This Guest Voice post is by Watching America translator Dorian de Wind, who is also a retired U.S. Air Force officer. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of TMV and its writers.
From the Frying Pan into the Fire, and Back to the Showers–at Home
by Dorian de Wind
Political scandals–there are so many of them these days-seem to have a very short shelf life, perhaps with the exception of those involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. These are kept alive forever on the now-famous “endless loop” by the righteous media.
One of those scandals rapidly fading from most people’s memories is Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s “episode” in that men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport almost a year ago now.
Somehow, that incident and its repercussions must have still been fresh on my mind when I was taking a shower at our fitness center recently.
Let me explain.
As a 68-year-old senior–straight, I should add–I am in dire need of some kind of physical activity to stay fit. So I do various stretching exercises while in the shower at home. One of these exercises involves standing tip-toe and stretching and rotating each arm in a circular motion high above my head.
After joining our local fitness center, I saw no reason for not continuing these exercises at the center while taking a shower after my swimming and steam room routine.
During one of my first exercise sessions there, I happened to glance at the opaque-glass separation between my shower and the adjoining one and saw the silhouette of another shower taker. I froze in mid-exercise when it suddenly dawned on me that my neighbor could surely see my hand and arm waving motions. Remembering the Larry Craig episode and not wanting my waving to be misconstrued, I instantly stopped my exercise and slinked out of the shower and eventually out of the center.
On my way home, I mulled the whole incident over and for an instant–just an instant–I felt a pang of pity for the senator. What if his gestures in that airport restroom had been misconstrued?
Just for an instant, because then I remembered the anti-gay words and anti-gay legislative initiatives by the senator from Idaho, and my compassion for him–gay or not gay–quickly evaporated.
On the way home, I concluded that the showers at the center were not the right place for my exercises.
Missing my exercise routine, however, I decided a few days later that the steam room at the fitness center would be a good place for resuming my stretching exercises–but only when I found myself alone there.
It was all going well until the other morning. That is when two concerned fellow fitness center enthusiasts, who had discerned my strenuous arm-waving through the thick clouds of steam, rushed into the steam room, ready to rescue me and to summon all kinds of medical assistance. After somewhat oafishly explaining that everything was OK, I decided that the steam room was not the right venue for my stretching exercises either.
So, it’s back to the showers for me now–the ones at home.
And it’s back to the other stories for the media—you know, the stories that keep on endlessly looping, and giving endless hope to Republicans.
Dorian de Wind is a retired U.S. Air Force Officer, born in Ecuador and educated in The Netherlands. He has a bachelor’s degree from of Texas A&M University and a master’s degree from the University of Southern Mississippi. Dorian has written opinion pieces and travel and other articles for the Austin American-Statesman and for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. He also translates Dutch press articles for watchingamerica.com.
ABC’s Jake Trapper, in a post on his blog almost written in dismay, notes how former President Bill Clinton is on now the hustings in rural West Virginia delivering a tough message that’s essentially divide-and-rule politics — the same he has delivered throughout much of the political season.
Trapper’s intro to the quotes nails the situation that is making the Clintons a political team that seemingly has decided to continue unabated to work to polarize their own party in order to generate poll turnout and then (presumably) plans to get in power and try to govern a unified country. Bill Clinton’s present campaigning and comments will likely seized upon as “proof” those who insist the Clintons (without proof) that the Clintons are really trying to lay the groundwork for a 2012 run, after a bruised Obama (largely bruised by the Clintons) flops at the polls.
Bill Clinton has the right to say whatever he wants, of course. But he’s a smart man. Brilliant, even.
He can do the math. He must know that it’s quite improbable that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic presidential nominee.
So what purpose does it serve for him to barnstorm a state like West Virginia and tell rural voters that Obama and his elitist political/media cabal allies are mocking Appalachia?
He’s using the kind of language Democrats typically use against Republicans — as in, stuff you say when you don’t want voters to vote for the other guy under any circumstance.
President George Bush is continuing to set historic new (low) records in modern polling history — this time, in a just-released poll, setting a record for his lowest job approval rating “ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.”
For the week ending May 9, just 32% of Americans approved of the way the George W. Bush performed his role as President. That’s down two percentage points from last week and the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The decline in the President’s ratings come as the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hovers around record lows—72% of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.
Sixty-five percent (65%) disapprove of the President’s Performance, up two points from a week ago.
The weekly figures include 13% who Strongly Approve and 47% who Strongly Disapprove.
Bush is now consistent: his poll numbers are consistently heading south.
The weekly figures also represents a two-point decline from the numbers recorded during the full month of April. During that month, 34% of Americans gave the President their approval. That too was an all-time low, the lowest full-month approval rating ever for the President measured by Rasmussen Reports. For the full month, just 14% Strongly Approved of the President’s performance while 46% Strongly Disapproved.
Prior to this month, the President’s lowest approval rating was 35%, recorded in June, 2007. In two other months, his approval has been as low as 36% (May 2007 and March 2008).
Sometimes it is difficult to keep the ratings in perspective. In February 2005, at the beginning of the President’s second term, the number who Strongly Approved (28%) was very close to the number who Strongly Disapproved (33%). Now, three years later, just 14% Strongly Approve while more than three times as many—46%–Strongly Disapprove.
So he’s helping foster consensus among Americans. He has already carved a place for his name in history books: a Newsweek poll recently found that he is the most unpopular President in modern history.
The blog Hypnosis Control has this You Tube goodie that purports to show subliminal advertising for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain on a Fox News broadcast.
Is it real? Imagined? Intentional sublimal? Unintentional picture placement? A doctored video put on You Tube? Who knows (and if Fox denied it some people would say don’t believe them anyway). We embed, you decide…
FOOTNOTE: I could never understand all the fuss about subliminal advertising, despite the research. If subliminal advertising (intentional or otherwise) truly worked, we’d have heard a lot of it by now and banned or otherwise the government (any government) would use it to influence and manipulate the population.
It’s like expecting that people who listen to Rush Limbaugh would ever follow Rush if he suggested, for example, that voters should vote in Democratic primaries or change their party registrations to vote in and sandbag the primaries. It’s as SILLY an idea as that! (Never mind…)
The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
Representative Vito Fossella of New York continues to provide one of the more tawdry stories of the current political season. Having been found driving to Virginia with a blood alcohol content level of .17 (more than twice the legal limit) was only the beginning of the story. It turned out he had been on his way to visit his girlfriend. She, it came to pass, was the mother of a young daughter they shared. Needless to say, none of this made Mrs. Fossella terribly pleased. And now, it turns out that while his wife was at home taking care of the Congressman’s other children, Vito and his girlfriend were off on taxpayer funded junkets to Europe and points beyond.
Fossella and his lover took several trips together overseas on official taxpayer-funded congressional business, including to Europe in July 2003. Questions remain about earlier congressionally approved trips Fossella took, where Fay may have joined him in exotic European and Mideast locales on the taxpayers’ dime.
Now by this point, you may well be rolling your eyes and thinking, “What? Another one?” Following the affairs of governors in New York and New Jersey, among others, such stories seem to be all too commonplace. This one, however, has a bit of a twist. The missing element is the tearful apology before the media with the devoted wife standing quietly behind her man, garnering far more sympathy than anyone would have for the politico in what must be one of the most horrid, embarassing moments of her life.
Not so with Mrs. Fossella.
A close family friend said Fossella’s wife was considering divorce - and if so, planned to go after the house and custody of the couple’s three children.
“She’s mad,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “She wants to move on.”
Mad? That may be putting it mildly. Vito may want to stay away from the family home for a while or his wife may be cutting him off from more than his checking account. Good for you, Mrs. Fossella! I feel bad for the experience you’re going through, but at least you aren’t being paraded around like Mrs. Spitzer making the entire episode even more painful to watch.
Back in February, Saturday Night did a peppery parody of a CNN televised debate in which it painted the press as fawning all over Democratic Senator Barack Obama and dismissing and being hard on Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s campaign and Clinton herself pointed to that parody in their argument that the press was going easy on Obama and part of “Obamanamia” and hadn’t been vetting or challenging him.
Shortly after that, what many believe was Obama’s “free” ride indeed ended — and some pundits attributed it to the SNL sketch and the Clinton campaigns use of it as an example of how it wasn’t only them that had this perception of the press’ behavior.
Obama supporters charged SNL was repeatedly biased in its parodies in favor of Clinton and skewering their candidate — and Dan Abrams on MSNBC noted in a segment that political supporters were going haywire…and that SNL was a political candidate equal offender (click on the link since he includes various excerpts).
The Clinton campaign loved SNL — but it’s likely the love affair is over now with last night’s latest parody which at times seems downright brutal.
Today John McCain is unveiling a sassy TV commercial with his 96-year-old mother to remind voters about his good genes and American values. Iffy as it may be to call attention to his age, the ad underscores the diversity of motherhood in this campaign.
Roberta McCain, who gave birth to her son at a Naval Air Station in Panama, where her husband, the son of an Admiral and a future Admiral himself, was based, radiates the aura of a strict, no-nonsense parent out of a bygone era. John McCain always knew exactly who he was.
Barack Obama’s mother was a dreamer with, in his words, a “combination of being very grounded in who she was, what she believed in…but also a certain recklessness…always searching for something. She wasn’t comfortable seeing her life confined to a certain box.” Her travels and exotic marriages produced a unique bi-racial man who has spent his life finding and creating himself.
Somewhere between these extremes of certainty and self-invention is Hillary Clinton’s biographical journey from a well-to-do suburban childhood that took her to college as a Goldwater girl, transformed her into a Eugene McCarthy protester against the Vietnam war and eventually the first woman within striking distance of the presidency.
In this post-Victorian, post-Freudian era, motherhood comes in all shapes and sizes, producing remarkable diversity in the generation that will define the 21st century.
Is the situation far more grim for the GOP than presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain and the Republican Party think and are they deluding themselves on the mega-grim picture the party faces in 2008? The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman writes:
Richard Norton Smith, a historian who has run the presidential libraries of Republicans Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, is pessimistic about the party’s prospects. He thinks the correct analogy is not 1988 but 1920 or 1952 — when an unpopular war and an equally unpopular president spelled doom for the party in the White House. He thinks 2008 is shaping up not only as a narrow defeat for the GOP but a decisive “repudiation.” Read the rest of this entry »
In Vote Like Thy Neighbor William Galston and Pietro Nivola bring to me some new insight on the reason for the partisan divide. And some realism about the remedies.
…41 percent of the voters in 1984 were located at or near the midpoint of the ideological spectrum, compared with only 28 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of voters clustering toward the left and right tails of the spectrum rose from 10 to 23 percent.
They describe how people are increasingly likely to live near people with similar values and world views thus making communities less politically heterogeneous.
Our study shows that this geographical sorting worsens polarization in several ways. When counties become more homogeneous, it becomes harder to use redistricting to create more competitive Congressional districts. (Recent research indicates that gerrymandering accounts for, at the very most, one-third of noncompetitive districts in the House of Representatives.) When states become more homogeneous, presidential campaigns begin by conceding a large number of contests to the opposition, disheartening their supporters in those states and increasing the majority’s electoral advantage. Polarization feeds on itself.
It is heartbreaking when those who know better and have worked their entire lives for change fade in the clutch. It shows the almost insurmountable power of self interest to veto what everyone knows in their heart is reasonable, fair and necessary. This saga also illustrates why even though I am in sympathy with much of the liberal agenda I can’t bring my self to commit to the Democratic Party. It is just as likely to lose site of the reason for power as the GOP. (promoting excessive farm subsidies, resisting redistricting reform in states they have an advantage, giving Hedge funds a pass on taxes…)
Before he suddenly became New York’s governor, David Paterson was a committed reformer. In his years as a state senator (and leader of the Democratic minority), he called for limiting special-interest money, public financing of elections, and sweeping out as much muck as possible from the State Legislature. Read the rest of this entry »
For those who may have missed it, President Bush has enraged much of the nation of India, by appearing to blame its growing middle class for rising food prices.
In addition to a series of articles on this subject, WORLDMEETS.US just posted this tongue-in-cheek warning to President Bush, about the growing demand for pet food among new members of India’s middle class.
U.S. President George W Bush should be a worried man. Not only are Indians eating more and better and driving up food prices, their dogs and cats are eating better, too … Read the rest of this entry »
Senator Barack Obama got mired in the controversy over his former pastor. Senator Hillary Clinton got bogged down on her comments about dodging dangerous fire in Bosnia. And both of them took political hits that lasted a while and did some damage.
Now, Clinton is clearly — and truly — bogged down in her comments about white voters liking her more than Obama, even though her aides now insist that she regrets the comments.
The damage to Clinton’s image seems profound. And what better evidence of THAT then the once-unimaginable development that one of her most ardent African-American supporters Rep. Charles Rangle would bluntly denounce her remark?
One of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most important supporters, Charles Rangel, repudiated her claims she has broader support among “white Americans,” calling the comments “the dumbest thing she could ever have said.”
The Harlem congressman’s criticism of Clinton came as rival Barack Obama Saturday took the lead among superdelegates, the group that will decide the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Speaking to reporters before introducing Clinton at a Manhattan fundraiser Saturday, Rangel chastised the remarks as “very poorly worded.”
But the barrage doesn’t end just there. On newspaper op-ed pages from the U.S. to Great Britain Clinton is being denounced, usually on several key points: (a) her comments make her a more polarizing figure than ever, (b) her comments are unlikely to help her achieve her goals of winning the nomination and unifying the party and (c) her comments damage the Clinton’s legacy of good ties with black voters — a legacy already greatly strained by some of Bill Clinton’s race-raising comments.
A look at some of articles and recent columns indicates that if getting “good ink” and “good air time” is a goal, the Clinton campaign has been derailed even more than the 2000 original version of Republican Senator John McCain’s Straight Talk Express. Here’s a sampling: Read the rest of this entry »
Some reports coming out of North Korea indicate that people are beginning to openly question the regime’s explanation of why once again, starvation looms.
This article from The Daily North Korea, a publication headquartered in Seoul dedicated to reporting on the regime and getting word into the Hermit Kingdom about the outside world, reports:
“It appears that North Koreans are expressing increasing doubt about government claims that South Korea and the United States are responsible for the latest food crisis.”
According to one source, located in the North Korean Province of Ryanggang reported on a party meeting held recently in the city of Hyesan:
“During the conference, a speaker is said to have explained the state of international and domestic affairs by saying, ‘the U.S. and the puppet regime (the Lee Administration in South Korea) have overridden peaceful agreements between North and South (referring to the June 15th Joint Declaration and the October 4th Agreement) in order to create a serious food crisis in our Republic.’ … there was an awkward atmosphere in the hall after the chairperson of a People’s Unit from Hyehwa-dong in the city of Hyesan asked forthrightly, “We understand that the Americans and Lee’s puppet faction aren’t helping us with rice, but why won’t China help us, since it’s our closest ally?” The speaker’s face turned pale at the question and a silent tension filled the hall.”
By Lee Sung Jin
May 8, 2008
South Korea - Daily North Korea - Original Article (English)
Yanji, China: It appears that North Koreans are expressing increasing doubt about government claims that South Korea and the United States are responsible for the latest food crisis.
In a telephone interview on May 1st, a source from Ryanggang Province told The DailyNK, “At a conference of the Union of Democratic Women, called to commemorate the founding of the Korean People’s Army on April 25th, one speaker humiliated herself by blaming [South Korean] President Lee” for the crisis.
One of a series of meetings now being held across the country to extol the military, this meeting was held at the conference hall of the General Federation of Korean Trade Unions in Ryanggang Province.
The source reported that, “A lecture was given, entitled ‘Our revolutionary weapons are an invincible force for building a strong military-first country.’ During the lecture, he said that the politics of putting the military first were, “praised even more highly than the People’s Army itself.”
During the conference, a speaker is said to have explained the state of international and domestic affairs by saying, “the U.S. and the puppet regime (the Lee Administration in South Korea) have overridden peaceful agreements between North and South (referring to the June 15th Joint Declaration and the October 4th Agreement) in order to create a serious food crisis in our Republic.”
Then our source reports that there was an awkward atmosphere in the hall after the chairperson of a People’s Unit from Hyehwa-dong in the city of Hyesan asked forthrightly, “We understand that the Americans and Lee’s puppet faction aren’t helping us with rice, but why won’t China help us, since it’s our closest ally?” The speaker’s face turned pale at the question and a silent tension filled the hall.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage surrounding American involvement with North Korea.
The Fox Movie Channel showed “Gentleman’s Agreement” last night, a preachy drama about anti-Semitism that won the Academy Award 60 years ago, and it brought into focus the realization that I may live to see a black man inaugurated as President of the United States.
What Barack Obama faces from now until November would be unimaginable to the people who made and saw that movie then, including a 23-year-old just back from World War II who had little audacity and even less hope of living in the rich, glossy world it portrayed.
Gregory Peck played a magazine writer who pretends to be Jewish. A decade later, I was an editor on one of those magazines, unknowingly hired by George W. Bush’s grandfather as the first Jew among thousands of employees, working with Laura Z. Hobson, who wrote the novel on which the picture was based.
‘Retribution, swift vengeance, eternal malice were in her whole aspect, and spite of all mortal men could do - the said solid white buttress of her forehead smite the ship’s starboard bow.’
(apologies to Moby Dick)
It seems that a global consensus against Senator Hillary Clinton is forming, after her razor-thin victory in Indiana and significant defeat in North Carolina.
This editorial from Lebanon’s Daily Star not only lambastes Hillary for pandering - pointedly in regard to her threat to ‘obliterate’ Iran - but it uses her bad example as a way of pointing out a glaring deficiency in Democratic government as it is presently conducted.
“Whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would ‘obliterate’ Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons … The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public.”
“The United States and Iran may disagree about many things; but for one to use threats of obliteration as a policy toward the other strikes us as a rather crude and offensive strategy, especially for a world power.”
One interesting question to ponder is whether Hezbullah’s takeover on Friday of much of Beirut, will also put an end the the independence of the pro-West Daily Star.
EDITORIAL
May 8, 2008
Lebanon - The Daily Star - Original Article (English)
In the coming days or weeks, Hillary Clinton’s fate as a presidential hopeful will be decided. But whatever she does in the future, nothing will erase her demonstration of the worst aspects of American politics - particularly her recent statement that she would “obliterate” Iran if it ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons. The substance of the New York senator’s words are hard to evaluate due to the hypothetical nature of the damage she threatens to impose. Were she ever to become president and order such an attack, many other Americans would have to agree with the decision in order for it to be implemented, particularly the top military brass.
The context of her threatening statement is telling, in that it exposes the weak link in America’s democratic system - or any democratic system: the inclination of candidates running for public office to pander to the basest prejudices, sentiments and fears of the voting public. Clinton has been a particularly dynamic panderer this year, jumping on every opportunity to make her appear to be a woman of the people, whether drinking shots of whisky or calling for gas-tax holidays. In this case, she chose to play on widespread American opposition to Iran, which is in turn a function of several factors. In American politics these days, Iran is the bad guy par excellence, whether for its role in Iraq, its strategic ambitions in the Middle East, its nuclear policy, its rhetorical threats against Israel, or to its a general assertion of Islamist identity and politics. Americans also remain angry at Iranians for overthrowing the Shah in 1979 and then taking and holding Americans hostages for many months.
Obama Eager to Campaign With McCain. Newt Gingrich, who has advocated this, will stand up and cheer. It makes me shake with anticipation… Obama is receptive to the idea of a debate roadshow with McCain.
This would seem to benefit Obama by introducing him to a wider audience and contrasting him with the older and less rhetorically artful McCain. But beyond the contrast of candidates it is an exciting opportunity to engage in a sustained discussion of various world views by ideologically open minded spokesmen. Certainly each has their partisan credentials but they also have temperaments of pragmatism and realism.
And the audience for this would certainly not be limited to US political junkies, but the entire planet looking to see what kind of leadership the US intends to offer.
News Corp’s decision to walk away from Newsday is an unexpected twist in the three-way bidding war for the paper. Murdoch and Tribune Co Chief Executive Sam Zell had an agreement in principle to sell the paper to News Corp, with Tribune retaining a small stake to create a way to defer large capital gains taxes that a total sale would incur.
As recently as three days ago, Murdoch said on a conference call with investors to discuss News Corp’s quarterly financial results that the deal with Zell was nearly done.
“I don’t think Cablevision will prevail,” Murdoch said, responding to a question about why he has not raised his bid, which he characterized as “competitively priced.”
I find newspapers interesting; Rupert Murdoch, very interesting:
Murdoch is not prone to the whining and woe-is-meism that so many other newspapermen practice. He’s willing to invest in his properties. He’s willing to lose money. For a 77-year-old man, it’s almost as if he has begun the first year of a 20-year plan to modernize his media portfolio, so he’s a real optimist.
Remember when he started the Fox Television Network? Everybody in the country said, oh, there are room for three conventional networks. And when he started Fox News Channel, people said, oh, there’s really only room for CNN. There can’t possibly be room for another.
And time and again, he goes in and he defies the so-called experts because he’s a force of creative destruction.
He will go in and he will steal anybody’s bacon. And he generally steals it honestly by competing, and for that you really have to admire him.
That’s Slate’s Jack Shafer talking. Here he speaks to Murdoch’s conservative reputation:
I think you’re making a mistake when you call Rupert Murdoch a conservative. He is a political opportunist. If you take a look and see who he supported in the most recent Australian election, it was not the conservative. It was the liberal.
Likewise, in the United Kingdom, Murdoch eventually put all the support of his daily newspapers there behind Tony Blair. […]
He likes to back a winner. He likes to have access. He threw a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s reelection bid for the Senate in 2006. This is a mistake people make all the time about Rupert Murdoch, the idea that he is some sort of conservative ideologue who has come to the United States to, I don’t know, guarantee the Reagan restoration, when all he really is, is a political pragmatist.
Ms. Vanderslice is part of a new wave of younger activists willing to reach across party lines for the causes they advocate. She has, for example, pushed legislation sponsored by a pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican designed to reduce abortions by increasing support for family-planning programs (something Democrats like), and by increasing assistance for women who choose to keep their babies (something Republicans like). That puts her in the vanguard of like-minded activists who are starting to reshape the values debate…
