The latest politician to get caught up in the vortex of sex and lies and now Youtube video has found his case to have become a rather juicy cause celebre.
Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who has found himself at the front of a media storm in the last week, trotted out his wife as his rock for the national press. His story has become the focus of not only the mainstream, cable and internet media, as well as the subject of many a video from the YouTube generation.
The Tyee website has done an interesting job of cataloguing some of the more interesting of discussions over the temptations and possible fate of Mr. Vitter and his political career.
Click here for a trip down Vitter's memory lane.
Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Never mind Obama, she'll be your Mama!
The Democrats dominated the American news cycle again Saturday in the US, as the long anticipated announcement by Hillary Clinton to seek the Presidency was made.
Clinton used the Internet to make her decision public, a little on line streaming chat between friends, announced on her political website.l
Clinton's announcement today marks the ninth time that a woman has sought out the top office, though none had the apparent front runner status that Mrs. Clinton seems to have at this moment.
She brings with her a fair amount of knowledge from her current status in the US Senate and of course from the two terms of office that her husband Bill held in residence on Pennsylvania Avenue. With all that vast political acumen goes with it a certain amount of political baggage as well however, which may or may not be particularly helpful to her campaign.
Her decision comes shortly after Barrack Obama declared his intentions to seek out the Presidency, also made over the Internet. For a week or so now, Obama has dominated the news with his decision racking up some valuable media coverage and attracting some serious campaign funding to his direction, the move that seemingly stirred the Clinton camp to action.
Obama who wowed the Democrats at their last convention with oratorical style has developed the poise and talking points to make people sit up and pay attention and as a relative new-comer to the political scene he doesn't have as much ancient history as many other Democrats.
There may yet be some more surprise candidates to pop up and declare for the Democrats, having just captured the congressional levers of power in Washington, there is the smell of change in the air in the US Capital.
With a stumbling government in office, an unpopular war carrying forward and uncertainty in the nation about it's current direction, a new message may never get a better hearing.
It's those conditions and much more that have brought Obama and Clinton to the front of the lines for the Democratic nomination, other interested candidates will have to move quickly now, before the two front runners put too much distance between the could Be's and wanna Be's.
Clinton used the Internet to make her decision public, a little on line streaming chat between friends, announced on her political website.l
Clinton's announcement today marks the ninth time that a woman has sought out the top office, though none had the apparent front runner status that Mrs. Clinton seems to have at this moment.
She brings with her a fair amount of knowledge from her current status in the US Senate and of course from the two terms of office that her husband Bill held in residence on Pennsylvania Avenue. With all that vast political acumen goes with it a certain amount of political baggage as well however, which may or may not be particularly helpful to her campaign.
Her decision comes shortly after Barrack Obama declared his intentions to seek out the Presidency, also made over the Internet. For a week or so now, Obama has dominated the news with his decision racking up some valuable media coverage and attracting some serious campaign funding to his direction, the move that seemingly stirred the Clinton camp to action.
Obama who wowed the Democrats at their last convention with oratorical style has developed the poise and talking points to make people sit up and pay attention and as a relative new-comer to the political scene he doesn't have as much ancient history as many other Democrats.
There may yet be some more surprise candidates to pop up and declare for the Democrats, having just captured the congressional levers of power in Washington, there is the smell of change in the air in the US Capital.
With a stumbling government in office, an unpopular war carrying forward and uncertainty in the nation about it's current direction, a new message may never get a better hearing.
It's those conditions and much more that have brought Obama and Clinton to the front of the lines for the Democratic nomination, other interested candidates will have to move quickly now, before the two front runners put too much distance between the could Be's and wanna Be's.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Gerald Ford, 38th President of the USA, passes away
He was the only unelected President to take office (though there are those that will remind us of the first George W Bush election I guess), taking over from the disgraced Richard Nixon in 1974.
Gerald R. Ford, an unassuming politician from Michigan, became the band aid to a nation quite divided as Vietnam raged and Watergate exploded onto the headlines.
Ford passed away in California on Tuesday night at the age of 93. No cause of death has yet to be released, nor what plans will now be made for the always impressive spectacle of the state funeral.
Perceived in the day as a bit of a plodder if not a klutz (see the Chevy Chase interpretations for examples), Ford seemed to guide the United States through some of the direst moments of the seventies, an era when all seemed wrong with American governance.
Denied a legitimately elected term by Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ford probably will be best known as the caretaker president who pardoned Nixon, which while probably not the best example of the truth will win out, was most likely the only way to get the American nation out of the mess that Nixon had left it in.
As President he only had 895 days in the Oval Office, a bit of a footnote compared to the likenesses of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan, there were no Great Societies launched during his tenure, no expansion of the nation, nor strides in Civil rights. Just a safe face for a troubled time, he always seemed to be on the periphery of American times, from his time with the Warren Commission, to the replacing of Spiro Agnew as Vice-President, soon to take over the presidency as Nixon's troubles mounted. He seemed like the consummate choice, neither to offend nor threaten the powers that be.
He's perhaps best known for his opening remarks upon taking the oath of office as President, "our long national nightmare is over." Which while probably not true of the time, probably set the wheels in motion to move forward from the cynicism of Watergate.
People are still cynical we suspect, but in an era of self serving and rather dis-honest politicians, Ford was considered a man of integrity until the end. Which considering the taint of the occupation these days makes for a pretty good epitaph for the man.
Gerald R. Ford, an unassuming politician from Michigan, became the band aid to a nation quite divided as Vietnam raged and Watergate exploded onto the headlines.
Ford passed away in California on Tuesday night at the age of 93. No cause of death has yet to be released, nor what plans will now be made for the always impressive spectacle of the state funeral.
Perceived in the day as a bit of a plodder if not a klutz (see the Chevy Chase interpretations for examples), Ford seemed to guide the United States through some of the direst moments of the seventies, an era when all seemed wrong with American governance.
Denied a legitimately elected term by Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ford probably will be best known as the caretaker president who pardoned Nixon, which while probably not the best example of the truth will win out, was most likely the only way to get the American nation out of the mess that Nixon had left it in.
As President he only had 895 days in the Oval Office, a bit of a footnote compared to the likenesses of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan, there were no Great Societies launched during his tenure, no expansion of the nation, nor strides in Civil rights. Just a safe face for a troubled time, he always seemed to be on the periphery of American times, from his time with the Warren Commission, to the replacing of Spiro Agnew as Vice-President, soon to take over the presidency as Nixon's troubles mounted. He seemed like the consummate choice, neither to offend nor threaten the powers that be.
He's perhaps best known for his opening remarks upon taking the oath of office as President, "our long national nightmare is over." Which while probably not true of the time, probably set the wheels in motion to move forward from the cynicism of Watergate.
People are still cynical we suspect, but in an era of self serving and rather dis-honest politicians, Ford was considered a man of integrity until the end. Which considering the taint of the occupation these days makes for a pretty good epitaph for the man.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
And the heads begin to roll
With the Democrats massing at the doors of the House of Representatives and getting closer to control of the Senate, the time it seems is at hand for a peace offering from the Administration of George Bush.
First gift of the day, the head of Donald Rumsfeld.
Next up for the President is a lunch with soon to be House speaker Nancy Pelosi, perhaps after the main meal, she'll ask for side dish of Dick Cheney to go!
First gift of the day, the head of Donald Rumsfeld.
Next up for the President is a lunch with soon to be House speaker Nancy Pelosi, perhaps after the main meal, she'll ask for side dish of Dick Cheney to go!
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
One machine, One vote?
The polls have been open for but a few hours and already there are tales of woe from the ever popular voting machine states. For whatever reason, Americans have decided to try and complicate the rather simple process of picking a representative from a list of candidates.
The reports of voter machine troubles will probably be a story you will hear a lot about as the day progresses and the voting results are provided when the polls close later tonight.
Now to be fair, the reason they use the voting machine and the various other versions of the same is due to the number of proposition initiatives, school board elections and such that they tag onto election day. But still, when you make it rather hard to vote, you tend to find the voter participation rate drops off.
Besides the obvious confusion at the polls with the machines, there is always the possibility of electoral fraud. HBO has put together a documentary movie called Hacking Democracy, which aired last week on Movie Central here in Canada.
HBO premiered the film on November 2nd and begins the films regular run today, election day. It offers the chance for Americans to learn more about their voting system right through until December 26th. The documentary has quickly become the buzz of the blogs and political websites so powerful was its message.
For those that can't wait you can even watch it through the Google video portal, which apparently is what a good number of Americans are doing right now.
Voting machines count roughly 87% of all votes cast in American elections, and when you consider the battles of Florida and Ohio in the last election, the question about reliability is surely one that must be asked. It starts out examining the events of Florida in 2000 an election that Al Gore lost amid some strange happenings with the electoral machines in that state. The documentary takes a look at the potential opportunity to hack into those machines and arrange the results to an ending more to your liking.
The movie follows the quest of a Seattle grandmother for information on why her district and state had decided to go with the voting machine. In the course of her search, she stumbled across an on line log of the Diebold company makers of one of the more common voting machines The log in addition to providing hundreds of incidents of mishandled information, also provided an in depth look at how the machines work, which if in the wrong hands could surely result in some troublesome hours at the polling stations.
At one point in the States, there had been attempts to have the movie withdrawn from HBO’s schedule, due to its controversial topic matter. Dixie Chicks and Voting tricks they seem to touch the hot buttons down in the States these days.
HBO kept to its guns and have kept the show on its schedule. And so it should, the movie raises some serious questions about the basic reliability of the democratic process, a sacred thing in the US. The onus should really be on the voting machine companies and those electoral process organizers to prove that the system is not only reliable but secure and honest.
Diebold has posted what they call a point by point response to the issues raised in the documentary such was the concern over the issue after the movie was completed. Ironically, there seem to be some computer problems with their site as the link to the repsonses doesn't always seem to work. (Givng the site something in common with some of the machines we guess)
Regardless of those replies, in the end it will be the American people who will have to decide how they feel about their system.
Today, Americans can go cast their vote and then wonder if it really counted in more ways than one!
The reports of voter machine troubles will probably be a story you will hear a lot about as the day progresses and the voting results are provided when the polls close later tonight.
Now to be fair, the reason they use the voting machine and the various other versions of the same is due to the number of proposition initiatives, school board elections and such that they tag onto election day. But still, when you make it rather hard to vote, you tend to find the voter participation rate drops off.
Besides the obvious confusion at the polls with the machines, there is always the possibility of electoral fraud. HBO has put together a documentary movie called Hacking Democracy, which aired last week on Movie Central here in Canada.
HBO premiered the film on November 2nd and begins the films regular run today, election day. It offers the chance for Americans to learn more about their voting system right through until December 26th. The documentary has quickly become the buzz of the blogs and political websites so powerful was its message.
For those that can't wait you can even watch it through the Google video portal, which apparently is what a good number of Americans are doing right now.
Voting machines count roughly 87% of all votes cast in American elections, and when you consider the battles of Florida and Ohio in the last election, the question about reliability is surely one that must be asked. It starts out examining the events of Florida in 2000 an election that Al Gore lost amid some strange happenings with the electoral machines in that state. The documentary takes a look at the potential opportunity to hack into those machines and arrange the results to an ending more to your liking.
The movie follows the quest of a Seattle grandmother for information on why her district and state had decided to go with the voting machine. In the course of her search, she stumbled across an on line log of the Diebold company makers of one of the more common voting machines The log in addition to providing hundreds of incidents of mishandled information, also provided an in depth look at how the machines work, which if in the wrong hands could surely result in some troublesome hours at the polling stations.
At one point in the States, there had been attempts to have the movie withdrawn from HBO’s schedule, due to its controversial topic matter. Dixie Chicks and Voting tricks they seem to touch the hot buttons down in the States these days.
HBO kept to its guns and have kept the show on its schedule. And so it should, the movie raises some serious questions about the basic reliability of the democratic process, a sacred thing in the US. The onus should really be on the voting machine companies and those electoral process organizers to prove that the system is not only reliable but secure and honest.
Diebold has posted what they call a point by point response to the issues raised in the documentary such was the concern over the issue after the movie was completed. Ironically, there seem to be some computer problems with their site as the link to the repsonses doesn't always seem to work. (Givng the site something in common with some of the machines we guess)
Regardless of those replies, in the end it will be the American people who will have to decide how they feel about their system.
Today, Americans can go cast their vote and then wonder if it really counted in more ways than one!
Monday, November 06, 2006
Christmas and New Years, Game Seven of a World Series or a Stanley Cup, a Grey Cup Sunday and a Super Bowl all wrapped up in a nice little TV show.
Election Day in the USA is about to dawn, and for the political junkie Tuesday will be a day to lay in the provisions and sit down to the evening’s pontification and punditry.
I’ve long loved watching election coverage; I’m a bit of a wonk that way. While I have cured myself of the need to watch CPAC’s coverage of obscure provincial races in places through the years (though I once did sit through election returns from the Yukon race one year) the US Election is obviously one of those great events that can’t be missed by the truly dedicated.
Besides the fact that a whole world is watching the exercise in democracy of our neighbours, and the stakes for the planet as always are high when they vote. The US Election coverage is always high drama, occasional farce and just down right good entertainment.
Back in the day of Peter and Tom and Dan, the big three networks would battle it out for the first call of the night. Occasionally wrong, they would look at the camera, wipe off the egg and continue on with the program. On to the next issue, the next race, the next state. The truly dedicated of the political junkies would sit up late into the evening with them, click, click, click to see who had what rumour right, which guest had the best analysis and who could read the tea leaves in the best fashion.
The cast of characters has changed since then, but the dynamic of election night coverage is very much the same as it was when Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and a host of other pioneers would peer into the camera and tell the nation what had just happened.
Now there are so many options for the political follower that the regular networks have a trouble keeping up, let alone competing. From Fox News Channel to CNN and MSNBC, the cable news cycle offers up its particular brand of detail and spin. Add to that the plethora of internet sites to help keep you informed and it’s a full time job just trying to catch up.
Having moved over to satellite from our former cable service, this will be the first US election that I’ll be able to compare the right wing spin and rhetoric of the Fox broadcast, up against the more mainstream offerings of the regular networks and the long time staple of the cable news wars CNN. If the Republicans should stumble as many suggest they may, then it will be interesting to see how Rupert Murdoch’s crew handle the developments in their “fair and balanced ways.”
Indeed, the talk on this election eve is of the possibility that the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate. Leaving the divided Blue and Red States not only more divided, but set for two years of a lame duck presidency, a situation which very well could result in the ultimate of checks and balances of a system. Not exactly as designed by the early framers of the U. S. Constitution, a document which sometimes seems to be under attack by its current day legislators.
There are key races across the fifty states, issues of great importance in some and pointless silliness in others. Questions as well, including whether the patchwork of voting procedures in different states will render a true verdict of the people or raise more questions for debate after the election.
Winners and losers on Tuesday, will have their immediate and long term futures stare back at them in the glare of the television spotlight. Potential future Presidents and definite future footnotes, they all will share in the drama of the evening.
If I actually was the kind of person who got calls; my answering machine would be picking them up tomorrow night. I’ll be far too busy switching between television and computer all night long, following all the action. No brand loyalty here, its mindless surfing and browsing all night long and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
The beer fridge has been stocked and there is popcorn for the poppin, bring on the charts, the video clips and the observations. I'm one junkie looking for information!
I’ve long loved watching election coverage; I’m a bit of a wonk that way. While I have cured myself of the need to watch CPAC’s coverage of obscure provincial races in places through the years (though I once did sit through election returns from the Yukon race one year) the US Election is obviously one of those great events that can’t be missed by the truly dedicated.
Besides the fact that a whole world is watching the exercise in democracy of our neighbours, and the stakes for the planet as always are high when they vote. The US Election coverage is always high drama, occasional farce and just down right good entertainment.
Back in the day of Peter and Tom and Dan, the big three networks would battle it out for the first call of the night. Occasionally wrong, they would look at the camera, wipe off the egg and continue on with the program. On to the next issue, the next race, the next state. The truly dedicated of the political junkies would sit up late into the evening with them, click, click, click to see who had what rumour right, which guest had the best analysis and who could read the tea leaves in the best fashion.
The cast of characters has changed since then, but the dynamic of election night coverage is very much the same as it was when Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and a host of other pioneers would peer into the camera and tell the nation what had just happened.
Now there are so many options for the political follower that the regular networks have a trouble keeping up, let alone competing. From Fox News Channel to CNN and MSNBC, the cable news cycle offers up its particular brand of detail and spin. Add to that the plethora of internet sites to help keep you informed and it’s a full time job just trying to catch up.
Having moved over to satellite from our former cable service, this will be the first US election that I’ll be able to compare the right wing spin and rhetoric of the Fox broadcast, up against the more mainstream offerings of the regular networks and the long time staple of the cable news wars CNN. If the Republicans should stumble as many suggest they may, then it will be interesting to see how Rupert Murdoch’s crew handle the developments in their “fair and balanced ways.”
Indeed, the talk on this election eve is of the possibility that the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate. Leaving the divided Blue and Red States not only more divided, but set for two years of a lame duck presidency, a situation which very well could result in the ultimate of checks and balances of a system. Not exactly as designed by the early framers of the U. S. Constitution, a document which sometimes seems to be under attack by its current day legislators.
There are key races across the fifty states, issues of great importance in some and pointless silliness in others. Questions as well, including whether the patchwork of voting procedures in different states will render a true verdict of the people or raise more questions for debate after the election.
Winners and losers on Tuesday, will have their immediate and long term futures stare back at them in the glare of the television spotlight. Potential future Presidents and definite future footnotes, they all will share in the drama of the evening.
If I actually was the kind of person who got calls; my answering machine would be picking them up tomorrow night. I’ll be far too busy switching between television and computer all night long, following all the action. No brand loyalty here, its mindless surfing and browsing all night long and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
The beer fridge has been stocked and there is popcorn for the poppin, bring on the charts, the video clips and the observations. I'm one junkie looking for information!
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Oh oh, this isn't going to end well!
If the phone rings on Tuesday don't answer it..... someone may want to get some fresh air with you!
But if you go, be sure to get some practice in...
But if you go, be sure to get some practice in...
Toxic Television time
Click your remote onto any American TV station in the last few days and you can’t help but notice that the tone of the advertisements for the upcoming US election on Tuesday has taken on a rather toxic tint.
The vast majority of them appear to be of the negative variety, and outrageous claims and suggestions seem to be the rule of the day. In fact, judging by more than a few of these things, there’s not one redeeming characteristic held by many of the candidates for higher office in the States this year.
The current race for Governor of Michigan jumps to mind, as the Republican candidate rattles off a list of evils from the Democratic incumbent. But its by far the worst example of going negative to come across in the 2006 campaign.
Slate has done a wonderful job of looking over the bountiful harvest of negativity and sorting out the truly horrible; the ones that make you shake your head and wonder how any of these scoundrels could ever get elected.
Damned Spot puts the entire advertising process into plain view, and it’s not a pretty sight for a nation that may wish to ask just what they have become in their quest for higher office and accountability. Whether its their slimiest ad awards for 2006 or their own "reworked" political ads, they provide more than a fair amount of ammunition for those that say that the political process is in need of some rehabilitation.
The vast majority of them appear to be of the negative variety, and outrageous claims and suggestions seem to be the rule of the day. In fact, judging by more than a few of these things, there’s not one redeeming characteristic held by many of the candidates for higher office in the States this year.
The current race for Governor of Michigan jumps to mind, as the Republican candidate rattles off a list of evils from the Democratic incumbent. But its by far the worst example of going negative to come across in the 2006 campaign.
Slate has done a wonderful job of looking over the bountiful harvest of negativity and sorting out the truly horrible; the ones that make you shake your head and wonder how any of these scoundrels could ever get elected.
Damned Spot puts the entire advertising process into plain view, and it’s not a pretty sight for a nation that may wish to ask just what they have become in their quest for higher office and accountability. Whether its their slimiest ad awards for 2006 or their own "reworked" political ads, they provide more than a fair amount of ammunition for those that say that the political process is in need of some rehabilitation.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Neo-cons begin to eat their own
This is shaping up to be a pretty good weekend before the election, for the Democratic Party. With Tuesday’s mid term election drawing closer, the Republican Party faithful are having a wee bit of trouble keeping the faith all of a sudden.
Democrats can add one more name to the list of high profile Republicans to jump off the wagon and run for their own corner of the party, that of Richard Perle. He was the architect of the Bush administrations early days of the neo cons and the primary strategist regarding the Iraq operations. And he's apparently terribly disappointed at how it is all coming apart.
Perle has chosen Vanity Fair magazine as his instrument of choice, to explain how things went so off the rails once he left the employ of the President. Perle does his best Monday morning quarterbacking to suggest that the President was negligent over the handling of his staff and the “disloyalty” of some to the cause. He points his neo-con finger in the direction of the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who at the time of Perle’s involvement with the President, was in charge of National Security and apparently didn’t quite measure up to Perle’s standards.
The Vanity Fair article also quotes Kenneth Adelman and David Frum among others, all the high profile neo-cons from the early days, who are terribly disappointed that the chance to “use power for good” has seemed to have failed in its mission.
For the Democrats this must be like manna from heaven, they managed to get through October without the much vaunted Karl Rove October surprise and now the Republican’s are engaged in a nasty game of point the finger. All it seems now that the Democrats need to do is to keep John Kerry away from a microphone for three more days and they may find that the results of the mid term election will be to their liking.
It’s never a pretty sight when the wheels fall off, and judging by the flood of stories coming out about the Republican agenda of late there seems to be a serious change of momentum happening in the States. The proof will be in the results of Tuesday, which could see both the House and the Senate fall into the hands of the Democrats.
With the Republicans all seemingly running off to write books or be quoted in less than flattering magazine articles, there may not be many left to help out in the final two years of the administration. Bob Woodward's most recent book; State of Denial, painted a picture of an Administration in disarray and judging by what's going on at the moment it seems to be pretty close to the heart of the matter.
The last two years of a Presidents term are generally dedicated to that most American phase of the political process, the legacy building. With the President finding detractors of his policies on both the left and now the formerly solid right and the nation so polarized that there is no middle, his legacy days may prove to be very, very challenging and apparently rather lonely ones.
As they say, Success has many fathers; defeat however, makes you an orphan!
Democrats can add one more name to the list of high profile Republicans to jump off the wagon and run for their own corner of the party, that of Richard Perle. He was the architect of the Bush administrations early days of the neo cons and the primary strategist regarding the Iraq operations. And he's apparently terribly disappointed at how it is all coming apart.
Perle has chosen Vanity Fair magazine as his instrument of choice, to explain how things went so off the rails once he left the employ of the President. Perle does his best Monday morning quarterbacking to suggest that the President was negligent over the handling of his staff and the “disloyalty” of some to the cause. He points his neo-con finger in the direction of the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who at the time of Perle’s involvement with the President, was in charge of National Security and apparently didn’t quite measure up to Perle’s standards.
The Vanity Fair article also quotes Kenneth Adelman and David Frum among others, all the high profile neo-cons from the early days, who are terribly disappointed that the chance to “use power for good” has seemed to have failed in its mission.
For the Democrats this must be like manna from heaven, they managed to get through October without the much vaunted Karl Rove October surprise and now the Republican’s are engaged in a nasty game of point the finger. All it seems now that the Democrats need to do is to keep John Kerry away from a microphone for three more days and they may find that the results of the mid term election will be to their liking.
It’s never a pretty sight when the wheels fall off, and judging by the flood of stories coming out about the Republican agenda of late there seems to be a serious change of momentum happening in the States. The proof will be in the results of Tuesday, which could see both the House and the Senate fall into the hands of the Democrats.
With the Republicans all seemingly running off to write books or be quoted in less than flattering magazine articles, there may not be many left to help out in the final two years of the administration. Bob Woodward's most recent book; State of Denial, painted a picture of an Administration in disarray and judging by what's going on at the moment it seems to be pretty close to the heart of the matter.
The last two years of a Presidents term are generally dedicated to that most American phase of the political process, the legacy building. With the President finding detractors of his policies on both the left and now the formerly solid right and the nation so polarized that there is no middle, his legacy days may prove to be very, very challenging and apparently rather lonely ones.
As they say, Success has many fathers; defeat however, makes you an orphan!
Friday, November 03, 2006
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Donald Rumsfeld has got to go!
No it’s not the chant of the anti-war movement in the United States (well ok it might be, but it’s not the focus for today). Instead, the Secretary of Defence is hearing louder and louder calls for his resignation, from normally stalwart defenders of all things military.
In Monday’s editions of a number of military oriented magazines, the editorials will all be the same: regardless of the results of Tuesday’s elections, moving day should be on the way for Donald Rumsfeld.
Just this past Wednesday, the President had stated that it was his preference that both Rmusfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney should stay in their offices until Bush himself leaves the Presidency in two years.
It would seem that he may have a problem with that wish, especially when it comes to Rumsfeld. In recent months, numerous retired military officers have stepped up and suggested that the Administrations military plans for Iraq were flawed and leading further and further away from their intended goals.
While it’s not been hard to find criticism of Rumsfeld and his war plan, in the mainstream media and of course that media which leans to the left, the upcoming editorials in Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times will certainly bring the message to a rather more intimately involved audience.
Tuesday’s Election Day marks the midway point of the Presidents final term, the results of which could render the rest of his days in office the thing of the lame duck. Judging by the tone of the conversation regarding his Secretary of Defense, lame ducks and cooked geese could very well be the order of the day.
In Monday’s editions of a number of military oriented magazines, the editorials will all be the same: regardless of the results of Tuesday’s elections, moving day should be on the way for Donald Rumsfeld.
Just this past Wednesday, the President had stated that it was his preference that both Rmusfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney should stay in their offices until Bush himself leaves the Presidency in two years.
It would seem that he may have a problem with that wish, especially when it comes to Rumsfeld. In recent months, numerous retired military officers have stepped up and suggested that the Administrations military plans for Iraq were flawed and leading further and further away from their intended goals.
While it’s not been hard to find criticism of Rumsfeld and his war plan, in the mainstream media and of course that media which leans to the left, the upcoming editorials in Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times will certainly bring the message to a rather more intimately involved audience.
Tuesday’s Election Day marks the midway point of the Presidents final term, the results of which could render the rest of his days in office the thing of the lame duck. Judging by the tone of the conversation regarding his Secretary of Defense, lame ducks and cooked geese could very well be the order of the day.
Monday, October 23, 2006
The George Bush Book Club
Two months or so ago, US and World report carried a story that suggests that President Bush reads up to two books a week, a rather impressive trait if true. Though considering the fact that I can take up to a month to summon up the attention span to read one thin book, (and I’m not fretting about the world, well ok, I am but I can’t actually do anything about it) two a week does seem to be a rather remarkable feat.
Bruce Reed of Slate reviews the President’s reading habits and unearths some interesting gems regarding the bookish Bush, such as the President and chief advisor Karl Rove are in a reading competition, one which Rove trails badly in at the moment. But then, Rove has had to work on the October surprise which he has promised his fellow Republicans, so he probably had to put down the books once and a while.
Reed wonders aloud if having a President who is so immersed in reading is a beneficial thing for a nation with as many concerns as America has at the moment. He dishes out a healthy bit of skepticism over the claims, and if you consider the amount of briefing papers, meetings with cabinet and military officials, as well as other world leaders and such; it boggles the mind that the man could be such a voracious reader of these printed words.
Perhaps he’s setting himself up for a post presidency career, who knows maybe Oprah’s Book Club needs a new selections manager. At two books a week, the President would be a natural to set the nation’s book reading agenda. Although we suspect that his choices might not be quite the tone or reflect the genres that the Oprah crowd would be looking for.
Many suspect the sudden dedication to the written word is a bid to begin the process of legacy building. With just over two years left in the Bush presidency it’s time to leave the nation with a lasting impression of their 43rd President.
From mangled syntax to fanatic of the printed text, it’s an accomplishment that would make Professor Higgins quite proud!
Bruce Reed of Slate reviews the President’s reading habits and unearths some interesting gems regarding the bookish Bush, such as the President and chief advisor Karl Rove are in a reading competition, one which Rove trails badly in at the moment. But then, Rove has had to work on the October surprise which he has promised his fellow Republicans, so he probably had to put down the books once and a while.
Reed wonders aloud if having a President who is so immersed in reading is a beneficial thing for a nation with as many concerns as America has at the moment. He dishes out a healthy bit of skepticism over the claims, and if you consider the amount of briefing papers, meetings with cabinet and military officials, as well as other world leaders and such; it boggles the mind that the man could be such a voracious reader of these printed words.
Perhaps he’s setting himself up for a post presidency career, who knows maybe Oprah’s Book Club needs a new selections manager. At two books a week, the President would be a natural to set the nation’s book reading agenda. Although we suspect that his choices might not be quite the tone or reflect the genres that the Oprah crowd would be looking for.
Many suspect the sudden dedication to the written word is a bid to begin the process of legacy building. With just over two years left in the Bush presidency it’s time to leave the nation with a lasting impression of their 43rd President.
From mangled syntax to fanatic of the printed text, it’s an accomplishment that would make Professor Higgins quite proud!
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Innocent until proven guilty! Unless otherwise suspected.
The US government introduced a new law yesterday, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which seems to continue to knock down the ever shaky perception that Americans have basic legal rights that are protected under law.
It’s a legal proceeding that is attracting a bit of attention from liberals in the States, but no great proclamation of concern from the masses, something that is a worrisome trend for a nation that was founded on the principle of equality of all (even if it’s a principle that rarely gets a full hearing it seems).
It’s an act that appears to effectively end the writ of habeas corpus, the court order that mandates that a prisoner be brought forward to determine if he or she has been imprisoned lawfully or whether they should be released from custody.
In the terror stoked era we live in, it seems that now with the new act in place anyone can be declared an enemy combatant and incarcerated indefinitely. Subject to possible torture in the quest for information, denied their right to a speedy trial, a fair trial, or even any trial.
In effect, using the widest net possible to catch those that wish ill will or worse to the nation, but possibly snaring many innocent citizens, trapped in a twilight zone where no rights exist and no redress is available.
The New York Times provided it’s interpretation of and concern over a number of aspects of the legislation, a primer that was published as the act worked it's way through Congress, but seems just as valid today, serving to at least enlighten a nation that appears to be opting out of the debate over their legal rights.
There have been a few others that have sounded alarm bells over the possible misuse of authority; Jack Cafferty on CNN has regularly tried to hold the Administration and the Democrats for that matter to account over the erosion of cherished rights and beliefs.
But by far the most outspoken critic of the George Bush administration and it’s travels down the similar road of the McCarthy era and maybe even further, has been Keith Olbermann who toils away for the little watched MSNBC cable channel in the USA.
Olbermann has become the stone in the shoe of George Bush, frequently taking issue with many of the edicts and proclamations of the Administration. He’s a polar opposite to the talking heads over at Fox, which seem to greet almost every White House press release as scripture to be revered.
Yesterday, Olbermann aired a commentary on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which took on the issues of the act, suggesting that his nation is in a trance, living in fear. It’s a pretty powerful, if occasionally hyperbolic piece of journalism. But at least someone is speaking out about the path that the Republicans are taking their nation along, highlighting the key aspects of that path that need to be examined.
MSNBC has the story and video on its website, the one byproduct of the internet age is at least instantaneous distribution of opinion, even if it isn’t particularly welcomed from time to time by those in power. Crooks and Liars which has served to try and keep government to account also covered the Olbermann report, for those that may not know that MSNBC exists.
Lest we get to smug on our side of the border, we need only remember that it’s not too hard to find yourself caught up in the vortex of suspicion, banished off to third party states without benefit of a legal proceeding.
It doesn’t happen very often, but that it happens at all should be a cause for vigilance on our side of the border. Should anyone need a refresher course, simply google up Maher Arar’s name, it will remind you of just how fragile freedom can be.
Terror is designed to change our way of life, sew suspicion in the nation and make us less than what we were. These days it would seem that at times, terror is winning out over liberty. We want to be safe, we want those that plan terror to be caught, but at what cost to our way of life will we go.
It’s a fine line between the search for those that truly wish harm and those that just happen to fit a profile. We ask a lot of those that are told to protect us; the job is hard and has little room for error. Is it too much to ask that they get it right, and go about their work on our behalf in a legal and ethical matter?
The erosion of the basic rights that make our societies a beacon for less enlightened parts of the world should not be on the agenda. Laws that provide for hidden trials, never ending incarceration and seem to dispense with the need for evidence, proof of wrongdoing or rebuttal of such don’t serve the cause of liberty particularly well.
The likes of Olbermann, Cafferty and the New York Times are sounding the cautionary alarms, one wonders if anyone wishes to listen anymore.
It’s a legal proceeding that is attracting a bit of attention from liberals in the States, but no great proclamation of concern from the masses, something that is a worrisome trend for a nation that was founded on the principle of equality of all (even if it’s a principle that rarely gets a full hearing it seems).
It’s an act that appears to effectively end the writ of habeas corpus, the court order that mandates that a prisoner be brought forward to determine if he or she has been imprisoned lawfully or whether they should be released from custody.
In the terror stoked era we live in, it seems that now with the new act in place anyone can be declared an enemy combatant and incarcerated indefinitely. Subject to possible torture in the quest for information, denied their right to a speedy trial, a fair trial, or even any trial.
In effect, using the widest net possible to catch those that wish ill will or worse to the nation, but possibly snaring many innocent citizens, trapped in a twilight zone where no rights exist and no redress is available.
The New York Times provided it’s interpretation of and concern over a number of aspects of the legislation, a primer that was published as the act worked it's way through Congress, but seems just as valid today, serving to at least enlighten a nation that appears to be opting out of the debate over their legal rights.
There have been a few others that have sounded alarm bells over the possible misuse of authority; Jack Cafferty on CNN has regularly tried to hold the Administration and the Democrats for that matter to account over the erosion of cherished rights and beliefs.
But by far the most outspoken critic of the George Bush administration and it’s travels down the similar road of the McCarthy era and maybe even further, has been Keith Olbermann who toils away for the little watched MSNBC cable channel in the USA.
Olbermann has become the stone in the shoe of George Bush, frequently taking issue with many of the edicts and proclamations of the Administration. He’s a polar opposite to the talking heads over at Fox, which seem to greet almost every White House press release as scripture to be revered.
Yesterday, Olbermann aired a commentary on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which took on the issues of the act, suggesting that his nation is in a trance, living in fear. It’s a pretty powerful, if occasionally hyperbolic piece of journalism. But at least someone is speaking out about the path that the Republicans are taking their nation along, highlighting the key aspects of that path that need to be examined.
MSNBC has the story and video on its website, the one byproduct of the internet age is at least instantaneous distribution of opinion, even if it isn’t particularly welcomed from time to time by those in power. Crooks and Liars which has served to try and keep government to account also covered the Olbermann report, for those that may not know that MSNBC exists.
Lest we get to smug on our side of the border, we need only remember that it’s not too hard to find yourself caught up in the vortex of suspicion, banished off to third party states without benefit of a legal proceeding.
It doesn’t happen very often, but that it happens at all should be a cause for vigilance on our side of the border. Should anyone need a refresher course, simply google up Maher Arar’s name, it will remind you of just how fragile freedom can be.
Terror is designed to change our way of life, sew suspicion in the nation and make us less than what we were. These days it would seem that at times, terror is winning out over liberty. We want to be safe, we want those that plan terror to be caught, but at what cost to our way of life will we go.
It’s a fine line between the search for those that truly wish harm and those that just happen to fit a profile. We ask a lot of those that are told to protect us; the job is hard and has little room for error. Is it too much to ask that they get it right, and go about their work on our behalf in a legal and ethical matter?
The erosion of the basic rights that make our societies a beacon for less enlightened parts of the world should not be on the agenda. Laws that provide for hidden trials, never ending incarceration and seem to dispense with the need for evidence, proof of wrongdoing or rebuttal of such don’t serve the cause of liberty particularly well.
The likes of Olbermann, Cafferty and the New York Times are sounding the cautionary alarms, one wonders if anyone wishes to listen anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
