What do humorist Mark Twain and soon-to-be-ex-talk radio show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger have in common? The answer may surprise you, but we'll get to that in a bit.
First, I have to say that I'm not a Dr. Laura fan. In the few times I've listened to her, I've found her to be sanctimonious, condescending, and above all else, unoriginal. Every problem seems to have the same answer: listen to Dr. Laura's brusque advice. And while we're here, if you rely on a talk radio host as your moral authority, you have bigger problems than shacking up with someone to worry about.
Having said that, I feel the controversy surrounding her use of the n-word is nonsense contrived by the Left to try to take down someone who has been a thorn in their collective sides. It's spiteful at best, but at worst it's dangerous to free speech. Like it or not, racism (even imaginary racism) is protected speech. The thing about free speech is that, although you are guaranteed a right to speak, you are not guaranteed a right to an audience. If you don't like Dr. Laura, turn on NPR, and vice versa.
This is not to say Dr. Laura's without fault here. As a target of the Left, a political group that has no problem taking comments out of context and railing against them (ex. Media Matters talking about Glenn Beck), she should have known the use of the n-word would have gotten them salivating and calling for her to be taken off the air. She unwittingly gave the Left what they wanted: a reason to take her out of context and then take her down.
Of course, the Left never lets a little thing like context get in the way of a good narrative. It's like how the Left has railed against Huckleberry Finn in the 90s. They didn't bother to understand the setting of the book or the context of the use of the n-word. All they saw was the n-word, and on that, they called the book racist. Yet, the book makes a serious point about being colorblind when it comes to racial relationships and points out the hypocrisy in those who saw (and continue to see) only race.
So, what do Mark Twain and Dr. Laura have in common? They've both been criticized by the Left for making a valid point about race relations that the Left was able to take out of context.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Fitzgerald's Fumble
With former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich being found guilty of 1 out of 24 counts, a lot of people are focusing on one juror as the reason the jury was deadlocked. However, one person seems to be escaping what I feel is well-deserved scrutiny.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
The Blagojevich trial is the second high profile case Fitzgerald has botched, the first being the investigation into who "outed" Valerie Plame. Even after it came out that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame, not Robert Novak or Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald went ahead with the prosecution of Libby and won a conviction over an immaterial point, and only after the jury was stacked and admitted they didn't have any real reason to convict Libby, aside from a desire to see someone take the fall for it.
And now, he earned a similar meaningless conviction against Blagojevich.
At some point, shouldn't we be expecting a federal prosecutor to, oh I don't know, win a meaningful conviction every so often? I know he's a government employee, but damn! Even they have some performance standards.
Fitzgerald's handling of the two big cases on his recent resume shows he's not capable. He seems to love the sound of his own voice, making statements that backfire on him on a regular basis and make him look foolish. Just like Joe Biden, only with the power to prosecute you...badly.
If we were serious about cutting government waste, I'd say a good place to start would be to fire Fitzgerald.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
The Blagojevich trial is the second high profile case Fitzgerald has botched, the first being the investigation into who "outed" Valerie Plame. Even after it came out that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame, not Robert Novak or Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald went ahead with the prosecution of Libby and won a conviction over an immaterial point, and only after the jury was stacked and admitted they didn't have any real reason to convict Libby, aside from a desire to see someone take the fall for it.
And now, he earned a similar meaningless conviction against Blagojevich.
At some point, shouldn't we be expecting a federal prosecutor to, oh I don't know, win a meaningful conviction every so often? I know he's a government employee, but damn! Even they have some performance standards.
Fitzgerald's handling of the two big cases on his recent resume shows he's not capable. He seems to love the sound of his own voice, making statements that backfire on him on a regular basis and make him look foolish. Just like Joe Biden, only with the power to prosecute you...badly.
If we were serious about cutting government waste, I'd say a good place to start would be to fire Fitzgerald.
Monday, August 16, 2010
A Slogan By Any Other Name
With everything on his plate, President Obama is trying his hand at stand-up comedy. During a speech at a fundraiser, Obama said that the slogan of the Republican Party is "No, We Can't." Wow. I'd slap my knee, but it would require me to actually think such a hack line was funny and I'm afraid all the hopeity-change in the world isn't going to make it suck any less.
It's nice that the President is taking the time to take swipes at the Republican Party for being negative, but I think he should spend a little more time looking at the Congressional makeup. His party controls both houses of Congress and they have the votes (at least the House) along party lines to push through anything they want. Calling the GOP the "Party of No" may win you points with the Daily Kosmonauts, but it doesn't work with people who actually pay attention.
In other words, anyone who isn't a Leftist.
And while we're here, why don't we take a closer look at what the GOP has said "no" to and why.
- Republicans said no to extending unemployment benefits recently because keeping people on unemployment won't get them back into a job. And right now, we need people employed more than we need them beholden to government. What will happen after this extension runs out? Wanna bet there'll be another bill to extend benefits out further?
- Republicans said no to a health care reform bill written by the very industry that the bill would allegedly regulate because there was very little actual reform in the bill. Gee. Maybe that's why the health care reform bill was supported by the insurance industry so much...
- Republicans said no to a stimulus package because they realized that it was the federal equivalent of a "honey do" list. The more we dive into how the stimulus funds were allocated and spent, the more we realize just how misguided it was to give away the money in the first place. All it did was make busy work for people who would vote Democrat anyway without actually doing much economic stimulation.
- Republicans said no to a government takeover of the automotive industry because government control of anything tends to make it less efficient and more costly. Plus, with the government's thumb on the scales, it's hard to know for certain whether the automakers who took bailout money actually stayed afloat on their own or solely because the government kept pumping money into them. Seriously, the Chevy Volt? It's a pimped-out Prius!
- Republicans said no to Wall Street reform because...well, because it was exactly like the health care reform bill, only with "Wall Street" being substituted for "insurance providers."
- Republicans said no to a mosque/Muslim community center possibly being built two blocks from Ground Zero because they understand that it's not about religious freedom; it's about radical Islam fooling enough people to allow them to put a mosque near the site of a terrorist act that they committed. Is there anyone on the Left who sees the problem with the location of this community center? I hope so, but I fear not.
Seems to me that the "Party of No" is on the right side of these issues. Sometimes saying yes to everything is the worst thing you can do. It's like asking an alcoholic who is having a rough go of sobriety whether he or she wants some booze. Once you say yes to something like that, it gets harder to say no because you're feeding the very thing that threatens to destroy us. All it takes is one moment of weakness for the slide down the slippery slope to begin.
As far as the slogan, Mr. President, let me help you. The Republican slogan isn't "No, We Can't." It's "No, We Shouldn't." And they'd be right.
It's nice that the President is taking the time to take swipes at the Republican Party for being negative, but I think he should spend a little more time looking at the Congressional makeup. His party controls both houses of Congress and they have the votes (at least the House) along party lines to push through anything they want. Calling the GOP the "Party of No" may win you points with the Daily Kosmonauts, but it doesn't work with people who actually pay attention.
In other words, anyone who isn't a Leftist.
And while we're here, why don't we take a closer look at what the GOP has said "no" to and why.
- Republicans said no to extending unemployment benefits recently because keeping people on unemployment won't get them back into a job. And right now, we need people employed more than we need them beholden to government. What will happen after this extension runs out? Wanna bet there'll be another bill to extend benefits out further?
- Republicans said no to a health care reform bill written by the very industry that the bill would allegedly regulate because there was very little actual reform in the bill. Gee. Maybe that's why the health care reform bill was supported by the insurance industry so much...
- Republicans said no to a stimulus package because they realized that it was the federal equivalent of a "honey do" list. The more we dive into how the stimulus funds were allocated and spent, the more we realize just how misguided it was to give away the money in the first place. All it did was make busy work for people who would vote Democrat anyway without actually doing much economic stimulation.
- Republicans said no to a government takeover of the automotive industry because government control of anything tends to make it less efficient and more costly. Plus, with the government's thumb on the scales, it's hard to know for certain whether the automakers who took bailout money actually stayed afloat on their own or solely because the government kept pumping money into them. Seriously, the Chevy Volt? It's a pimped-out Prius!
- Republicans said no to Wall Street reform because...well, because it was exactly like the health care reform bill, only with "Wall Street" being substituted for "insurance providers."
- Republicans said no to a mosque/Muslim community center possibly being built two blocks from Ground Zero because they understand that it's not about religious freedom; it's about radical Islam fooling enough people to allow them to put a mosque near the site of a terrorist act that they committed. Is there anyone on the Left who sees the problem with the location of this community center? I hope so, but I fear not.
Seems to me that the "Party of No" is on the right side of these issues. Sometimes saying yes to everything is the worst thing you can do. It's like asking an alcoholic who is having a rough go of sobriety whether he or she wants some booze. Once you say yes to something like that, it gets harder to say no because you're feeding the very thing that threatens to destroy us. All it takes is one moment of weakness for the slide down the slippery slope to begin.
As far as the slogan, Mr. President, let me help you. The Republican slogan isn't "No, We Can't." It's "No, We Shouldn't." And they'd be right.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Bad Judgment Call
With all the discussions about a federal court judge overturning California's Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, there's a concept that has been missed, one that fundamentally changes the judicial system as we know it.
When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.
What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.
The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.
Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds (even though there is no civil right to marriage). But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.
You know, like the Right is doing with this case?
The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.
Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want, but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.
And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.
When there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a judge trying a case, he or she is expected to recuse himself/herself from the case. That conflict of interest can be either for or against one of the parties involved, such as a racist judge overseeing a murder trial where the accused is a member of a race the judge doesn't like. At that point, a judge that cannot be fair and just to all parties and justice cannot be done.
What does that have to do with the Prop 8 decision? The federal judge is openly gay. Considering the matter before him was a ban on gay marriage, I would say his sexual orientation may have had some role in his decision. And, yes, I would say the same thing if it were a straight judge ruling on the same case.
The reason I would is because any judge worth his or her salt would have to admit they couldn't rule on the Prop 8 case for the reason I cited above. When people are either straight, gay, or bisexual, there is truly no impartial party who could rule on such a case in a fair and just manner for all parties. Thus, there will always be a conflict of interest in cases like this.
Yet, the Left has no problem with a gay judge overturning a law on constitutional grounds (even though there is no civil right to marriage). But let's switch the roles a bit. Let's say the judge was someone who was to the right of, say, Rush Limbaugh. The Left would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how the judge couldn't possibly be fair and, thus, his ruling should be overturned.
You know, like the Right is doing with this case?
The problem with the Left/Right dichotomy in this situation is that there's a greater principle at work: impartial judges. When we have judges on either side who selectively apply ethics depending on what side they want to win, justice cannot be served. Instead, only political needs are met, and the Prop 8 case is a prime example of that. And thanks in part to a gay judge in California, we've crossed that Rubicon yet again.
Of course, the Left will try to paint anyone opposed to the judge's ruling as homophobic. Be my guest. Call me a homophobe all you want, but you've just justified another activist judge with more conservative leanings to overrule you should you challenge a gay marriage ban in another state.
And there's not a damn thing you can say about it without looking like a hypocrite.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Revolving Door
There's an old saying: "When it rains, it pours." Usually, it's a saying that's invoked when a series of unexpected negative events happens in a short span of time. And given some of the issues that have come up recently, Democrats have to feel like they're caught in a monsoon.
Although it may be raining cats and dogs on the Left right now, there is an element of repetition in the bad news that is coming their way. I get the feeling as this election season rolls on, we're going to see more than a few of the following situations come back over and over again.
- Charlie Rangel's ethics violations. When Nancy Pelosi was preparing to take the reins of power in the House, she promised to "drain the swamp" to take a bold stand against the "Culture of Corruption." With Rangel being brought up on a number of ethics violations and welcoming an investigation into said charges in an attempt to clear his name, Congressional Democrats have to be praying that Rangel will either step down voluntarily or that the investigation ends quickly. The longer it goes into the election year, the worse it looks for Congressional Democrats.
- Maxine Waters' ethics violations. Same as above, but with Maxine Waters instead of Charlie Rangel. And what's worse for the Democrats is that the Waters situation is just getting started. Not good.
- Shirley Sherrod. On the surface, the Left thinks the Sherrod situation is a winner for them, but from a larger perspective, it could wind up being a loser. And the sad thing is that they could have seen this coming if they had paid attention to the red flags that were being raised. When Sherrod couldn't decide whether to take a new position within the Obama Administration but decided to sue Andrew Breitbart relatively quickly, that should have made someone at DNC headquarters say, "This is going to come back to bite us." And I think it will because it reflects a level of incompetence by the Obama Administration that won't help the party make a cogent case for reelection in Congress.
- The economy. Joe Biden's overly optimistic (and often contradictory) statements about the economy aside, we aren't seeing much positive activity with the economy. Elections are driven by voters' pocketbooks, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and wondering when the Obama Administration and Congress are going to do something to help them get back on their feet. And they aren't seeing anything happening. What they're seeing is a bunch of promises that aren't being fulfilled. TARP, the stimulus package, HAMP, nothing seems to be working, and all the Administration and Congress can do is pat itself on the back for averting a disaster that they can't tell for sure they stopped and won't admit they had a hand in causing.
- Attacks on the TEA Parties. The Left's attacks on the TEA Parties have gone from the ridiculous (the TEA Parties are whites-only events) to the sublimely ridiculous (the TEA Parties are irrelevant). As it turns out, public opinion is largely in favor of the TEA Party movement because the TEA Parties echo the sentiments of a wide swath of the population. Calling it racist or out of touch or irrelevant is like saying those things to most of America, and the Left isn't going to win by torquing off voters like that.
- Immigration. Although the Obama Administration may have won a judicial victory by having portions of the Arizona immigration law suspended by a judge, there are a number of ways it could come back to blow up in the Left's faces. By standing against the Arizona law, the Left has stood against the opinions of a majority of Americans, but has also risked losing support of union workers since they will be the ones directly impacted by letting illegal immigrants stay here and take jobs that could go to union workers. And that's not counting other ways that the Arizona situation can come back to haunt Democrats, such as whether local and state officials will be allowed to act on potential terrorist activity given the judge's ruling. Let's see how that works out.
- The growing rift between the Obama Administration and Congress. As I stated in a previous blog, the Administration and Congress aren't getting along as well as expected. The health care reform debate exposed a disconnect between the Obama Administration and Congress, much to the chagrin of Congressional leadership. When Obama pushed for health care reform, Congress expected him to take the lead on it, but instead he took his hands off the wheel and allowed Congressional Democrats to try to steer it. As we saw, they didn't do a very good job, which made the approval process that much longer, and did far more damage to Obama and Congressional Democrats. It's gotten to the point that many Congressional candidates don't want Obama anywhere near them, which is something the Left reveled in when it happened to George W. Bush later in his Presidency. Now, they're experiencing what they mocked, and it's not working out well for them.
These, and others that I haven't mentioned, may become the Left's Waterloo in November. And I, for one, will be enjoying the fireworks.
Although it may be raining cats and dogs on the Left right now, there is an element of repetition in the bad news that is coming their way. I get the feeling as this election season rolls on, we're going to see more than a few of the following situations come back over and over again.
- Charlie Rangel's ethics violations. When Nancy Pelosi was preparing to take the reins of power in the House, she promised to "drain the swamp" to take a bold stand against the "Culture of Corruption." With Rangel being brought up on a number of ethics violations and welcoming an investigation into said charges in an attempt to clear his name, Congressional Democrats have to be praying that Rangel will either step down voluntarily or that the investigation ends quickly. The longer it goes into the election year, the worse it looks for Congressional Democrats.
- Maxine Waters' ethics violations. Same as above, but with Maxine Waters instead of Charlie Rangel. And what's worse for the Democrats is that the Waters situation is just getting started. Not good.
- Shirley Sherrod. On the surface, the Left thinks the Sherrod situation is a winner for them, but from a larger perspective, it could wind up being a loser. And the sad thing is that they could have seen this coming if they had paid attention to the red flags that were being raised. When Sherrod couldn't decide whether to take a new position within the Obama Administration but decided to sue Andrew Breitbart relatively quickly, that should have made someone at DNC headquarters say, "This is going to come back to bite us." And I think it will because it reflects a level of incompetence by the Obama Administration that won't help the party make a cogent case for reelection in Congress.
- The economy. Joe Biden's overly optimistic (and often contradictory) statements about the economy aside, we aren't seeing much positive activity with the economy. Elections are driven by voters' pocketbooks, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and wondering when the Obama Administration and Congress are going to do something to help them get back on their feet. And they aren't seeing anything happening. What they're seeing is a bunch of promises that aren't being fulfilled. TARP, the stimulus package, HAMP, nothing seems to be working, and all the Administration and Congress can do is pat itself on the back for averting a disaster that they can't tell for sure they stopped and won't admit they had a hand in causing.
- Attacks on the TEA Parties. The Left's attacks on the TEA Parties have gone from the ridiculous (the TEA Parties are whites-only events) to the sublimely ridiculous (the TEA Parties are irrelevant). As it turns out, public opinion is largely in favor of the TEA Party movement because the TEA Parties echo the sentiments of a wide swath of the population. Calling it racist or out of touch or irrelevant is like saying those things to most of America, and the Left isn't going to win by torquing off voters like that.
- Immigration. Although the Obama Administration may have won a judicial victory by having portions of the Arizona immigration law suspended by a judge, there are a number of ways it could come back to blow up in the Left's faces. By standing against the Arizona law, the Left has stood against the opinions of a majority of Americans, but has also risked losing support of union workers since they will be the ones directly impacted by letting illegal immigrants stay here and take jobs that could go to union workers. And that's not counting other ways that the Arizona situation can come back to haunt Democrats, such as whether local and state officials will be allowed to act on potential terrorist activity given the judge's ruling. Let's see how that works out.
- The growing rift between the Obama Administration and Congress. As I stated in a previous blog, the Administration and Congress aren't getting along as well as expected. The health care reform debate exposed a disconnect between the Obama Administration and Congress, much to the chagrin of Congressional leadership. When Obama pushed for health care reform, Congress expected him to take the lead on it, but instead he took his hands off the wheel and allowed Congressional Democrats to try to steer it. As we saw, they didn't do a very good job, which made the approval process that much longer, and did far more damage to Obama and Congressional Democrats. It's gotten to the point that many Congressional candidates don't want Obama anywhere near them, which is something the Left reveled in when it happened to George W. Bush later in his Presidency. Now, they're experiencing what they mocked, and it's not working out well for them.
These, and others that I haven't mentioned, may become the Left's Waterloo in November. And I, for one, will be enjoying the fireworks.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Battle for Helen Thomas' Seat
Politico reports that there is a debate brewing within the White House Correspondents' Association over who should be allowed to occupy the seat once held by Helen Thomas. The contenders: Fox News and National Public Radio. As can be expected, people have varying opinions on who should get the seat, as do I, but I'll share mine in a bit.
First, let's take a look at Fox News. Supporters say it is one of the most fair and balanced cable news networks out there, and it can be argued on both sides as to the veracity of that idea. Critics tend to fall into two categories: those who think Fox News is nothing more than right wing propaganda, and those who think Fox News isn't a real news organization. It should be pointed out, however, that for many years, Helen Thomas was allowed to sit in her vaunted seat without being a reporter. Yes, my friends, for a good chunk of her later career, she was...an opinion columnist. For those who bash Fox News as right wing propaganda, the problem is that the WHCA has set the precedent for Fox News to take the seat, and complaining about their slant now doesn't justify their silence on Thomas' slant for 20+ years.
Next, there's National Public Radio. Supporters say that they are one of the best news organizations out there and without much of a bias. Critics point to the fact that for many years NPR was taxpayer funded (although more recently, they've become much more publicly funded). I've listened to NPR for a number of years, and they do a good job in reporting. However, they do show a leftward bias in subtle ways, from what stories they cover to the way those stories are covered. They're not as bad as MSNBC, but they do occasionally let their personal opinions get in the way of straight reporting.
This leads to the heart of the debate: what constitutes a news organization in today's environment? NPR still reports using old school journalism while Fox News relies more on flash. On the other hand, Fox News has made a bigger impact on journalism in recent years than has NPR. (Whether that impact has been positive or negative is subject to debate, but their impact is undeniable.) Should the seat go to a left-leaning old school journalism outlet or a right-leaning new journalism outlet?
I say neither of them deserve the seat.
The journalism game has changed so much that few people are actual journalists anymore. What they've become is PR agents for a side or a cause, merely repeating what they or their editors believe. And why? So they can get invited to the Washington parties. Reporting the facts has taken a back seat to hobnobbing with the elites, and journalism as a whole has suffered. When a venerable newspaper like the Washington Post has to do a mea culpa for not covering the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation story for over a year, and another venerable newspaper like the New York Times not even doing that much, it's clear that the journalism profession is seriously broken.
So, I don't think NPR or Fox News deserve Helen Thomas' seat, but that's only because I don't think the majority of so-called journalists deserve a seat in the White House Press Room.
First, let's take a look at Fox News. Supporters say it is one of the most fair and balanced cable news networks out there, and it can be argued on both sides as to the veracity of that idea. Critics tend to fall into two categories: those who think Fox News is nothing more than right wing propaganda, and those who think Fox News isn't a real news organization. It should be pointed out, however, that for many years, Helen Thomas was allowed to sit in her vaunted seat without being a reporter. Yes, my friends, for a good chunk of her later career, she was...an opinion columnist. For those who bash Fox News as right wing propaganda, the problem is that the WHCA has set the precedent for Fox News to take the seat, and complaining about their slant now doesn't justify their silence on Thomas' slant for 20+ years.
Next, there's National Public Radio. Supporters say that they are one of the best news organizations out there and without much of a bias. Critics point to the fact that for many years NPR was taxpayer funded (although more recently, they've become much more publicly funded). I've listened to NPR for a number of years, and they do a good job in reporting. However, they do show a leftward bias in subtle ways, from what stories they cover to the way those stories are covered. They're not as bad as MSNBC, but they do occasionally let their personal opinions get in the way of straight reporting.
This leads to the heart of the debate: what constitutes a news organization in today's environment? NPR still reports using old school journalism while Fox News relies more on flash. On the other hand, Fox News has made a bigger impact on journalism in recent years than has NPR. (Whether that impact has been positive or negative is subject to debate, but their impact is undeniable.) Should the seat go to a left-leaning old school journalism outlet or a right-leaning new journalism outlet?
I say neither of them deserve the seat.
The journalism game has changed so much that few people are actual journalists anymore. What they've become is PR agents for a side or a cause, merely repeating what they or their editors believe. And why? So they can get invited to the Washington parties. Reporting the facts has taken a back seat to hobnobbing with the elites, and journalism as a whole has suffered. When a venerable newspaper like the Washington Post has to do a mea culpa for not covering the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation story for over a year, and another venerable newspaper like the New York Times not even doing that much, it's clear that the journalism profession is seriously broken.
So, I don't think NPR or Fox News deserve Helen Thomas' seat, but that's only because I don't think the majority of so-called journalists deserve a seat in the White House Press Room.
History Repeating Itself?
Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.
Those words came from one Nancy Pelosi after former Republican House member Mark Foley was caught trying to get a Congressional page to meet with him for what was believed to be a sexual encounter. Although Pelosi's point was hysterical hyperbole (since only teenagers can be Congressional pages), her larger point was that Republican leaders knew about Foley's actions and didn't act on them.
Why do I bring this up almost 4 years later? Charlie Rangel.
Anyone who has followed Rangel's Congressional career knows that he's done some pretty shady things over the years, only some of which are coming to light now. And under Pelosi's standard as presented above, knowing about it for years without doing anything about it is wrong and worthy of being hauled before the Ethics Committee to testify about what was known and when it was known.
So, will Madame Speaker live up to her own standard? Will she voluntarily go before the Ethics Committee to testify under oath about what she knew about Rangel's legal issues and when she knew about them?
Let me put it this way. I'm not holding my breath for her to act accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)