« Georgia Now! Will There Be An ‘Emergency’ in the USA Next?
Return to the Schilderwald — A Jew Comes Home After Sixty-Eight Years »
Around The Sphere Blogging Roundup Nov. 12, 2007
Our link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
IS 2008 THE YEAR FOR A POST-BOOMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE or is it too early?
“I’M LOYAL…I’M LOYAL MASTER! I’M LOYAL!!!” Californians who showed up at a meeting to help with an oil spill were asked by government officials to sign a loyalty oath. And those who decided to show up and clean up anyway were threatened with arrest. Read THIS and the original link in the post.
If the government is not doing its job efficiently and is turning away volunteers who want to help is there another word to use here except “incompetence?” How about two? “GROSS incompetence.” It’s said to be the era of smaller government, but it really isn’t and the proof is that citizens are turned away…to leave it to the…slow-as-molasses-moving government.
WHEN I WANT YOUR OPINION I’LL GIVE YOU ONE DEPT: Hillary Clinton’s camp is getting in big media and imagery trouble for TWO occasions now when her side has planted questions. Read conservative blogger Ed Morrissey’s take on this.
One defense that is creeping up on talk radio and the blogosphere is people saying “Well, Bush has staged events for years!” This is essentially the same “But under Clinton…..!” mantra that Republicans have used since 2001 when their “team” gets criticized or runs into trouble. And it is JUST as irrelevant a response here as it is there. The issue isn’t who of the opposite party also did something dumb, incompetent or reprehensible (or a combination of all of the above). The issue is the issue at hand. And Ms. Clinton’s people — whether these are screw-ups or just plain bone-headed political decisions — are not helping their candidate or her image…or her ability to get her message on issues out. “But under Clinton” is as meaningless as “But under Bush.”
AND WHAT WOULD A PUBLIC RELATIONS PRO SAY ABOUT HILLARY PLANTING QUESTIONS? He’d say THIS:
The widely reported gaffe was especially alarming given my personal and political conviction that she is the most qualified candidate of the whole bunch. Her handlers, in their quest to manage the message, handed her salivating antagonists, including Sen. Edwards, the talking point they crave: Mrs. Clinton is inauthentic and calculating.
This is not the first time this blogger has raised a red flag about her campaign’s public obsession with control and how its prominence is certain to have a deleterious effect on the electorate.
My advice to the campaign PR staff: let Hillary be Hillary. Sure, you can keep your control, but do not let it interfere with her authenticity. Trust me. It’s possible. I met her briefly and she was exceedingly warm and engaging. Help her surface that aspect of her being.
Read it ALL.
I’ve heard the same and also heard from New Yawkers that she has been quite diligent in answering their calls. She knows “all politics is local.” This is a textbook case of a campaign that had seemed to be seamless but when the seams showed up they looked unseemly indeed. And the air of inevitability and the image of a candidate backed by super slick campaign apparatus have both taken a big, fat hit.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH since they could cause heart problems.
RON PAUL HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE IOWA DEBATE using criteria based on polls. Is this fair? One view here.
WHAT IS HEROISM? I mean, besides voluntarily eating at your kid’s school cafeteria. James Joyner looks at a new study on heroism. The post should be read in full. His last paragraph:
Indeed, the idea that men fight for their comrades-in-arms more so than for lofty ideals of patriotism, belief in the cause, and the like has been long established. Indeed, it has been the essence of professional military training for decades.
THE HOLLYWOOD WRITERS’ STRIKE: So why should anyone be pulling for the writer? Here are some reasons why.
THE NEW O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL PRELIMINARIES GOT UNDER WAY THIS WEEK and if you missed it you can catch up on it in THIS POST that gives a good cross section of You Tubes.
A BLISTERING BUT NONETHELESS ‘STAND-BACK AND ANALYZE’ CRITIQUE OF THE DEMOCRATS APPEARED VIA AN OP-ED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. It was the kind of piece that could actually be helpful to the Democrats, if they read it and either used it to evaluate their performance or prepare for similar but more fiery criticism in 2008. And just who could that author be?
THE DANGERS OF POLITICIZATION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY/TERRORISM ISSUE are explored at Buck Naked Politics. A tiny taste of a long and MUST READ post:
Despite the bloviation against “big government” from the Right, Republicans have placed the entire responsibility for national security in the hands of the federal government and the GOP candidates are making promises to keep us safe the major part of their platform.
Why have Democrats not responded with plans that would help to mitigate public reliance on the federal government (along with the terrible, enervating passivity of doing so) by preparing communities to deal with an attack? Isn’t part of the politics of fear the sense that if something were to happen, we wouldn’t know ourselves how to respond? Wouldn’t everyone be better off by facing up to the probability of an eventual attack (even if unsuccessful)? Shouldn’t we insist on being educated about the worst case scenarios and about the best way for a community to deal with such a situation? Or—with 911 and the feelings of community it aroused so far behind us—-is it already too late?
…Instead of using these failures to taunt the opposition, perhaps we in the center and on the left should be urging our fellow citizens to demand solutions that would give us a sense that—if worst comes to worst—we can actually do something. Think of London during the Blitz and the way in which the British public rose to meet them. Think of Americans at home during WWII preparing themselves for the worst. Wouldn’t it be more productive for us to build up communities of citizens prepared to step in and assist in police and rescue operations if a credible threat develops or even if worst comes to worst? Wouldn’t we all feel more secure if we faced up to the threat and considered in advance how to respond? Isn’t democracy about empowering the people rather than the federal government?
This is only a small excerpt. Read it all.
BINGO. The terrorism issue was bungled and slipped into the realm of politics amid a tug of war over it becoming a wedge issue. What was needed was a cool, well thought out response that included a general mobilization of Americans to do what had to be done as a NATION (not as Republicans and Democrats) and how to get the pieces in place to be able to respond ASAP to a new threat or attack. Rolls of duct tape and waiting for quaint and colorful government terrorism threat levels don’t cut it.
ISN’T IT TRITE AND UNFAIR TO COMPARE DICK CHENEY TO DARTH VADER? Isn’t it more accurate to compare him to (ANSWER IS HERE)?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Around The Sphere Blogging Roundup Nov. 12, 2007”
[...] Clark Around The Sphere Blogging Roundup Nov. 12, 2007 » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
The problem isn’t that she appears “inauthentic and calculating”. Wnen combined with her previous haranguing of a questioner who asked a question she didn’t like, it suggests that her handlers don’t trust her to think and speak on her feet.
Thanks for the link.
BINGO. The terrorism issue was bungled and slipped into the realm of politics amid a tug of war over it becoming a wedge issue. What was needed was a cool, well thought out response that included a general mobilization of Americans to do what had to be done as a NATION (not as Republicans and Democrats) and how to get the pieces in place to be able to respond ASAP to a new threat or attack. Rolls of duct tape and waiting for quaint and colorful government terrorism threat levels don’t cut it.
You nailed it here. Allowing this issue to be politicized was a huge mistake- as was judging whether opposing views enabled our enemies. Your critique of both parties’ inability to do more than demagogue is right on!
Our leaders should have gotten the message across that it was in the country’s best interest to put partisanship aside temporarily, so that we would have a better chance of facing down the threat and could prepare for the worst. Instead, the GOP presented itself as the party that could best fight the GWOT (the daddy party), while the Democrats relied on painting the opposition as fear-mongerers and war-mongerers.
When politicians behave like politicians, I’m turned off. I’m left longing for the straight talker who will tell it like it is, bad news along with good news, and the impossible along with the possible.
Straight talkers tend to lose, however, and the reason for that is the nature of the public.
The public wants a hero, a weaver of dreams who is also a superman able to beat opponents and enemies alike.
Obama is criticized for not being enough of a politician. He should attack more, get nasty, control the message more.
Hillary, however, is criticized for being too much of a politician. She tries to control the message and ‘sell’ herself.
What, then, does the public want?
The right foreign policy to regain our status in the world, the right approach to handling our social problems like health care or the best plan for handling global problems like climate change?
The public doesn’t seem to care. I note the scant number of posts in the blogoshpere comparing the various healh care plans in relation to the number of blog posts comparing tactics, personalities and private lives past and present
Everyone complains about the nasty side of politics, but it seems to me everyone also creates it, by caring more about side issues than core issues and by encouraging and indulging in the search and destroy type of political commentary.
We demand to see the blood sport side of politicas, but we denounce it when we get it.
Nice going, public.
Just don;t complain when the ussues of substance and lost opportunities hit you in the face after the elections, when it’s too late.
Interesting, how in his Wall Street Journal piece Karl Rove castigates congressional Democrats for not cranking out items on the Bush administration/GOP agenda while failing to mention the solid list of things Democrats have passed. And, if figures Rove doesn’t go into messy details about how Bush has vetoed several of those.
Rove tries to make Dems the do-nothing Congress for not getting out budget bills, but fails to mention Republicans did as badly or worse the past two congresses.
Rove’s predictable attempt to frame the election-year rap on congressional Democrats doesn’t pass muster as constructive criticism. It’s GOP-serving propaganda using cherry-picked information and slant, nothing more.
The GOP strategy to regain Congress in 2008 was to act as obstructionists to the Democrats’ agenda, then to declare the 110th a “do nothing” Congress. They knew Uncle Karl would be proud.
No wonder so many Republicans (who probably realize that is not why voters elected them) are choosing NOT to run for reelection. Of course, several of those not running are involved in federal or ethics investigations.