I don’t know about you but I’d take Ehud Olmert any day over Sarah Palin. I don’t know how cold the winters in Israel get so Israelis would have to get used to the new climate. One other major advantage, lots of folks think that Alaska is the place to be when it comes time to be saved so Israel can even get a good religious reason for being there. (Something tells me Jews are not part of the Alaska salvation story but some adaptations could be made!)
With Alaska renamed Israel, we’d have a population finally free of hostility and persecution. We’d have some big bucks to stimulate the economy. And last but not least, the Middle East would finally have nothing to fight about and peace would prevail there forever and ever.
Ehhh, well I’m not so sure about that last assertion. It runs counter to my Sneetches philosophy.
I’ve already opined on my admiration for the political theatrics of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Chapter two in this saga is even better than chapter one. Call this one “The Rod Blagojevich Saga Part II — Roland Burris”.
Burris, former Illinois state Attorney General is another great character that one could only expect to find in fiction. Despite the fact that the current Illinois Secretary of State refuses to sign off on Burris’ nomination as Barack Obama’s replacement in the Senate and despite the fact that the Senate will not seat him, Burris is walking around calling himself the “junior Senator from Illinois”. It’s classic.
And why shouldn’t he call himself the junior Senator? Blago may be slimy as an eel but there is no proof that the nomination of Burris had anything to do with “pay to play” or anything else unsavory. In fact for all the illegal stuff that Blago is accused of, nominating Burris was completely legal and a documented responsibility of the Governor. I still can’t decide what thrills me more, seeing Rod thumb his nose at his political enemies by appointing Burris or watching Burris talk to reporters with that mischievous twinkle in his eye as he defends his right to serve his state and our country.
Congressman Bobby Rush has inappropriately injected race into the issue making matters even tougher for the righteous Senate faction opposing Burris’ acceptance into their exclusive club.
Several pundits have declared that this will be resolved quickly and I agree that it should. Burris has a legal right to serve and that is the hands down reason why the public soap opera has to come to an end.
It brings a smile to my lips when I picture Rod Blagojevich looking at the storm he has created, turning to his wife and saying, “See what happens when you f*&$ with Blago?”
Did Rachel Maddow Ambush Blago?
Within the past couple of hours, Governor Rod Blagojevich was ousted from office by the Illinois state senate. I’ve been a fan of Blago ever since his scandal hit the national airways. I’m also a major fan of MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow. So it was with great anticipation that I tuned in last Tuesday night to watch Rachel interview Blago.
The interview had a mixture of toughness and sympathy. Blago behaved as though he had found an open minded journalist with whom to make his case. Overall, I was impressed by the interview. I felt that while Rachel asked some hard questions, she also reacted empathetically toward some of Blago’s responses.
Then the segment went off the rails. When the interview concluded Rachel gleefully asked her audience whether or not Blago further incriminated himself with some of his answers. She then went the next step and interviewed a former federal prosecutor (who had once prosecuted Timothy McVeigh) to see if he agreed that Blago had made matters worse with the interview.
It’s one thing for a journalist to enjoy a scoop. It’s another thing for her to lull her subject into a sense of security and then exploit his candor (or BS depending on your perspective) for a huge gotcha finale. Rachel seemed to revel in the possibility that her interview might be entered into evidence in the criminal trial that is on the horizon. Quite frankly, I was creeped out by the pleasure she took in this man’s misfortune.
My feelings were only compounded after I watched Barbara Walters interview Blago on ABC’s The View. With Barbara, there was no pretense of sympathy. With an almost mocking smile, she demanded that Blago come clean and she basically told him he was wasting everyone’s time with his evasive answers. If Barbara had then turned around and interviewed a prosecutor about Blago’s responses, I would not have been surprised. Blago knew at the end of the Walters interview that it did not go well (ok … maybe he didn’t, he is a bit delusional after all). But with Rachel Maddow it was another story. Blago left that interview thinking he had a chance to state his case and then Maddow turned around and stabbed him in the back.
All I want from journalists is consistency. I’m from the Mike Wallace school of journalism where if the goal of the interview is to eviscerate the subject, then the process is clear and unambiguous. When Mike has finished with you, your guts are spilled all over the floor. Rachel’s mistake, from my perspective is that she turned a non-gotcha interview into a gotcha interview after the fact when the subject was no longer there to defend himself. Perhaps I’m also bothered that Rachel wanted to be part of the story. That is a phenomenon that is happening way too often lately, where news reporters and commentators want to BE the news instead of report on it.
Despite Rachel’s efforts and those of the Illinois senate, we haven’t heard the last of B-Rod. He will continue to entertain us right up until they put him behind bars.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
January 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm Rutherford 10 comments